Honourable politicians.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

Lol what can science tell you about politics?

Quite the opposite: science is just as political as everything else.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Lol what can science tell you about politics?

Quite the opposite: science is just as political as everything else.

It isn't apolitical by any means, but there are too many people with autistic tendencies in scientific careers for this statement to be even close to being true.

rjsterry

Not sure what you are getting at there.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

Not sure what you are getting at there.

Of course not. No science is just as political as... politics.

elbowloh

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Lol what can science tell you about politics?

Quite the opposite: science is just as political as everything else.

Science isn't political, scientists can be.

First.Aspect

elbowloh said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Lol what can science tell you about politics?

Quite the opposite: science is just as political as everything else.

Science isn't political, scientists can be.

Ffs. As much as politicians? Let's get past the absurd shall we.

mr.b-campag

Seems almost off topic at this point, but...Robin Cook?

john80

oblongomaculatus said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

The other thing to note on Scottish Independence is that Sturgeon is now saying it can wait until after the recovery which I assume is an admission they need the financial support of the UK Government to recover from the financial impact of Covid. It doesn't feel like a country ready for independence in that case.

Helpfully vague. But if you listen carefully, "the recovery" has to last until end 2023 at the latest, to fall within "first half of the parliament". How naive is that?

The SNP has not run the country in a way intended to set it up for independence, they've just been chasing votes. All of the free this, free that we were arguing about last week has not been paid for by much in the way of tax increase, but instead by starving local councils of money and by spending much, much more than the country can afford on things it doesn't really need.

Any rational assessment would be that independence is a bad idea. The "case" for independence is anti-English sentiment and that's about it.

I've never understood the ongoing antipathy toward the English. Take football. In any World Cup where England have qualified, but Scotland haven't (ie most of them), Scottish football fans reportedly revel in cheering on whoever England are playing (even Germany). This attitude seems to be almost entirely one way. On the rare occasions when Scotland qualify but England don't, eg 1974 or 1978, I seem to remember the whole of the UK getting behind the Scotland team, even if there was a certain amount of amusement when Scotland failed to get out of the group stage from a seemingly unassailable position.

I am a Scot and I don't cheer on the other side. I do however get frustrated by England's lack of results even though they have had plenty of talent over the years.

seanoconn

john80 said:

oblongomaculatus said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

The other thing to note on Scottish Independence is that Sturgeon is now saying it can wait until after the recovery which I assume is an admission they need the financial support of the UK Government to recover from the financial impact of Covid. It doesn't feel like a country ready for independence in that case.

Helpfully vague. But if you listen carefully, "the recovery" has to last until end 2023 at the latest, to fall within "first half of the parliament". How naive is that?

The SNP has not run the country in a way intended to set it up for independence, they've just been chasing votes. All of the free this, free that we were arguing about last week has not been paid for by much in the way of tax increase, but instead by starving local councils of money and by spending much, much more than the country can afford on things it doesn't really need.

Any rational assessment would be that independence is a bad idea. The "case" for independence is anti-English sentiment and that's about it.

I've never understood the ongoing antipathy toward the English. Take football. In any World Cup where England have qualified, but Scotland haven't (ie most of them), Scottish football fans reportedly revel in cheering on whoever England are playing (even Germany). This attitude seems to be almost entirely one way. On the rare occasions when Scotland qualify but England don't, eg 1974 or 1978, I seem to remember the whole of the UK getting behind the Scotland team, even if there was a certain amount of amusement when Scotland failed to get out of the group stage from a seemingly unassailable position.

I am a Scot and I don't cheer on the other side. I do however get frustrated by England's lack of results even though they have had plenty of talent over the years.

Brian will have your guts for garters if you carry on.

elbowloh

First.Aspect said:

elbowloh said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Lol what can science tell you about politics?

Quite the opposite: science is just as political as everything else.

Science isn't political, scientists can be.

Ffs. As much as politicians? Let's get past the absurd shall we.

No, of course not. That was just in response to others saying science is political. I was actually defending science.

Of course scientists can be political, it's more absurd not event countenance that they're not. They're human.

john80

Scientists are not political in my view when doing technical based science however they are affected by society and peer pressure. They are also a lot of the time funded based on where people think the science is leading. Try getting money to debunk climate change for example versus some work in proving climate change is a problem and see what gets you money quicker. That is not to say I don't believe in climate change before you all go down that route. I am merely saying that science is often done with some social or political pressure behind it and not in a vacuum.

davidof

shirley_basso said:

Chukka umman (sp?) Seemed genuine.

Thanks for mentioning Chukka.

When he pulled out of the Labour leadership race there were a lot of rumours of some deep dark secret - even horror of horrors - that he might be gay !

I did a bit of digging and pretty much nothing. It was just he realized that Labour is a basket case, at least as far as his leadership would have been concerned.

The worst thing he may have done is edited his own wikipedia page to claim that he is the new Obama.

DeVlaeminck

I think politicians get tarred as dishonest or dishonourable a little unfairly. I suspect most have fairly strong convictions that guide their actions - ok along with personal ambition but I don't think they are unique in that.

thesquireofbanwell

Trouble is they have three masters; their conscience, their constituents and the need to toe the party line.

MattFalle

and you missed the most important one:

whoever is paying for their £840 each rolls of wall paper.....

elbowloh

thesquireofbanwell said:

Trouble is they have three masters; their conscience, their constituents and the need to toe the party line.

And the Eton tie or union network

thesquireofbanwell

MattFalle said:

and you missed the most important one:

whoever is paying for their £840 each rolls of wall paper.....

elbowloh said:

thesquireofbanwell said:

Trouble is they have three masters; their conscience, their constituents and the need to toe the party line.

And the Eton tie or union network

Quite right, just quoting the party line.