Mr Scruff

Apologies - my response wasn't meant to suggest it was you who was distorting the facts but I realise it might have come across that way. I'm aware that much of the commentary was leaving out the definition of 'directors' and really distorting the point. 100% agree regarding your point about widening gulf. The remuneration of these ED's doesn't reflect value addition or entrepreneurship; it's almost the definition of a self sustaining closed shop. The crisis of capitalism does exist in there, as it does in those rewarded for gambling with other people's money for no societal benefit for which we're all paying the price. We'll probably disagree over the solution, though - I'm completely against the notion of a state controlled economy; I just don't believe it works without resorting to authoritarianism.

No. The quote referred to Executive Directors' pay in FTSE 100 companies. A very narrow, and distorted sample when comparing with 'employees'. In my own company, director's remuneration is down nearly 40% over the last 3 years and is hurting. We've taken much bigger hits to preserve staff and jobs (yes, because the company wouldn't exist otherwise). To suggest that "directors" are both doing well and exploiting is an utter misrepresentation. Though I have to say, BJ, that I am 100% with the sentiment that the remuneration of Executive Directors in FTSE 100 companies is obscene - you only have to look at the comparison between 1979/80 and 2009/10 to see it clearly illustrated. But that doesn't mean that 'management are doing very well thank you' can be presented as the narrative.

Just out of curiosity. You pointed out before that a 'scab is a scab' and is defined by anyone crossing a picket line. My business shares an entrance with a local authority office. We have no connection with said local authority other than sharing an entrance. During previous industrial actions (interestingly not yesterday though we anticipated it) the building entrance has been picketed forcing us to cross to get to our place of work. Your definition is that we are all scabs. I would be as well closing the business if we weren't. We need to pay the bills including salaries for 40 odd employees. Now should I do that jeopardising their and my own employment on a point of principle, or just accept that we can be demonised as scabs? I ask because we receive no benefit whatever the outcome of the strike.

I didn't mean to imply anything in my original question. Thus why I clarified in my subsequent post. But thank you, I think you've absolutely clarified exactly what I took from what you said in answering the question.

Implication? I asked a question. Do you believe that those who choose not to strike should loose their legal right to protection against bullying in the workplace? I would define calling them 'scabs' as bullying.

So are you in favour of legalising bullying in the workplace?

Do you run your own business?

Visited Chicago a couple of months ago and it was just fantastic. Very friendly city with a great combination of the historic and the (sometimes overpowering) modern and monumental. We found lots of historic pubs which had a distinctly 'Chicago' flavour but were also reminiscent of the good things about Scottish pub culture - lively, great atmosphere and full of interaction. Definitely worth doing a river architectural tour; gives you a real grasp of the history of the city, and also what might be worth further exploration. I didn't realise the beach culture that exists there. Might be worth going in the warmer weather to get that as well as the 'big city' type tour. The whole coastline is beach/ marina and apparently the locals flock there during the warm Spring and summer months - and it's right next to the city centre. A big sporting city, but what you can attend depends on what time of the year you go. Baseball, basketball, american football, 'soccer', ice hockey are all well represented. And lots of blues clubs, comedy clubs, restaurants, galleries etc. Worth visiting: http://www.billygoattavern.com - surprisingly low key but an institution. http://www.yolk-online.com - fabulous breakfast with great service. Sets you up for the day. And Sears Tower, Hancock Tower, Mies van der Rohe towers etc. The Skydeck mentioned by Raveonbobbylaw is terrifying and unique but you have to do it. Millennium park worth a visit and that silver bean in the middle. We loved it. There's a strong architectural connection between Glasgow and Chicago and you'll get that real sense of "strange familiarity". Get into the mood by watching, the Blues Brothers, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, the Untouchables and Source Code before you go.

Some good posts here, which I agree sum up the problem. A lot of comment and analysis on football these days (maybe it was always so) is dedicated to the tactical nuances and how teams are set out. But I was reading something recently which suggested that team sports often suffer from the whole being less than the sum of the parts. The precise example was a tug of war team - the more players you add, the less effort each individual puts in. By the time you get to eight participants it's only half the overall power you would expect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringelmann_effect Is this why teams reduced in number are often still competitive against full strength teams? And why a collective 'easing' against lower opposition is quite likely, and thus the management's responsibility to ensure doesn't happen. This is principally a question of leadership. The right culture with the right role models and a sense of direction and purpose will prevent this effect - have the current management and team got it?

I realise I wasn't clear. Functionally our stadium works with a pitch, floodlighting and the JH stand. Nothing else (aside from some ancillary accommodation that could be included in or around the JH) is required to deliver a functional cost effective solution - there it is already. Anything else requires investment, from which there is little likelihood of a return unless the scope of the function of a 'football stadium' is extended. When you get into discussions of how bad the stadium looks just now you're really into the subjective. I have strong opinions on how the character and presence of a space within which a function happens can have a positive (and indeed commercial) benefit, but there's little appetite in Scottish football for taking anything like those risks

A construction of this scale would be governed by quite onerous H & S, and quality controls which would mean that voluntary labour would have little impact on the overall economic viability. I do wonder about volunteers for maintenance, though, but that's a different matter entirely. The thing that would make the biggest impact would be the introduction of other functions to get around that 50 hours/ year problem. In some ways that's what Propco is trying to do. An idea I had some time ago was to raise the pitch by 3m or so and use the space underneath for other functions. Would naturally reduce the size of the JH, but also push the pitch away from the road. This would give much more space around the pitch to parcel off bits of the ground but still create an appropriately sized arena. A 4G pitch would let this be used throughout the week/ year for multiple sports. It's the only way I can see to get any real return on investment remaining on the current site, but we're miles from the economic environment to let that happen...

It's not a question of design possibilities. It doesn't take much to imagine a potentially fantastic sporting venue at Firhill. Its topography is unusually well suited to this function. It is a question of cost. Any development would be expensive, and would not return its investment (ie we couldn't afford it without someone making a donation). The development has to provide for use for about 50 hours a year with around 40,000 total customer visits per year. That's nowehere near enough to generate revenue for any kind of development. There is really little appetite in Scottish football for investing in asperationally designed facilities. What is designed almost exclusively is the cheapest option to provide the basic function (putting customers in front of a football field).

No she didn't. No need to re-write history.

Too true... Though your reference to a person as 'it' is disturbing. I don't think I could do that with anyone.

No. I do read their manifestos. It's not just a beauty parade for me. I realise that I'm in a minority. If a party says 'tax the rich' in a manifesto, I look to see what that means. Does it mean imposing a 100% tax rate on anyone earning more than $5 a day (rich by some definitions). Or does it mean increasing the tax rate to 50% for those earning over £150K a year. The detail matters and I don't believe a party would be electable without it (though, again, I do realise I'm in a minority). It is worth contrasting manifestos from decades ago to those now, by the way (not that I'm that old I have to say....) But this thread has been useful for me in one sense. I was agnostic to Independence at the start. I'm staggered as it has gone on to find out how little the argument boils down to, ie do we trust the SNP. Here's a thing. If we were an independent nation just now I'd be looking for a real, detailed justification from anyone proposing Union. It would be a difficult transition, as Independence will likely be. An example - East Germany. A painful transition. And before we start debating whether the DDR was a sovereign nation independent from Germany, it would be worth listening to the excellent Radio 4 series currently playing re German history. I realise that it's on the BBC, but still excellent despite being from a UK broadcaster...

My view is that if we were asked to vote on an issue like independence we should at least know what we are voting for. Clearly you take a different view; your prerogative. Yes I thought we were debating the issue of independence and therefore you were contrasting UK policies with Scottish ones. Clearly we should have been debating the beauty of the SNP only and therefore my error.

If you give us a clear, detailed proposal for independence then we can have a meaningful debate about the relative merits of working with the status quo against that proposal. I can give you a whole lot of things that I think would make the UK a better (and hopefully more prosperous) place. We may disagree. But you're asking for demonstration that the current position is better than.... ? Sounds good, but it's not a debate until we see a proposal. Also the topic of this is Independence, can we make it? The norm would be for those proposing this to demonstrate what it entails first.... We remain part of the UK. And part of the EU. I take it you don't want to be part of any Union? I understand that position, it's just not one I agree with. I could go through poker analogies - I'll see your Millenium Dome with our Scottish Parliament building. I'll raise your Eurostar with our Edinburgh Trams and Glasgow Airport Link. But what's the point? Your view seems to be that Unions = bad, Scotland = good. In the absence of detail that's the only conclusion. Wha's Like Us? Anecdotal I know, but I've worked with Local Authorities and Central Government departments throughout the UK (and indeed Europe), and have formed a very strong impression of where the most (casually) corrupt actions take place. And where nepotism and political favour count more than integrity. I despise this anywhere, but particularly when it's 'close to home'.

No Probs. As others have said, best of luck with this interview....

I can only speak from our experience (a private sector business). We wouldn't pay travel expenses if we invited someone for interview. We wouldn't expect to receive travel expenses when we are invited for interview, no matter where in the UK/ world that interview may be. We have a choice whether to attend when invited as those do when we invite them. Having said that, the worst thing would be to ask for something after the interview. That may seriously jeopardise your chances. A polite enquiry beforehand might not be so bad, especially if it's a bigger organisation where you can make the enquiry of an admin department.

I see where you're coming from - we probably have a different definition of 'fear'. There's an old debating technique of FUD; Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. I can see the UD there, but not the F. Agree that it's a typical non-story and you question why. I'd put it down to the standard of The Herald's journalism these days rather than any anti-SNP conspiracy, but YMMV as they say...

OK so I'm not seeing the scaremongering in there. Do you believe that there won't be a negotiation on assets/ liabilities (forgive me if I've missed the point). Clearly this won't just be a change of headed notepaper.

On a related point with reference to my last post. These are interesting times. A few years ago I was despairing (OK an exaggeration) at how little many people cared about 'politics' and 'the economy'. In the 2005 general election I saw a poll that put 'the economy' at 7th in popular priority which struck me as a scary and complacent thought at a time we were clearly living through an unsustainable bubble. How things are different now. I'd rather they weren't different due to the worst economic crisis we've faced in a century, but am glad that they are. However, in supporting things like 'Occupy Wall Street' and 'Occupy London Stock Exchange', I'm also struck by how little is actually proposed by these movements. The main proposal I saw from the 9 points published by OLSE on Monday was that the regulators of financial services shouldn't have a close relationship with those who provide those services. Absolutely, sign me up for that. Does it also demonstrate, though, that it's easy to criticise things that are wrong but very hard to propose real, deliverable solutions that don't make things worse. I say this because I think it's relevant to the independence debate as well, and not simply to take this thread off topic....

There's a lot of truth in your first paragraph there, but that misses the point for me. Yes schools will still open. Yes hospitals and doctors surgeries will be open. Traffic lights will still work. People will go to shops and petrol stations, paying tax and VAT at some rate to the SRC (Scottish Revenue and Customs replacing HMRC - I take it that's the proposal; I have no idea). I'm not 'scare mongering' by asking what the detail is nor am I suggesting that life in Scotland will revert back to the stone age. It might be better. How can I make that judgement? You speak of misinformation. I haven't seen any. I haven't seen any information. And I've looked. I've even asked the question "what character of independence would I support" to make the risks worthwhile. What I haven't seen are answers. Before devolution we had the constitutional convention that spent a long time establishing the character and 'terms of reference' of the Scottish Parliament. We then had a clear picture of what was being proposed and on what we were deciding. That's lacking here. I sense that you feel questions of economics and fiscal separation are a sideshow and that's probably where we differ. I see that as the essence of it. As an example, despite Meister Jag's and my ideological differences there's a lot that I agree with. The main difference is one of economics. And for independence it's not just about the programme, it's about establishing the fundamentals and a new framework, and making that demonstrably work better. What I'd like is a bit of honesty (and I don't mean from you Honved in case it sounds that way). Give us a clear, thorough, proposal for what we will have to decide on. Then we can look at it and interrogate it. Be honest in those things that might be difficult. If there are sacrifices to be made spell out what they are and what benefits will flow from them. I sense we will not have a meeting of minds here. I thought one thing that we could all agree on was that we would need to understand what was actually proposed before deciding to support or oppose, but realise that even that's not possible. I don't have the luxury of saying "Sure, independence go for it. I trust our political classes to get this right for us; let them sort out what it means". PS Sometimes analogies are helpful and sometimes not. We're not buying a predictable off the shelf product here like a car. The most relevant example I can think of just now is Greece (NOT because of the economic meltdown). There is a debate there about whether to leave the Euro/ EU. It might be better for them, it might not. But the ties of monetary union (NOT full fiscal union) make this very hard. And that's without the fiscal, monetary, historical and political ties that we have throughout the UK. My point is not to say that it's insurmountable or wrong. Just that it needs a serious, thorough and detailed approach and a full negotiation. it isn't a matter of going into a showroom and getting a nice pre-packaged product delivered (and hoping the salesman doesn't rip us off...)

So now I am confused. You don't think there will be much change? I thought you supported independence because of the change it would bring? So what change? My main questions are on the fiscal side of things (more than simply 'currency and foreign exchange') and how they will relate to the economy and our economic growth/ prosperity. I do realise that this is simply unimportant to some but is very important to me - that's what pays for Education, Health etc etc. At the moment we are not completely separate despite the fact that we do have a somewhat separate education and legal system. So how is this all to be done, and how do we untangle all the threads that do exist throughout the UK? Anyway I refer you to my previous posts with very brief questions about fiscal autonomy. And then I'd like to understand how we maintain and grow our economy through our biggest trading partner - the UK. On the company law side I'd like to know that our registration at companies house will still enable us to operate throughout the UK (better make sure that negotiation with the EU happens sharpish). And I need to know what currency we're dealing with, what employment law we operate under, Companies Act etc etc. We rely on British Standards - will we be replacing those with Scottish Standards. We use Ordnance Survey - will we have a replacement for that? These are very narrow questions I realise, but where is the detail? You know it's funny. We have a proposal (?) for a significant change, the most significant change in centuries. It sits there with one word. And then we're asked "well, what do you want to know?" Does that not seem odd? Surely it is incumbent on those proposing this massive change to demonstrate the width and depth of what they are proposing and illustrate why it would work and to what extent. Maybe even admit where it will be difficult. But no we get "you're not patriotic" and "You must believe we are too stupid" as the argument.

Agree wholeheartedly with this... On two points (highlighted). Unless there's a two stage referendum process, or meaningful negotiation starting now, I can't see how they can provide the detail. Otherwise it will have to be based on assumptions and supposition. But yes, no detail = can't support independence = "unpatriotic" seems to be the suggestion. I have supported the notion in the past of a federal structure. I believe that this might work to the benefit of everyone on this island. Effectively this will be what is now referred to as "devolution max" or somesuch phrase. But I wonder if this is possible. The current mindset is to blame everything bad on 'Westminster' and the Union, and praise everything that's good on 'Edinburgh'. Will that go away when we have our own tax raising powers, but monetary policy is still determined by the Bank of England? I suspect that our political system isn't flexible or mature enough for that. And I do mean the UK at that - see the difficulty people have getting their heads around responsibility in a coalition government at a time of national crisis...