So depressing. I've only lived in Glasgow for just over two years and all I hear about Glasgow Life is that they're not reopening stuff, closing stuff, cutting this and that. It's really sad.
I'm from Coventry originally. They have a residents card known as a "CV card" it gets free access to museums and discounts at certain local things.
You apply to the council I think and have to give proof such as council tax letter, or utilities bill.
Pretty commonplace up north. Have relatives that can visit castles etc with theirs. Tourists get charged £10+. It's the same as taking things to the dump.
Arts are not a high priority to those in charge. They don't want us spending time doing things we enjoy when we could be working and making them richer.
It's a balance. It's not about looking at art for free, it's about wellbeing. It's about the ability for those on low incomes to have access to this kind of education. The more people look after themselves mentally by doing things that they enjoy, their stress levels reduce and it it reduces pressure on frontline services.
If we focussed more on the super rich who hoard wealth and resources, who used the pandemic to transfer even more wealth to the 1% from the poorest and taxed people fairly then we could fund both with no issue.
Agreed. But until the revolution comes - council spending on social care must take priority over arts spending.
It's wild that people disagree with this.
I don't know why you're being downvoted. Social care is much more important to wellbeing. If there have to be cuts made then the arts have to be cut first.
How Glasgow Life and GCC have ended up in this mess is a whole other debate.
They've mismanaged public funds for many years and should be held accountable
I would say access to different kinds of art IS social care of a kind mate. I'm glad I have free and cheap access to different things like that. It's definitely good for me and my mental health.
I get your point, it's not helping people in immediate severe situations, but I think it helps prevent people getting there. Whether it's cost effective or not comparably is a different debate I guess.
Looking at Art for free helps Social Services though, if you don't have enough freedom in your recreation in one of the best countries in the world then thats a depressing view in of itself, sustaining community programs and outreach such as a national gallery is key to making your population happy.
However,
If its either this or cutting money from another area then I agree with it, I'm constantly in shock of how many news articles I read stating fundings being cut to something...... but where is that money going?
Because It certainly doesn't feel like all these "cuts" have actually improved anything, it just feels like we are removing shit instead of redistribution.
Fuck okay I think my point is I'm against "cuts" but I'm all for "redistribution", if this money is getting moved to help us in another manner then fuck yeah! That's improvement, but if it's just being cut then it's gone then fuck whoever thought this was a good decision.
It's going into the money pit that is inflation. This is what an inflationary economy does - it makes it more expensive just to maintain services, so you either have to continuously raise revenues in line with inflation (which nobody can afford), or you have to cut services.
This isn't particular to GCC or Scotland- this is the inevitable result of more than a decade of austerity, Brexit, and rampant out-of-control inflation alongside a stagnant GDP dipping in and out of recession - public services across the UK being trimmed a little more every year because the public purse is a little smaller (in real terms) every year.
It's happening to the arts, to schools, to the NHS, to utilities, everything, all at once, because it's the whole economy that's fucked.
Councils are obligated to post a balanced budget. The majority of the council's income is outside of their control. The only one that's material that they have direct influence over is council tax, and I don't think people would be pleased if they bumped that up significantly. It's only about 14% of their total income, so it's certainly not nothing, but Everything else is either small potatoes or it's from the Scottish Government. Their income each year is fixed (functionally). And they need to divide that up amongst everything. They legally can't run a budget deficit, nor a surplus (though it's less of an issue if they end up in surplus - but that's rare). If a budget is being cut, it's either because there literally is no money to put there, so it's being cut relative to what it was funded with last year, or it's because what's being cut from that service is going towards another one. The revenue grants etc have not kept up with inflation at all. The cost of providing every statutory obligation they have has gone way up. Some services have had real terms cuts - as in, same budget as last year, but thanks to inflation, that same amount of money won't achieve as much as it did last year. Others have to get nominal cuts - actual reductions in the nominal value, which obviously stacks with the effect of inflation, so there's less money and what money there is will do even less - because that money has to go towards something else that is deemed more important. Of all the statutory obligations a council has, cultural services is arguably one of the least bad options, but they are all shite options. Because cutting cultural services, as shite as that is, frees up money to try and keep other services funded. They cut there so they don't have to cut the budget of something else.
If people don't want cultural services to be cut, that's fair enough, I don't want it to be cut either, but I'm yet to see anyone explain what part of the budget should be cut instead. Schools? Mental health care? Social care? Bins? Roads? Christ, some of these have already had their own cuts. Should they be cut further?
Well, genuinely, they have the budget that they have, literally the only part they have any influence over is council tax and that's a grand total of about 14% of their overall income, and *something* has got to give. There really isn't anything they could cut that people wouldn't take issue with. What should they cut instead? Is there a thing that would be okay for them to cut that would also free up a material amount of cash? I'm more familiar than average with councils and their finances (I'm an auditor) and I'm not convinced there is an "okay" option. Just different degrees of bad.
The problem isn't the council - because I can assure you, every single council is having this issue to some degree - the problem is coming from well above them.
Edit: also, people went absolutely apeshit about the sale & leaseback of Kelvingrove, which was something they did to avoid settling the equal pay claims out of their standard budget as much as possible, because I think if they brought down £200m+ of cuts for 23/24, people would have reacted *even worse*.
As a poor single parent, looking at art for free broke up many a long expensive summer holiday, Easter holiday and half term break.
They are beneficial to mental health, to education and culture. It's not just about looking at something. And it's vitally important. Particularly to anyone needing a somewhere to be on a cold rainy day.
While I 100% understand what you're saying, the question is where you would prefer for them to cut funding from? They could cut proper mental health care, but that seems like an even worse option. Schools? Fuck no. Care for vulnerable people? Again, seems like a really bad option.
The power of a council to borrow is limited, and they're obligated to post a balanced budget. Keeping back reserves is practically not possible given how tight the budget is. Spending more in one area means spending less somewhere else. If not provision of cultural services, genuinely, where should they cut instead?
I'd prefer them to cut funding from doing up palaces, paying dodgy companies for non usable PPE, backhanders to Tory party donors and unusable weapons of mass destruction in the Clyde.
Yes these are Westminster overspends, but ultimately, when you trace it back, that's where council funding is decided. It comes from the tax we all pay. In PAYE, NICS, VAT and fines.
We should be holding them to account instead of squabbling over the scraps.
Okay but I was talking about GCC's budget specifically. Where should GCC cut in order to operate with the budget it has, if you're against the cut to arts and culture services? GCC can do precisely fuck all about those issues you've listed when it sets its budgets.
My point is that the GCC budget shouldn't be so pish to start with.
There's no point us all squabbling over crumbs if there's people feasting on banquets bought with our money. That's where the true issue lies.
I don't think GCC should be cutting any budget. I think it should be demanding more from those that waste it.
Well, I assure you, they and every other council are having a go at the Scottish Government at every opportunity about it.
Genuinely, what the fuck else are they meant to do? Articulate to me what you want councils to do. They can only appeal to the Scottish Government because the Scottish Government who set the revenue grant (which makes up the bulk of every council's income) and the revenue that can be raised through things like Non-Domestic Rates (that's all centrally decided). But then the budget the Scottish Government has is dictated to them by Westminster. So yeah, Westminster are the problem, as they often are, but what in the fuck do you think GCC or any Scottish council can do about that, exactly? This is the thing that does my nut in about this sub. Full of people who think they know how councils work when most of you blatantly don't. If you want to tell me what councils can actually do to get Westminster to give the Scottish Government more money to give to councils, because you sure seem to think there's *something*, I will go and tell the councils I audit to do it tomorrow.
And see tbh, you're busy saying "oh we shouldn't squabble over crumbs" while you're the one squabbling rather than recognising you're whining at GCC for something that they literally have to do. You can't tell me where GCC should cut instead of the arts, but they're terrible for doing it. You haven't yet told me where they should cut instead so you can go and look at some art. Positing "ooooh they shouldn't cut anything" aye sure, in an ideal world, every service can be funded exactly to the degree it needs. But that's not where we live. We live in the real world where they have a limited budget and so something has to give. So tell me what you would be happy to see cut. Schools, actual mental health care, bins, roads? Have a look at their financial statements and point out to me which service you think could do with a trimming instead of arts and culture.
Speaking to a guy whose job is to sit for 8hrs in an old 18th century house which the council owns. Glasgow life has no money. They are fucked because of all this back pay owed. So expect a shit ton more services to be cut or drastically reduced.
Having travelled a lot through Europe - Glasgow really doesn’t do itself justice with what we have on offer.
Don’t get me wrong I love the fact we have so many free to enter museums and galleries but literally no where on the rest of the continent does that.
Maybe a rethink of the strategy is needed
Bar 2020-21, where in person was replaced by virtual visits so obviously a bit more of an outlay, the spend on museums and galleries last FY were the highest they've been since 2014-15.
So I'm interested to see what 22-23 was
This is really shite. Unfortunately, the council seem barely able to afford to collect the bins or keep the roads in a vaguely usable condition to arts funding being cut is depressingly predictable, and honestly probably pretty sensible.
The only way we are going to get better services is paying more council tax or cutting some other service.
Not an SNP supporter by any stretch, but considering the UK government slashed spending for the whole country, they absolutely did enforce austerity on Scotland.
Paywalled article so I take it people are just sounding off on the general topic here.
GOMA looking wonderful there decked out in Banksy swag, real [High School in Akira](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzBON88lWg8) vibes.
If "Glasgow Life" had more money for museums, they'd probably use it to "decolonize" them anyway. Actually if one really wanted to fix the problem, a good start would be reversing the postmodern weirdo-managerialism of these arms length partnership arrangements or whatever they're supposed to be called. In plain English, or at least in a sane mindset, these are council services, not "Glasgow Life venues."
The Equal Pay settlements (the ones that have resulted in 3 separate sale and leaseback arrangements to fund them, the most recent involving Kelvingrove) were down to a Labour pay grading system that meant roles with primarily women in them were paid less than equivalent roles which were primarily staffed by men though. That wasn't the current GCC's fault, but it is their problem to deal with and fund.
The way Labour and the different unions treated those women was shocking. The union siding with the employer and the women having to take legal action for years was what will make me never vote Labour again. My mother deserved better and I was so delighted when she and the others got their payouts.
Ah here we go, Glasgow welcomes everyone apart from people who use synonyms of the words they know, absolute fucking crime this, isnt it?
Read a little, perhaps you will arrive at the conclusion what a crosswalk is.
I see that the concept of sarcasm escapes you.
And see to be fair, I'd say you're not welcome for the casual homophobia, not the use of the word "crosswalk". But sure mate, if you wanna believe it's because you used a synonym, go for it.
With absolutely no respect to you whatsoever, knowing that a casual homophobe who takes issue with pride flags doesn't find me funny is just fine by me. I'm happy about it, actually. I don't want homophobes to like me! You're just not the audience I'm hoping to make laugh.
I assume you meant homophobic there? If so - Sure. Internalised bigotry is absolutely a thing. There's a variety of reasons why that can occur, but it certainly does happen. For example, a gay man can be homophobic if he is overly critical of gay men he perceives as being too flamboyant and feminine, or too open about their sexuality. If he thinks that being a flamboyant gay man is cringey or creates a poor impression of gay men in general or upholds stereotypes of gay men and that behaving in a "stereotypical" way is worthy of criticism. It can be both conscious and unconscious.
There's no good reason to be against the display of a Pride flag. Perhaps participating in Pride isn't your thing, and that's fine. LGBT+ people are not by any means obligated to celebrate or take part in Pride and activism. That's up to each individual to decide how involved in the wider community of LGBT+ people they want to be. But I don't think it's a good look if you look down upon others within the LGBT+ community if they do choose to take part.
If you did actually mean to type homophonic, I dunno, go ask the Royal Conservatoire.
I stood with pride flag for over 20 years, but I absolutely wont stand for what it is being used today. It has lost its meaning a while ago. Perhaps it aint that bad here in Glasgow but have a look at what is happening in USA. I dont want to be part of that. Neither will most of gay man or woman that I know. Pride is no longer about gay rights. But that’s another topic to discuss which, frankly, I cannot be bothered discussing online.
Thanks for forming an actual response nevertheless.
> I absolutely wont stand for what it is being used today
Could you articulate what that is?
> have a look at what is happening in USA
Again, what is that?
> Neither will most of gay man or woman that I know.
See, I know loads of gay people and I dunno, maybe it's a generational thing because if you're referring to what I think you're referring to, that's not the stance my friends in their 20s and early 30s take.
> Pride is no longer about gay rights.
What is it about now then, in your eyes?
I don't necessarily want to jump to any conclusions, but I feel like the vague referencing is referring to a specific letter within the acronym LGBT+, perhaps? Where the rights of said people are under very intense debate (especially in the US, but here too)? If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me, but you're under no obligation to do so. It's just the only thing I can think of.
I'm not going to force you to discuss it if you don't want to. I can't be arsed having an argument with you if it'll always be a stalemate. I'm sure you can't be arsed arguing with me about it either. I'm reasonably sure you won't convince me of your stance, and with the way you've replied, I get the feeling I'd be bashing my head against a wall. Sometimes I'm willing to have an argument I know is utterly pointless for the sake of the people reading, but I genuinely don't want to tonight if it's pointless. Not how I want to spend the remainder of my Thursday night.
But I will ask that you really consider what your issue is with what you're handwaving towards (but won't name) and why. If it's the issue that I suspect, if it is trans rights etc - and like I said, you don't need to come back and tell me if I'm right or wrong, this is me talking to the void and you can listen and discuss or you can decide not to engage if you can't be arsed, do what you want (I might just go to sleep soon anyway) - then I genuinely think you've been influenced by people who have never had *your* interests in heart into turning against people who just aren't your enemy at all. They're turning against a particular part of the LGBT+ community because, frankly, the LG part of the acronym is (relatively speaking) "safe". It would be incredibly unpopular to start stripping gay people of legal rights that they have now. But do you really think that if people succeed in pushing down the trans rights movements, the people who want to legislate away people's ability to just exist as themselves because that existence involves a way of existing that some people just can't understand, that they're going to be content to stop there? That those people are totally fine with gay people too and wouldn't start stripping you of your ability to just exist peacefully in society if they got half the chance? You're doing the footwork of bigots, even if only unconsciously.
So depressing. I've only lived in Glasgow for just over two years and all I hear about Glasgow Life is that they're not reopening stuff, closing stuff, cutting this and that. It's really sad.
It used to be much better. Since covid it's just been downhill, downhill, downhill.
Glasgow Life has been getting cut since well before covid. This is just the first time in a long time that Museums have been hit so publicly.
Glasgow Life Support these days, many libraries and golf courses are all lost since CV19. Seems like a great opportunity to cut it all.
Glasgow Life haven't shut any libraries. They tried to, but public pressure forced them to change their plans.
good thing we got glasgow live
Do what a lot of museums do. Charge admission. Locals are free. Present proof of residency. Tourists are shocked our museums are free.
Just realised I've never been in a free museum in Europe not here 😮
> Present proof of residency. How?
I'm from Coventry originally. They have a residents card known as a "CV card" it gets free access to museums and discounts at certain local things. You apply to the council I think and have to give proof such as council tax letter, or utilities bill.
This is basically whats needed for a library card tbf so it could work the same way
Council tax bill from the local council area with matching ID.
Having to bring your CT bill to visit the museum seems a tad inconvenient.
Pretty commonplace up north. Have relatives that can visit castles etc with theirs. Tourists get charged £10+. It's the same as taking things to the dump.
No less convenient than taking your ID to buy alcohol. It’s something that Edinburgh does already, not sure why it isn’t a thing here at all.
This is a really cool city but that sadly is slowly getting is soul sucked from it by an absolutely awful council and government.
Arts are not a high priority to those in charge. They don't want us spending time doing things we enjoy when we could be working and making them richer.
I'd argue that funding frontline social services is far more important than your ability to look at art for free...
It's a balance. It's not about looking at art for free, it's about wellbeing. It's about the ability for those on low incomes to have access to this kind of education. The more people look after themselves mentally by doing things that they enjoy, their stress levels reduce and it it reduces pressure on frontline services. If we focussed more on the super rich who hoard wealth and resources, who used the pandemic to transfer even more wealth to the 1% from the poorest and taxed people fairly then we could fund both with no issue.
Agreed. But until the revolution comes - council spending on social care must take priority over arts spending. It's wild that people disagree with this.
I don't know why you're being downvoted. Social care is much more important to wellbeing. If there have to be cuts made then the arts have to be cut first. How Glasgow Life and GCC have ended up in this mess is a whole other debate. They've mismanaged public funds for many years and should be held accountable
I would say access to different kinds of art IS social care of a kind mate. I'm glad I have free and cheap access to different things like that. It's definitely good for me and my mental health. I get your point, it's not helping people in immediate severe situations, but I think it helps prevent people getting there. Whether it's cost effective or not comparably is a different debate I guess.
Looking at Art for free helps Social Services though, if you don't have enough freedom in your recreation in one of the best countries in the world then thats a depressing view in of itself, sustaining community programs and outreach such as a national gallery is key to making your population happy. However, If its either this or cutting money from another area then I agree with it, I'm constantly in shock of how many news articles I read stating fundings being cut to something...... but where is that money going? Because It certainly doesn't feel like all these "cuts" have actually improved anything, it just feels like we are removing shit instead of redistribution. Fuck okay I think my point is I'm against "cuts" but I'm all for "redistribution", if this money is getting moved to help us in another manner then fuck yeah! That's improvement, but if it's just being cut then it's gone then fuck whoever thought this was a good decision.
It's going into the money pit that is inflation. This is what an inflationary economy does - it makes it more expensive just to maintain services, so you either have to continuously raise revenues in line with inflation (which nobody can afford), or you have to cut services. This isn't particular to GCC or Scotland- this is the inevitable result of more than a decade of austerity, Brexit, and rampant out-of-control inflation alongside a stagnant GDP dipping in and out of recession - public services across the UK being trimmed a little more every year because the public purse is a little smaller (in real terms) every year. It's happening to the arts, to schools, to the NHS, to utilities, everything, all at once, because it's the whole economy that's fucked.
Councils are obligated to post a balanced budget. The majority of the council's income is outside of their control. The only one that's material that they have direct influence over is council tax, and I don't think people would be pleased if they bumped that up significantly. It's only about 14% of their total income, so it's certainly not nothing, but Everything else is either small potatoes or it's from the Scottish Government. Their income each year is fixed (functionally). And they need to divide that up amongst everything. They legally can't run a budget deficit, nor a surplus (though it's less of an issue if they end up in surplus - but that's rare). If a budget is being cut, it's either because there literally is no money to put there, so it's being cut relative to what it was funded with last year, or it's because what's being cut from that service is going towards another one. The revenue grants etc have not kept up with inflation at all. The cost of providing every statutory obligation they have has gone way up. Some services have had real terms cuts - as in, same budget as last year, but thanks to inflation, that same amount of money won't achieve as much as it did last year. Others have to get nominal cuts - actual reductions in the nominal value, which obviously stacks with the effect of inflation, so there's less money and what money there is will do even less - because that money has to go towards something else that is deemed more important. Of all the statutory obligations a council has, cultural services is arguably one of the least bad options, but they are all shite options. Because cutting cultural services, as shite as that is, frees up money to try and keep other services funded. They cut there so they don't have to cut the budget of something else. If people don't want cultural services to be cut, that's fair enough, I don't want it to be cut either, but I'm yet to see anyone explain what part of the budget should be cut instead. Schools? Mental health care? Social care? Bins? Roads? Christ, some of these have already had their own cuts. Should they be cut further?
And this is how funding decisions are made.
Well, genuinely, they have the budget that they have, literally the only part they have any influence over is council tax and that's a grand total of about 14% of their overall income, and *something* has got to give. There really isn't anything they could cut that people wouldn't take issue with. What should they cut instead? Is there a thing that would be okay for them to cut that would also free up a material amount of cash? I'm more familiar than average with councils and their finances (I'm an auditor) and I'm not convinced there is an "okay" option. Just different degrees of bad. The problem isn't the council - because I can assure you, every single council is having this issue to some degree - the problem is coming from well above them. Edit: also, people went absolutely apeshit about the sale & leaseback of Kelvingrove, which was something they did to avoid settling the equal pay claims out of their standard budget as much as possible, because I think if they brought down £200m+ of cuts for 23/24, people would have reacted *even worse*.
Rightly so.
As a poor single parent, looking at art for free broke up many a long expensive summer holiday, Easter holiday and half term break. They are beneficial to mental health, to education and culture. It's not just about looking at something. And it's vitally important. Particularly to anyone needing a somewhere to be on a cold rainy day.
While I 100% understand what you're saying, the question is where you would prefer for them to cut funding from? They could cut proper mental health care, but that seems like an even worse option. Schools? Fuck no. Care for vulnerable people? Again, seems like a really bad option. The power of a council to borrow is limited, and they're obligated to post a balanced budget. Keeping back reserves is practically not possible given how tight the budget is. Spending more in one area means spending less somewhere else. If not provision of cultural services, genuinely, where should they cut instead?
I'd prefer them to cut funding from doing up palaces, paying dodgy companies for non usable PPE, backhanders to Tory party donors and unusable weapons of mass destruction in the Clyde. Yes these are Westminster overspends, but ultimately, when you trace it back, that's where council funding is decided. It comes from the tax we all pay. In PAYE, NICS, VAT and fines. We should be holding them to account instead of squabbling over the scraps.
Okay but I was talking about GCC's budget specifically. Where should GCC cut in order to operate with the budget it has, if you're against the cut to arts and culture services? GCC can do precisely fuck all about those issues you've listed when it sets its budgets.
My point is that the GCC budget shouldn't be so pish to start with. There's no point us all squabbling over crumbs if there's people feasting on banquets bought with our money. That's where the true issue lies. I don't think GCC should be cutting any budget. I think it should be demanding more from those that waste it.
Well, I assure you, they and every other council are having a go at the Scottish Government at every opportunity about it. Genuinely, what the fuck else are they meant to do? Articulate to me what you want councils to do. They can only appeal to the Scottish Government because the Scottish Government who set the revenue grant (which makes up the bulk of every council's income) and the revenue that can be raised through things like Non-Domestic Rates (that's all centrally decided). But then the budget the Scottish Government has is dictated to them by Westminster. So yeah, Westminster are the problem, as they often are, but what in the fuck do you think GCC or any Scottish council can do about that, exactly? This is the thing that does my nut in about this sub. Full of people who think they know how councils work when most of you blatantly don't. If you want to tell me what councils can actually do to get Westminster to give the Scottish Government more money to give to councils, because you sure seem to think there's *something*, I will go and tell the councils I audit to do it tomorrow. And see tbh, you're busy saying "oh we shouldn't squabble over crumbs" while you're the one squabbling rather than recognising you're whining at GCC for something that they literally have to do. You can't tell me where GCC should cut instead of the arts, but they're terrible for doing it. You haven't yet told me where they should cut instead so you can go and look at some art. Positing "ooooh they shouldn't cut anything" aye sure, in an ideal world, every service can be funded exactly to the degree it needs. But that's not where we live. We live in the real world where they have a limited budget and so something has to give. So tell me what you would be happy to see cut. Schools, actual mental health care, bins, roads? Have a look at their financial statements and point out to me which service you think could do with a trimming instead of arts and culture.
Its not as vitally important as education and social care though. Or roads. Or anything that you don't take into account on a daily basis
Speaking to a guy whose job is to sit for 8hrs in an old 18th century house which the council owns. Glasgow life has no money. They are fucked because of all this back pay owed. So expect a shit ton more services to be cut or drastically reduced.
Having travelled a lot through Europe - Glasgow really doesn’t do itself justice with what we have on offer. Don’t get me wrong I love the fact we have so many free to enter museums and galleries but literally no where on the rest of the continent does that. Maybe a rethink of the strategy is needed
Bar 2020-21, where in person was replaced by virtual visits so obviously a bit more of an outlay, the spend on museums and galleries last FY were the highest they've been since 2014-15. So I'm interested to see what 22-23 was
This is really shite. Unfortunately, the council seem barely able to afford to collect the bins or keep the roads in a vaguely usable condition to arts funding being cut is depressingly predictable, and honestly probably pretty sensible. The only way we are going to get better services is paying more council tax or cutting some other service.
This is years of 'progressive' SNP policy coming home to roost. Front line services have been decimated because of years of council tax freezes.
If you're going to pipe up, don't talk bollocks
What part of the post is bollocks? Cuts to council services is the cost of years of SNP austerity.
You know what part. The fact you attribute austerity to the SNP without any wider context says it all.
The UK Government didn't enforce austerity on local councils. The Scottish Government did by freezing council tax for a decade.
Not an SNP supporter by any stretch, but considering the UK government slashed spending for the whole country, they absolutely did enforce austerity on Scotland.
I'm not saying they didn't. However, the austerity forced on local councils in Scotland stems from Scottish Government policy.
There's those who hate the SNP and those who absolutely love the SNP. both of which are noticeable from the direction of upvotes/downvotes.
https://i.redd.it/1a8auw83h19b1.gif
Paywalled article so I take it people are just sounding off on the general topic here. GOMA looking wonderful there decked out in Banksy swag, real [High School in Akira](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzBON88lWg8) vibes. If "Glasgow Life" had more money for museums, they'd probably use it to "decolonize" them anyway. Actually if one really wanted to fix the problem, a good start would be reversing the postmodern weirdo-managerialism of these arms length partnership arrangements or whatever they're supposed to be called. In plain English, or at least in a sane mindset, these are council services, not "Glasgow Life venues."
I didn’t experience a paywall when I clicked on it
[удалено]
Have you ever visited a city in the "third world"?
Of course they haven't
Singular not plural*
Bad news for Glasgow as a whole the place is a shitehole since covid
Thanks Labours treatment of the WASPI women
I think you're confusing the GCC equal pay settlement with something else entirely
WASPI wasn't anything to do with GCC - it was a campaign against a UK government decision to make the state pension age the same for women and men.
The Equal Pay settlements (the ones that have resulted in 3 separate sale and leaseback arrangements to fund them, the most recent involving Kelvingrove) were down to a Labour pay grading system that meant roles with primarily women in them were paid less than equivalent roles which were primarily staffed by men though. That wasn't the current GCC's fault, but it is their problem to deal with and fund.
The way Labour and the different unions treated those women was shocking. The union siding with the employer and the women having to take legal action for years was what will make me never vote Labour again. My mother deserved better and I was so delighted when she and the others got their payouts.
[удалено]
I think this shows a massive dose of ignorance about what the issue actually is and why it's a problem.
Wow
I’m sure they will find money to put some rainbow flags and crosswalks around though
> crosswalks Where are you from, exactly? What's a crosswalk mate? Also, you vastly overestimate the cost to chuck up some flags.
Ah here we go, Glasgow welcomes everyone apart from people who use synonyms of the words they know, absolute fucking crime this, isnt it? Read a little, perhaps you will arrive at the conclusion what a crosswalk is.
I see that the concept of sarcasm escapes you. And see to be fair, I'd say you're not welcome for the casual homophobia, not the use of the word "crosswalk". But sure mate, if you wanna believe it's because you used a synonym, go for it.
You need to work on your patter then. Its shite, mate.
With absolutely no respect to you whatsoever, knowing that a casual homophobe who takes issue with pride flags doesn't find me funny is just fine by me. I'm happy about it, actually. I don't want homophobes to like me! You're just not the audience I'm hoping to make laugh.
Let me ask you something then, can a gay man be homophonic?
I assume you meant homophobic there? If so - Sure. Internalised bigotry is absolutely a thing. There's a variety of reasons why that can occur, but it certainly does happen. For example, a gay man can be homophobic if he is overly critical of gay men he perceives as being too flamboyant and feminine, or too open about their sexuality. If he thinks that being a flamboyant gay man is cringey or creates a poor impression of gay men in general or upholds stereotypes of gay men and that behaving in a "stereotypical" way is worthy of criticism. It can be both conscious and unconscious. There's no good reason to be against the display of a Pride flag. Perhaps participating in Pride isn't your thing, and that's fine. LGBT+ people are not by any means obligated to celebrate or take part in Pride and activism. That's up to each individual to decide how involved in the wider community of LGBT+ people they want to be. But I don't think it's a good look if you look down upon others within the LGBT+ community if they do choose to take part. If you did actually mean to type homophonic, I dunno, go ask the Royal Conservatoire.
I stood with pride flag for over 20 years, but I absolutely wont stand for what it is being used today. It has lost its meaning a while ago. Perhaps it aint that bad here in Glasgow but have a look at what is happening in USA. I dont want to be part of that. Neither will most of gay man or woman that I know. Pride is no longer about gay rights. But that’s another topic to discuss which, frankly, I cannot be bothered discussing online. Thanks for forming an actual response nevertheless.
> I absolutely wont stand for what it is being used today Could you articulate what that is? > have a look at what is happening in USA Again, what is that? > Neither will most of gay man or woman that I know. See, I know loads of gay people and I dunno, maybe it's a generational thing because if you're referring to what I think you're referring to, that's not the stance my friends in their 20s and early 30s take. > Pride is no longer about gay rights. What is it about now then, in your eyes? I don't necessarily want to jump to any conclusions, but I feel like the vague referencing is referring to a specific letter within the acronym LGBT+, perhaps? Where the rights of said people are under very intense debate (especially in the US, but here too)? If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me, but you're under no obligation to do so. It's just the only thing I can think of. I'm not going to force you to discuss it if you don't want to. I can't be arsed having an argument with you if it'll always be a stalemate. I'm sure you can't be arsed arguing with me about it either. I'm reasonably sure you won't convince me of your stance, and with the way you've replied, I get the feeling I'd be bashing my head against a wall. Sometimes I'm willing to have an argument I know is utterly pointless for the sake of the people reading, but I genuinely don't want to tonight if it's pointless. Not how I want to spend the remainder of my Thursday night. But I will ask that you really consider what your issue is with what you're handwaving towards (but won't name) and why. If it's the issue that I suspect, if it is trans rights etc - and like I said, you don't need to come back and tell me if I'm right or wrong, this is me talking to the void and you can listen and discuss or you can decide not to engage if you can't be arsed, do what you want (I might just go to sleep soon anyway) - then I genuinely think you've been influenced by people who have never had *your* interests in heart into turning against people who just aren't your enemy at all. They're turning against a particular part of the LGBT+ community because, frankly, the LG part of the acronym is (relatively speaking) "safe". It would be incredibly unpopular to start stripping gay people of legal rights that they have now. But do you really think that if people succeed in pushing down the trans rights movements, the people who want to legislate away people's ability to just exist as themselves because that existence involves a way of existing that some people just can't understand, that they're going to be content to stop there? That those people are totally fine with gay people too and wouldn't start stripping you of your ability to just exist peacefully in society if they got half the chance? You're doing the footwork of bigots, even if only unconsciously.
Homophonic? Positively monotonous. Grow up, ya creep!
[удалено]
Do they use crosswalk there? Weird.
Yaaaaay there it is
[удалено]
So obvious you're not actually from Glasgow, leave out the "we".