Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes to stand down as MSP

[Gonnagle]

Dear World,

MSP/MP/Politician, not a job, not a career, not a profession.

It is a vocation, you for go normal life, if you choose that path, tata normal life, simples!

As for Mrs Forbes, well done that lady, giving up one sacred duty to perform another sacred duty.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

The system is refusing to allow me to post again - think it might be the quotes I originally tried to add to the post above.

Won't allow me to post, but both the links above indicate that the purpose of the call was to identify a small selection of books over the past 100 years that are considered to be the most important in shaped people's lives, via both public recommendations and also by asking key Scottish literary figures.

So I ask yet again - do you really think this book is amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years?

And it was excluded because of the content according to the quote which yiu have ignored again.

[Nearly Sane]

The system is refusing to allow me to post again - think it might be the quotes I originally tried to add to the post above.

Won't allow me to post, but both the links above indicate that the purpose of the call was to identify a small selection of books over the past 100 years that are considered to be the most important in shaped people's lives, via both public recommendations and also by asking key Scottish literary figures.

So I ask yet again - do you really think this book is amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years?

Thar says nothing about why my opinion is particularly relevant.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear World,

MSP/MP/Politician, not a job, not a career, not a profession.

It is a vocation, you for go normal life, if you choose that path, tata normal life, simples!

As for Mrs Forbes, well done that lady, giving up one sacred duty to perform another sacred duty.

Gonnagle.

If we make being a politician a vacation where people should expect not to have a normal life then we make it exclusive, and more likely to be used bu charlatans and pretenders, and not representative

[ProfessorDavey]

And it was excluded because of the content according to the quote which yiu have ignored again.

Stop lying - it hasn't been excluded at all. It is one of the 543 books selected for the exhibition, but not in the 200 which are part of the most public display. It is displayed in the open reading room of the exhibition (along with 342 other books). Presumably the 200 in the most public display received somewhat more public attention (i.e. more nominations) than the rather woeful 4 this received.

So the whole cancelled/banned despite huge levels of public nomination is rather crumbling to dust. The truth is that it is part of the exhibition (so not banned or cancelled) and the level of public nominations for this book was somewhat pitiful.

And still waiting for an answer - do you really think this book is amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years? If not then it shouldn't be in the 200 selected for most public display.

[ProfessorDavey]

Thar says nothing about why my opinion is particularly relevant.

It is relevant because the purpose of the process was to was to identify a small selection of books over the past 100 years that are considered to be the most important in shaped people's lives. So unless you consider it to be amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years then you would surely not think it should be in that final 200 selection.

It is also quite hard to argue that a book published just last year is in the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years.

[Nearly Sane]

It is relevant because the purpose of the process was to was to identify a small selection of books over the past 100 years that are considered to be the most important in shaped people's lives. So unless you consider it to be amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years then you would surely not think it should be in that final 200 selection.

It is also quite hard to argue that a book published just last year is in the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years.

Again that's not addressing why my opinion is relevant.

[Nearly Sane]

Stop lying - it hasn't been excluded at all. It is one of the 543 books selected for the exhibition, but not in the 200 which are part of the most public display. It is displayed in the open reading room of the exhibition (along with 342 other books). Presumably the 200 in the most public display received somewhat more public attention (i.e. more nominations) than the rather woeful 4 this received.

So the whole cancelled/banned despite huge levels of public nomination is rather crumbling to dust. The truth is that it is part of the exhibition (so not banned or cancelled) and the level of public nominations for this book was somewhat pitiful.

And still waiting for an answer - do you really think this book is amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years? If not then it shouldn't be in the 200 selected for most public display.

  I am not lying. It was as the quote covers, from the article you posted, excluded from the most public part of the display because of its content.

And given you spilt out a post to repeat your, to me irrelevant question, which I answered, and answered your answer to that, putting it in here again is doubly pointless

[ProfessorDavey]

  I am not lying. It was as the quote covers, from the article you posted, excluded from the most public part of the display because of its content.

Nope you are still lying unless you can prove that the book was 'excluded' - which would require you to prove that it received more nominations than those in the top 200. Over to you.

The book was one of 543 that received sufficient nominations to be included in the exhibition but presumably did not have enough support from the public (only 4 nominations) to persuade those responsible for the final curation decisions to include in the most prominent 200 (along with 342 others, which I would imagine will include many of far greater merit than this book).

And given you spilt out a post to repeat your, to me irrelevant question, which I answered, and answered your answer to that, putting it in here again is doubly pointless

The question is absolutely relevant because unless you actually think that this book is one of the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years (in which case I think you need to give your head a really good wobble) then surely you should agree with the decision not to include it in that top 200 (regardless of the reasons for not including it).

So unless you are arguing that this book is one of the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years then surely you should agree that it shouldn't be included in the most prominent 200.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope you are still lying unless you can prove that the book was 'excluded' - which would require you to prove that it received more nominations than those in the top 200. Over to you.

The book was one of 543 that received sufficient nominations to be included in the exhibition but presumably did not have enough support from the public (only 4 nominations) to persuade those responsible for the final curation decisions to include in the most prominent 200 (along with 342 others, which I would imagine will include many of far greater merit than this book).
The question is absolutely relevant because unless you actually think that this book is one of the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years (in which case I think you need to give your head a really good wobble) then surely you should agree with the decision not to include it in that top 200 (regardless of the reasons for not including it).

So unless you are arguing that this book is one of the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years then surely you should agree that it shouldn't be included in the most prominent 200.

No, I am using the quote from your atmrticke to point out that the Chief Executive Ms aside it wax excluded for the content.

There is no point in you repeating your question on two different parts of thread when it has been specifically asked. So I suggest for the sake of clarity, you stop repeating it when part of the thread os specifically dealing with it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Presumably then that can include books that are changing people lives in current times too?

Of course it can, but please note that the remit for selection was shape people's lives not change people's lives (subtly different). But clearly a book that has only been available for a year will only have ... err ... a year to shape people's lives while one that has been around much longer will have had a greater time (and therefore ability) to shape people's lives.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, I am using the quote from your atmrticke to point out that the Chief Executive Ms aside it wax excluded for the content.

FFS NS - stop lying. The book has not been excluded - it is part of the exhibition.

[Nearly Sane]

FFS NS - stop lying. The book has not been excluded - it is part of the exhibition.

It has been excluded from the most public part of the exhibition because of content, as the article you paired made clear with the quote from the chief executive.

[Gonnagle]

If we make being a politician a vacation where people should expect not to have a normal life then we make it exclusive, and more likely to be used bu charlatans and pretenders, and not representative

Dear Sane,

Vacation No sorry not making, it is a vocation, you become a servant of the people, the very people who elected you, as for charlatans and pretenders, earth calling Sane come in Sane!

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

Vacation No sorry not making, it is a vocation, you become a servant of the people, the very people who elected you, as for charlatans and pretenders, earth calling Sane come in Sane!

Gonnagle.

servants have no places in democracy

[Aruntraveller]

Dear Sane,

Vacation No sorry not making, it is a vocation, you become a servant of the people, the very people who elected you, as for charlatans and pretenders, earth calling Sane come in Sane!

Gonnagle.

If I were being cynical, I could point out that some politicians don't know their vacations from their vocations, but I'm above all that. Honest.

[ProfessorDavey]

It has been excluded from the most public part of the exhibition because of content, as the article you paired made clear with the quote from the chief executive.

As have 342 other books. Have they been excluded/banned NS - or just not included in the more prominent 200. Seems it is only you folks whining on about being excluded - perhaps you should have run a more successful nomination campaign. I guess you must be pretty embarrassed that the book only received 4 nominations despite your claim that it had 'many nominations because of its content'.

And of course your starting comment on this thread was a complete lie:

'the removal of the Women who Wouldn't Wheesht book from the National Library of Scotland, see Teans, thread, this removal of access for legal views ilhas a silencing effect'

Regardless of whether the book is in the 543 in the exhibition (it is) or the most prominent 200 (it isn't), there is no question that it is held and available in the National Library of Scotland. Here is its catalogue page:

https://search.nls.uk/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma99118465025604341&context=L&vid=44NLS_INST:44NLS_VU1&lang=en&search_scope=MainCatalogue&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=MainCatalogue&query=any,contains,the%20women%20who%20wouldn%27t%20wheesht&offset=0

So it is part of the Library collection, available to anyone, it is part of the 543 books in the exhibition but was not selected for inclusion in the more prominent 200. And there you are screaming 'cancelled', excluded, banned'. Yawn.

[Nearly Sane]

As have 342 other books. Have they been excluded/banned NS - or just not included in the more prominent 200. Seems it is only you folks whining on about being excluded - perhaps you should have run a more successful nomination campaign. I guess you must be pretty embarrassed that the book only received 4 nominations despite your claim that it had 'many nominations because of its content'.

And of course your starting comment on this thread was a complete lie:

'the removal of the Women who Wouldn't Wheesht book from the National Library of Scotland, see Teans, thread, this removal of access for legal views ilhas a silencing effect'

Regardless of whether the book is in the 543 in the exhibition (it is) or the most prominent 200 (it isn't), there is no question that it is held and available in the National Library of Scotland. Here is its catalogue page:

https://search.nls.uk/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma99118465025604341&context=L&vid=44NLS_INST:44NLS_VU1&lang=en&search_scope=MainCatalogue&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=MainCatalogue&query=any,contains,the%20women%20who%20wouldn%27t%20wheesht&offset=0

So it is part of the Library collection, available to anyone, it is part of the 543 books in the exhibition but was not selected for inclusion in the more prominent 200. And there you are screaming 'cancelled', excluded, banned'. Yawn.

And again ignoring the quote from the Chief Executive about it being excluded from the most public part of the exhibition because of its content

[Gonnagle]

If I were being cynical, I could point out that some politicians don't know their vacations from their vocations, but I'm above all that. Honest.

Dear Trent,

Some!!

Dear Sane,

servants have no places in democracy

The highest calling, and as science is finding out, the greatest buzz in the world.

I could quote a certain Holy book but this forum prefers the science.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/owning-pink/201406/what-drives-you-help-others

https://www.apa.org/monitor/dec06/helping

There is more, lots more but the science is in its infancy, not caught up yet with certain Holy scripture✝️

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear World,

MSP/MP/Politician, not a job, not a career, not a profession.

It is a vocation, you for go normal life, if you choose that path, tata normal life, simples!

I agree.

There are some professions (or vocations) which aren't really compatible with family life as we would routinely know it. Those include jobs where you are required to work very long hours, shift patterns with anti-social hours, and those which require you to work considerable amounts of time away from home and/or in several places.

There are lots of these jobs (or vocations) and an individual will need to make a choice, either to choose this job or to have what we would typically consider a normal family life. To think you can have both is, I'm afraid, cakeism.

As for Mrs Forbes, well done that lady, giving up one sacred duty to perform another sacred duty.

Gonnagle.

Forbes has chosen to step back from politics for family life - that's her choice although with a partner she would probably have found it easier to balance the two than had she been a single mother for example. Also (as I mentioned before) I think she's recognised that her career isn't going to go any further within the SNP so timing is ... err ... how shall we put it - convenient. This didn't seem to be an issue when she was finance minister nor when she seemed very keen to go for the top job.

But I think there is something else here. I think politics is moving more towards the 'portfolio' career that we see elsewhere. So whereas once there were politicians who would be MPs for decades on end, we now see more choosing to dip in and dip out of frontline and/or elected politics and to intersperse this with other careers. And actually that isn't a bad thing at all.

[Gonnagle]

I agree.

There are some professions (or vocations) which aren't really compatible with family life as we would routinely know it. Those include jobs where you are required to work very long hours, shift patterns with anti-social hours, and those which require you to work considerable amounts of time away from home and/or in several places.

There are lots of these jobs (or vocations) and an individual will need to make a choice, either to choose this job or to have what we would typically consider a normal family life. To think you can have both is, I'm afraid, cakeism.
Forbes has chosen to step back from politics for family life - that's her choice although with a partner she would probably have found it easier to balance the two than had she been a single mother for example. Also (as I mentioned before) I think she's recognised that her career isn't going to go any further within the SNP so timing is ... err ... how shall we put it - convenient. This didn't seem to be an issue when she was finance minister nor when she seemed very keen to go for the top job.

But I think there is something else here. I think politics is moving more towards the 'portfolio' career that we see elsewhere. So whereas once there were politicians who would be MPs for decades on end, we now see more choosing to dip in and dip out of frontline and/or elected politics and to intersperse this with other careers. And actually that isn't a bad thing at all.

Dear Prof,

Well look at that I mostly agree with your post but for me I look at it in a far more simpler way, a Politician takes an oath much like our wonderful armed services, private life becomes secondary, but once you choose to step down, the country should thank you and help as you enter private life.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

Well look at that I mostly agree with your post but for me I look at it in a far more simpler way, a Politician takes an oath much like our wonderful armed services, private life becomes secondary, but once you choose to step down, the country should thank you and help as you enter private life.

Gonnagle.

I am with you on the service element - I've know a few MPs over the years (in more than one party) although no MSPs. And I'm very aware that the sacrifice doesn't just start when they are first elected. In most cases they've had to hold down a second job (alongside their paid job) to ensure that they ultimately get nominated in a winnable seat and that often means standing for election (with all that campaigning etc) in a seat that they cannot win as teething ground to be used to persuade the selection committee in a winnable seat that they should be a candidate. And from my experience of those I know that aspect is perhaps more sapping of normal life than once actually elected.

On stepping down - well I think the word I'd use is respecting decisions whether that be to spend more time with family or perhaps to take on a different professional challenge outside of politics.

Should we thank them - hmmm, well I guess that will depend on whether we think they've done a good job. And that will come down to political position - not sure I felt like thanking Cameron when he stepped down (having foisted brexit on us) nor Johnson with the chaos of his government and all the lying. I think it was more 'thank goodness, good riddance'.

[Nearly Sane]

My take is that in a representative democracy we should strive to make it possible for people who get elected to be ... erm representative. And if the job is set up so that it excludes people wanting to live 'normal' lives then we are excluding normal.

A lot of the changes in how the idea of representation has been ti extend that. So paying MPs as the Chartists campaigned for was all about ensuring that people from different backgrounds, and situations could  choose to run for election, and thinking about how parents of young children can do that seems related to me. As already mentioned there have been a number of reforms in Westminster, many introduced by thd Blair govt, to make it more supportive of 'nornal' life, and unless you think that was wrong, taking a position that further reforms might be beneficial is just hypocritical.

And I want people involved who think they can do a good job, not just because they are willing to 'serve' or give up a 'normal' life, else we are not just losing representation, we are making it elitist and based around an idea of service that isn't for me a beneficial one. I note that Prof D selects two MPs who should not be thanked, and that both of them went to Eton, and I would suggest too much of the approach of give up any chance of a normal life flips the system to people whose idea  of public service is based around that approach.

Being an MP, MSP, and others is if you do it right a brutally hard job which is badly rewarded in comparison to what many who might consider standing can make so it's encouraged people who are either already rich or want to abuse the job to do it.

[ProfessorDavey]

My take is that in a representative democracy we should strive to make it possible for people who get elected to be ... erm representative.

I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of 'representative' in a representative democracy. It does not mean that the make-up of elected members of parliament should be demographically representative of the population (although that might be desirable). Nope it means that the person elected is expected to 'represent' all of their constituents. So the point is that the elected person 'represents' a group of people.

Now in reality, certainly for Westminster, we have a single MP - so that single person cannot be 'representative' of the make up of the electorate in their constituency. But in terms of a representative democracy they are required to represent all of their constituents.

[Nearly Sane]

I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of 'representative' in a representative democracy. It does not mean that the make-up of elected members of parliament should be demographically representative of the population (although that might be desirable). Nope it means that the person elected is expected to 'represent' all of their constituents. So the point is that the elected person 'represents' a group of people.

Now in reality, certainly for Westminster, we have a single MP - so that single person cannot be 'representative' of the make up of the electorate in their constituency. But in terms of a representative democracy they are required to represent all of their constituents.

Thanks for the civics leading so in return i'll help you out with a reading for comprehension lesson. At no point does my post claim that a representative democracy means  that the make up of parliament has to reflect the dmigraphics. Rather it suggests that given we are a representative democracy, then we shoukd make sure that it is as open as possible b for people to be those representatives, and that if we don't then we are failing in thr democracy part.