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.

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

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).

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?

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

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.

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”.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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!

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

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)

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!

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/

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.

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’…

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.

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

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.

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”

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.

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

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?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman on @LBC just now said that for the UK Government "even to threaten to act is entirely inappropriate" and they would be "playing roughshod with devolution". #GRRBill

— Lisa Mackenzie (@lnmackenzie1) January 16, 2023