• This topic has 7,712 replies, 199 voices, and was last updated 3 months ago by irc.
Viewing 40 posts - 7,561 through 7,600 (of 7,713 total)
  • Scotland Indyref 2
  • scotroutes
    Full Member

    If Nicola Sturgeon had actually progressed independence (as she was elected to do) then she wouldn’t be able to use this furore as yet another grievance distraction.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    On some issues i am sure the SNP try to set traps / maneuver to make Westminster the baddies but on the GRA – not at all.  this is the scots government making law on a topic totally within their competence and with cross party support and Tories attempting to use it politically for their culture wars

    scotroutes
    Full Member

    Writing “honestly, this doesn’t interfere with EA2010” on the front of the bill doesn’t make it fact

    It’s like me posting “honestly, this isn’t spam” and then offering passports for sale 😂

    Maybe ScotGov should have referred it to the Supreme Court for assessment before trying to pass the legislation (irony content).

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    On some issues i am sure the SNP try to set traps / maneuver to make Westminster the baddies but on the GRA – not at all. 

    I think the irony of all this is that this was an example of the Scottish Parliament trying to do government stuff. IMO this issue was detrimental to the independence cause and damaging to the SNP itself. I still support them and the other parties doing it but even if you don’t support it, it’s the definition of ‘the day job’.

    This is what can be thrown back every time the Tories or whoever tell the SNP to concentrate on the day job. We spent six years doing the day job only for the Tories to negate all that work at the PM’s whim.

    What’s the point in focusing on the day job when the day job isn’t a real job?

    tjagain
    Full Member

    In her Today interview Shona Robison, the Scottish government’s social justice secretary, insisted that the gender recognition reform bill would not undermine or change UK equality law. This is an argument the Scottish government has been making for some time, and Robison said this morning.</p>

    [The bill] simplifies the process for obtaining a gender recognition certificate. It does not change the effect of having one. All of the protections under the equality legislation remain exactly the same.

    And she stressed that a clause has been included in the bill making exactly this point.

    Thats why it has no effect on the equalities act

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    Writing “honestly, this doesn’t interfere with EA2010” on the front of the bill doesn’t make it fact

    6 years of back and forth can be summed up by writing “honestly, this doesn’t interfere with EA2010” on the front of the bill?

    I think your loathing of the SNP is clouding your judgement on this one, tbh.

    greyspoke
    Free Member

    Writing “honestly, this doesn’t interfere with EA2010” on the front of the bill doesn’t make it fact

    Those words wil be of legal effect* when it comes to interpretation. They are not completely irrelevant.

    *ETA as in “will be takin into account” not “will be taken as fact”.

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    Also, this from the EHRC back in April who now, strangely enough, have ‘concerns’:

    https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/protecting-people-sex-and-gender-reassignment-discrimination

    Because the operation of the Equality Act gender reassignment exceptions does not rely on possession, or not, of a Gender Recognition Certificate, any reform of the Gender Recognition Act will not erode the special status of services provided separately for men and women, or for men or women only, as defined by the Equality Act 2010, such as domestic abuse refuges, health services and clubs. We have issued clear, practical guidance for providers of separate and single-sex services to help them fully understand how to meet the needs of all women and men.

    Sunak saw this as an issue that would cause Indy voters to see the error of their ways and support the Union. He has badly misjudged the room, I reckon.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    The target here Labour, not the SNP… as we will see as this plays out in the press over the next few years.

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    The target here Labour, not the SNP… as we will see as this plays out in the press over the next few years.

    Good point. Despite all the evidence, we keep forgetting that Scotland is an irrelevance to Westminster to be used as the PM sees fit.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    honestly, this doesn’t interfere with EA2010” on the front of the bill doesn’t make it fact

    As Brucewee points out
    It’s entirely correct, that Sunak hasn’t taken it to supreme court (section 33?)shows he knows this too so just wants a confrontation to shore up his dire polling?

    sadmadalan
    Full Member

    It’s entirely correct, that Sunak hasn’t taken it to supreme court (section 33?)shows he knows this too so just wants a confrontation to shore up his dire polling?

    This is a proposed law and as such would not be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

    Everyone knew that the UK Government would not allow this to become law. It is not even good law. It has been rammed home by the SNP (/Greens) in attempt to create a grievance between Sturgeon and the UK Government. Labour and the Lib Dems supported it because they wanted to see the resulting mess, potentially impacting the SNP and the Conservatives.

    Perhaps if the SNP had allowed a free vote, published the results of the public consultations, listened to the UN’s representative and listened to the arguments, then we would not be here. Dismissing concerns as “not relevant” and creating at atmosphere of hatred towards anyone who expresses an opinion against the GRA is nothing to be proud of.

    Perhaps if Sturgeon had worked with the UK Government to come up with a ‘better’ solution, then we would not be in this very, very foreseeable place. No one comes out of this with any credit, regardless of which party they represent. whether they are for/against reduced paperwork to change gender, or those who sit in the shadows yelling abuse. A sad day for all

    kimbers
    Full Member

    This is a proposed law and as such would not be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

    Is that correct? I’m sure on r4 this morning they said section 33 had been used for others proposed laws

    I’m not sure you can say it’s been rammed home, it was a manifesto pledge and the SNP were elected with far higher numbers than the tories could dream of!

    tpbiker
    Free Member

    Major own goal by Westminster

    As an aside, I don’t follow this thread much but I was under the impression scotroutes was a big SNP fan? Don’t know where I got that from if that’s not the case. Maybe mixed him up with another poster

    matt_outandabout
    Full Member

    As an aside, I don’t follow this threat much but I was under the impression scotroutes was a big SNP fan? Don’t know where I got that from if that’s not the case. Maybe mixed him up with another poster

    There are some in Scotland who are pro-independence and dislike SNP performance.
    There are some in Scotland who vote for SNP but are not sure of independence.

    (etc)

    tpbiker
    Free Member

    Yep i know that, I like the snp but Im not convinced on independence

    I just thought I’d seen he was an snp supporter before, that was all!

    hels
    Free Member

    On a factual issue – Scottish Government do generally publish results of consultations. Here is the one for the Bill in question. (But let’s not let facts get in the way of the two-for-one of transgender people and SNP)

    https://www.gov.scot/publications/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-analysis-responses-public-consultation-exercise/

    tjagain
    Full Member

    It has been rammed home by the SNP (/Greens) in attempt to create a grievance between Sturgeon and the UK Government……………

    Passed with a huge crossparty majority after 6 years.  Hardly rammed thru.  Lib Dems and Labour will not support the SNP to cause trouble or they would do so on much less controversial issues.  Remember they are both unionist parties and hrdly ever co operate with the SNP on any topic.

    intheborders
    Free Member

    Everyone knew that the UK Government would not allow this to become law. It is not even good law. It has been rammed home by the SNP (/Greens) in attempt to create a grievance between Sturgeon and the UK Government. Labour and the Lib Dems supported it because they wanted to see the resulting mess, potentially impacting the SNP and the Conservatives.

    Sure, some smart cookie came up with this 6 years as a useful ‘tool’…

    argee
    Full Member

    Yep i know that, I like the snp but Im not convinced on independence

    I just thought I’d seen he was an snp supporter before, that was all!

    Personally i don’t see this vote as being within party lines, it’s a much wider issue, hence why there’s been both pro and anti campaigning by LGBTQ groups, women’s groups and so on. The main issue for most, is the drop in age, yes with some limited concessions, but this is the same issue that has been raised in other countries in recent years as well.

    In relation to IndyRef2, Independence, etc, etc, we’ve never really seen what the actual Pro’s and Con’s are yet, so it’s not really mature enough to vote on, bar those at either end of the extreme.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Argee.  It can only be 16 under Scots law as that is the age anyone living in Scotland gets full adult decision making on healthcare matters.

    In relation to IndyRef2, Independence, etc, etc, we’ve never really seen what the actual Pro’s and Con’s are yet

    there has been huge discussion on this over the years and loads of published material

    argee
    Full Member

    there has been huge discussion on this over the years and loads of published material

    There’s been a lot of theoretical benefits, and very little discussion on the theoretical negatives of independence.

    It can only be 16 under Scots law as that is the age anyone living in Scotland gets full adult decision making on healthcare matters.

    Yes, but this issue covers more than just that, otherwise it wouldn’t be included within this bill, it would be captured under the powers of the Scot’s Law covering consent.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Yes, but this issue covers more than just that,

    Im sorry but what?  Its clearly a healthcare issue.  to have made it 18 would be the only healthcare issue that is 18 rather than 16 and would be clearly open to legal challenge especially given the doctrine of “gillick competence”

    very little discussion on the theoretical negatives of independence.

    better together campaign and project fear?  Huge amount of anti independence stuff has been published including of course the infamous ” remaining in the union is the only way to stay in the EU”

    kevog
    Free Member

    How is it a healthcare issue? The proposed Scottish legislation removes all need for a medical diagnosis and turns it into nothing more than an administrative process, the same as changing your name.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    The main discussion is on the sunak thread

    its obviously a medical issue whether you need a formal diagnosis or not as it involves mental and physical health.  Its far from just an administrative rubber stamp.  the whole issue is around healthcare

    kevog
    Free Member

    If it’s a healthcare issue then of course you need a diagnosis, even for mental health issues – And if it’s a healthcare issue, then the new legislation is flawed by removing the need for a diagnosis, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t just walk into the chemist and buy anti-depressants can you?

    scotroutes
    Full Member

    I was under the impression scotroutes was a big SNP fan?

    They’re a political party not a football team or a pop star 😉😂

    argee
    Full Member

    Im sorry but what? Its clearly a healthcare issue. to have made it 18 would be the only healthcare issue that is 18 rather than 16 and would be clearly open to legal challenge especially given the doctrine of “gillick competence”

    All i’ve said there is by your reasoning, why have it in the bill, if it’s already done it seems weird to add something to a bill that causes controversy, if Scot’s Law already covers it, not many changes to legislation include areas already covered?

    As Kevog has stated as well, why so focused on the healthcare issue when this change is removing those hurdles, which is basically to get a Gender Recognition Certificate to be issued to allow changes to the required legal documents?

    Again, personally, i just see this hurdle being a weird one to allow 16 and 17 year olds that ability without parental consent, yes you’ll say Scot’s Law, but at 16 how many aren’t living at home, aren’t in full time eduction, etc, etc, the whole age of consent thing is just a mess across the whole of the UK, you can be tried as an adult in Scotland at 16, but not sent to an adult prison until 21, married at 16, but can’t toast the wedding for 2 years, etc, etc, etc.

    scotroutes
    Full Member

    Green MSP was on telly saying we should be looking at the possibility of reducing the qualifying age to eight.

    argee
    Full Member

    It’s just a different world these days, i have a 7 year old and honestly, it’s is just one big minefield with everything being beamed over the internet, i see her language change, opinions change and so on through it, then you add the peer group into the mix, there’s so much pressure for them growing up that making life altering decisions before they’re fully developed is a bit of a worry, i know this bill is mainly about GRC’s, but it’s the first steps, and of course it’s a decision that can be made without parental consent, whilst they’re living at home with the same parents, and those parents who fully back their child wouldn’t be a concern in providing consent anyway, i just see those who are going to ‘benefit’ from this having it cause more confrontation and negativity in the long run, but again, personal opinion.

    somafunk
    Full Member

    Green MSP was on telly saying we should be looking at the possibility of reducing the qualifying age to eight.

    They’ve totally **** this important bill up, whether through incompetence or by wanting a confrontation with the wider uk government, and the greens aren’t helping the matter by allowing fools like Maggie Chapman (green msp) to chip in with their inane thoughts.

    martinhutch
    Full Member

    Interesting week for Nicola:

    How it started:

    How it’s going:

    Clearly didn’t do all that well on the Hazard Perception section.

    igm
    Full Member

    Will the SNP come to an emergency stop and their MPs have to give way to Labour?

    politecameraaction
    Free Member

    Clearly didn’t do all that well on the Hazard Perception section.

    Ayyyyyy

    TBH it is incredibly cringe that STV was carry that toadying story in the first place

    Northwind
    Full Member

    She should probably be suspended, at this point, using all the polite words- “Nicola is of course happy to help the investigation but until it’s concluded…”. I don’t think she should be kicked out just for being interviewed, but tbh I think it’d be smart for her to stand down, again in much the same way- be graceful about it unlike Johnson but still stand her ground, all “I am innocent but, until I am cleared”.

    TBH I think this next bit is going to be exactly like all the noise about the auditors and accounts- make as much noise and “no smoke without fire”, as fast as possible, because if you wait for it to settle it’ll all be much less dramatic and you end up writing sad stories like “the SNP submitted their accounts on time and apparently it’s all absolutely fine and none of our headlines came to pass but HERE’S WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF IT WASN’T!1!”. But politically that doesn’t matter so much, everyone already got their shots in and did the damage and that’s going to happen here no matter what.

    “In custody” looks to have a very short shelf life frinstance, but if you shout “Nicola Sturgeon has been arrested and is in police custody” while it’s still happening it sounds way more dramatic than “Nicola Sturgeon was asked to come in, was arrested, interviewed under caution and released without charge” which is probably what’s going to happen. So it’s well played.

    (I bet 20 scottish pence that there she is never charged, but, I don’t think at this point it’s really all that important)

    tjagain
    Full Member

    There is a thread fior discussions about Sturgeon

    I have been looking at and thinking about labours prospects in Scotland at the next GE.  I have seen ” they could take 30 snp seats” and “unlikely to take more than 6 from the SNP.  I find this rather odd

    Personally I think with Labours anti EU anti devolution stance limits how many seats they can take greatly.  My guess is less than 10.

    argee
    Full Member

    Just seen Ash Regan has now bolted to Alba, hopefully this isn’t going to start validating those mentalists, it really has fallen apart since Sturgeon left, Humza doesn’t seem to have the same ability to hold a broadchurch together the same way.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Its the bams self identifying and heading for oblivion. 

    There are two splits in the SNP – gradualist V fundamentalist on independence and left / right.  The right made an attempt to assert control but failed.  the SNP look like any party that has been in power too long.

    What will be interesting is after the next Holyrood election.  I can see a labour / tory anti SNP pact again and a labour / tory coalition.  Lib dems are not going to take significant numbers of seats and it looks likely no one party will come close to a majority.  Its likely that the arithmetic only works for a tory / labour coalition ( Assuming labour and lib dem continue their stance of refusing to talk to the SNP) which would finish labour in Scotland completely

    kimbers
    Full Member

    unelected Westminster millionaire writing a pompous letter to Scottish first minister telling him who hes allowed to talk to

    Is this the first break yousaf has had since he got the job?

    squirrelking
    Free Member

    Not seeing the problem myself.

    Yousef starts buggering about with reserved matters and gets wings clipped. Non story as far as I’m concerned.

    If it was the other way round the Nats would be losing their shit and rightly so, it’s only fair that the rules are applied equally. If there are established protocols that he’s ignoring then he deserves it.

Viewing 40 posts - 7,561 through 7,600 (of 7,713 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.