to ask where indyref Part 5 is?

[grovel]

Well?

Percentages of women represented at all political levels fell drastically (some of that due to the abolition of quota systems, which are not operated officially here).

With employment some of the parallels are more difficult to draw, as there had previously been a heavy bias towards state-owned industries and there was a mass of privatisation leading to increased unemployment. That is not so relevant for Scotland.

There were cuts to corporation tax to attract foreign investment. This was followed by budget cuts, resulting in massive cuts in education, health and social services - sectors with a majority of women in the workforce, as well as an obvious impact on their lives.

Free childcare was a victim of budget cuts when the money started to run short following tax cuts. There was also a reduction of maternity rights (again, I think maternity rights should be fairly safe here).

There is quite a large section about the move of women into part-time low-paid work, and their departure from political life meaning that their interests were no longer considered by governments. There's also some stuff on nationalism and religion, and abortion rights, which again I'm not sure is relevant in this instance.

I'm paraphrasing and editing heavily, because although I have the book with me at work I really don't have time to produce a full summary and review. At the end of the article she mentions the fall in female SNP MSPs, the lack of an equal pay commitment, and the cuts under the current SNP government to the number of women on part-time further education courses (interestingly the SNP are very proud of their stance on higher education, but little is said about the reduction in further education places). She also mentions the White Paper commitment to have women forming 40% of large company boards, and highlights that in Norway this is often achieved by appointing women to 'make up the numbers'.

Before anyone jumps on me, I'm not saying that this is a prediction for how things will be. But it is an angle that I haven't seen discussed very often.

Sorry the above epic was to Chelsy - I see the thread has moved whilst I've been typing.

Grovel, the six SNP MPs. The rest of them, nah, not really. Charles Kennedy used to be worth something...

That few? Wow.

"well of course, magic doesn't exist and I don't think anyone believes that by voting No these things will inevitably happen - I certainly don't.

But I think we will be in a much more stable and stronger position as part of the UK than out of it, and with further devolution already promised we will have a lot more levers to pull from Holyrood to make our society fairer up here whatever London is doing down there"

So you don't think that voting No will actually help to bring about realistic change for the rUK? Because that's what other No voters are telling me. That I should vote no to bring about greater social justice, and further devolution in the rest of the UK - when there's no indication that voters in England are the least bit interested in further devolution - and my capacity to influence the outcome of a WM election is nil.

But you do think further devolution will make Scottish society (not the rest of the UK) fairer? How is further devolution going to protect us from the Conservative government's failure to exempt NHS services from TTIP? You do realise that many of the "levers to pull" in Holyrood can be pulled away by WM at any time - that WM has a veto guaranteed in the Scotland Act. Recently, Holyrood had its power over Renewables Obligation revoked without any consultation, which also opened up the right for WM to decide what land in Scotland will be used for fracking.

I suppose they've all (but six) been behind a NO vote but that's a lot of central government experience to discard.

There a few who are listened to (whatever their political persuasion) down here on a variety of matters.

Who would you have, grovel?

Cirseyde I meant in a more forward looking way, perhaps one of the Yes side can explain to me how in a supposedly fairer, more equal independent Scotland:

(i) the people who didn't vote left wing, a sizeable number, are going to be represented/tolerated, as opposed to undermined/abused. Or will 17% of Scottish voters simply be ignored? How is this fairer or more equal, because from what I've read, if you don't vote in a certain way, you are pretty much guaranteed to be abused, particularly by Yes supporters.

(ii) Why is the Scottish Parliament ignoring one of the biggest political scandals in its own country and its own capital city, involving City of Edinburgh Council, if it is going to be such a shining light of freedom and fairness? Hardly a convincing start...

Chelsy, the telegraph is hardly independant!

That article is a salutary warning Cordelia.

It will make no difference of course to the Yes camp, who will not be reading it.
Don't confuse me with facts, I've already made up my mind"

Kate, are you going to block new folk joining just to post on webchat?

Think you had to do that for the Farage web chat as all his lackeys joined to tell us how wrong we were & how UKIP weren't a bunch of misogynists & racists.

And thanks for your reply Criseyde.

OOAML At the end of the article she mentions the fall in female SNP MSPs, the lack of an equal pay commitment, and the cuts under the current SNP government to the number of women on part-time further education courses (interestingly the SNP are very proud of their stance on higher education, but little is said about the reduction in further education places)

Interesting. I do find Scottish society quite sexist, compared to some other countries I've lived in. I would have said that an independent Scotland would be likely to over-value male-dominated industries, resulting in pay inequality. It already happens to some degree already - we have very highly paid male dominated manual labour jobs, such as refuse collectors, and highly protective unionised collective practices.

In addition, the Scottish Parliament has a tendency to license previously unlicensed areas of work which are male dominated, which means it controls the providers of those goods and services, and admission to those jobs. An example would be electrical work. There are other examples which control heavily which sub-contractors you can use to do work to rental property. e.g. when I had the front door lock changed, there was only one approved contractor who could do the work. No competition. Now obviously this is good on safety grounds, but not necessarily more in need of licensing than many other industries, such as the insurance industry.

I don't think the 15-17% of right wing voters will be unrepresented. I think they'll be represented by a Conservative Party in Holyrood, albeit a Conservative Party that is unshackled from WM Conservatives and free to develop its own identity and policy direction. I don't see how this would undermine Conservative voters - if anything it would give them greater say in the overall direction of a right wing party. I don't think it's fair to say that Conservative Holyrood MPs are maligned - most centre/left wing voters I know have a lot of respect for Ruth Davidson, and perceive her as generally more competent than J Lamont, for example. Equally, it's hard to find someone with a bad word to say about Annabel Goldie.

On the issue of corruption. A lot of City Councils and local government bodies are horribly corrupt. This is the case across the UK, unfortunately. I don't think that local corruption is an issue specific to Edinburgh, Scotland, or the UK. I'm not saying that it's not a huge problem - just that even if a minority party ran on an anti-corruption ticket in WM it wouldn't get anywhere. A minority party running on an anti-corruption platform in HR might actually win a couple of seats. Out of interest, what is it exactly, legislatively, that you would like HR government to do specifically about corruption in Edinburgh?

LadyCordeliaFlyte DeeDee I suspected you thought Chelsy's other posting name was mine hmm As you can see we are both here so no need for further paranoia

I suspect so too. Probably so paranoid that she thinks we are swapping between usernames.

I have constantly been pestered by accusations of using different usernames on this and similar threads. Weatherall I think it is perfectly fair to say, is completely obsessed by it. Hence I have asked her, and am still waiting, for a link to a thread which she thinks was by me, but posted under another name.

When in reality I was simply very busy with work and unable to get the time to post. The obvious solution. But intelligent women who work can expect a high probability of bitter attack by independence supporters I think. Really don't like us.

Crisyde Out of interest, what is it exactly, legislatively, that you would like HR government to do specifically about corruption in Edinburgh?

No, I really think City of Edinburgh Council are taking corruption to a whole new level. I'm no expert on how to tackle corruption. I would say less government, rather than more, would be one way forward. We have too many councillors doing nothing useful, and too many MSPs unwilling to tackle what is going on in their own back door.

We also have, in theory, all the mechanisms (law, freedom of information, governance standards committees, etc) to tackle corruption, but lack the political will to do more than pay lip service to them. Have you seen how paperwork relating to over-charged statutory notices comes back from CofE FOI requests with much of it scored out in black pen? For "economic reasons".

Its all a huge waste of money. I have to say, I think many people are simply not honest or decent enough to be in public life, and the battle against them is too great to be won. They are too entrenched in power.

There is also a sex scandal involving members of the legal profession, much of it in the past, as at Westminster, yet the Scottish Parliament has absolutely zero interest in investigating it, or finding out whether it is ongoing or led to dropping of prosecutions, despite the names of at least two of the perpetrators, Sir Nicolas Fairbairn and Robert Henderson QC, being in the public domain. Both are now dead.

I didn't say I thought you were there same person, can't remember who did. I think you are two separate people who are obviously in the early stages of a girl crush and I for one like it!

Ooooh a web chat! Exciting.

Jeez you too, why do you go on about your successful well paid careers so much? You aren't the only ones you know!

I don't think you can use two computers with different mumsnet usernames at the same time Lady. Maybe you can if you use two email accounts to sign up? I think I was accused of being several different posters, which is why I'm waiting for a link or some sort of specificity from weatherall who constantly berates me with this kind of stuff.

So weatherall, put your money where your mouth is? What is your point?

How terrible that I should be at work, instead of on the internet to appease you, sometimes.

Just noticed I responded to lady Cordelia thinking she was Chelsy. Apologies, Freudian slip/ honest mistake. Wasn't a dig honest!

I haven't said anything about how much I am paid deedee, just that I work and have a job.

Is there something wrong with that in Indy World?

I don't think anyone has accused Chelsy of sockpuppeting LadyCordelia. She does however have a very distinctive posting style and I for one am very sure that she has been posting on these threads under various guises for years. This is not an accusation - she has never sockpuppeted, just occasionally changed names as many of us do.

There may well be austerity cuts in a newly independent Scotland, just as there will be austerity cuts in rUK. Even if there have to be cuts, an iScotland could choose where these cuts would fall. Someone (can't remember if it was on here) accused Yes voters of some naive dream of a land of milk and honey on independence day. A few may belief that, most Yes voters just want to live in a country that can make its own choices.