aaid

It was voluntary and legal based upon the constitution of Scotland that was in place before the Union. Legally that's the crucial point.

I think you would struggle tbf.- at the same time you have another group of people trying to assert the legitimacy of the Claim of Right as some sort of ancient legal get out of jail free. The Claim of Right which was a precursor to the Union. That the majority of the population of Scotland did not materially benefit from the Union is probably a good point, I'd suggest that equally applies to the majority of the population of the UK though. That is a class rather than a colonial issue.

If you were a lawyer then you would know that the specific UN resolution that you are referring to is to do with countries that have been colonised. The problem being that Scotland entered into a voluntary Union and was not colonised and it would be next to impossible to state a case otherwise.

Another “I’m not a lawyer” post.

The rest is irrelevant

Who would be the appropriate body to appeal to? I’ll save you the bother, the UKSC is the final body, there is no appeal.

I agree and in the UK, sports bodies have that ability due to the exemption in the equality act specifically for sports. It can be tricky for sports though as there’s an obvious contradiction there. On one hand sports are founded on the fundamental principles of equality and by their nature are inclusive - everyone can compete regardless of their race, creed or colour, and at grass roots level, their ability On the other hand they are inherently competitive and we know that specifically transwomen who have gone through male puberty have a competitive physical advantage. So - putting safety to one side in physical contact sports - do they promote inclusivity or do they promote fairness? In the context of the GRR bill though, anyone who advances an argument predicated on sports is selling snake oil, particularly as it’s open to sports bodies to ban transgender people from competing.

Yip, that’s about the size of it.

That you think that’s such a gotcha question only betrays your ignorance. In fact it’s not a Yes or No answer at all.

As I've already mentioned, it wasn't worthy of a response.

I will make this clear. The reasons why “men” are given access to “women-only” spaces is because the Equality Act 2010 states that transgender is a protected characteristic and so it would be illegal to discriminate against someone because of that. There are exceptions in the act which state that service providers may discriminate against people if it can be proved that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. However lots of service providers may choose to admit transgender women on their own discretion. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-discrimination#:~:text=The Equality Act 2010 says,process to reassign your sex. This article outlines what the Equalities Commission says about transgender rights under the Equalities Act. There’s a few thing that are important. The first one is that someone does not have to have a GR certificate, in fact they do not need to have started the process of obtaining one. They don’t need to have gone through any sort of medical or surgical procedures. In fact, all they have to do is give a declaration, self-id if you like. I’ll point this out again, having a GRC makes no difference. All the horrible things that people said would happened if Scotland passed the GRR bill are actually happening now, children are being raped, there was another case last week. Why would some predatory male need to go through the shortened process that the GRR bill would provide you with a GRC, when having a GRC makes no difference, all you have to do is pretend to live your life as a woman and the Equalities Act protects you* Thats why I said, if you’ve issues with men having access to women’s spaces then it’s the Equalities Act which you should take issue with, not the GRR bill. That’s why I said that very few people in Scotland understand what the GRR bill did and didn’t do. *the fact that there seem to be very few cases of men gaining access to women only spaces for nefarious reasons suggests that the real scale of any problem is relatively slight and where it does happen, it’s for genuine reasons.

If you don’t think that quoting a post and deliberately going through it and changing all the pronouns and nouns to be he, him, etc is not discriminatory and is worthy of a response then that’s your opinion, I think differently. TBH, I haven’t even read the “response” so that “I’ll show you” action didn’t really work.

You really are a sad old bigot.

What’s your plan then?

She’s from St Andrews so that’s arguable.

The thing with the IRA is that *all* their members were doing illegal things, they were a terrorist organisation, that’s what their whole existence was about, so the scope was so much wider. I must’ve missed the guns and bombs part of the SNP.

How did Nina Myskow do?

Nothing would surprise me, although the reason why the security services managed to be so successful with the IRA was that they were able to leverage people who’d been caught doing illegal acts for the IRA and turn them. That’s clearly not the case with the SNP. That said, again, nothing would surprise me but I wouldn’t restrict that the current day as the security services are known to play a long game. Who that would be exactly, or indeed if there’s anyone, I’ve no idea but it would be likely to be the person who you’d least expect. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some of the “critics” of the current SNP were agents provocateur though.

This is getting more and more off the wall and more detached from reality with every twist and turn. I suppose that’s to be expected, as every thread unravels they have to come up with more and more ludicrous stories to keep the grift going.

I’m pretty sure that you can’t be sued for defamation in respect of statements made in respect of giving evidence in court. It’s the same basis as the House of Commons to allow witnesses to speak freely. Still, I’m sure that his “legal experts” will have that covered.

When’s that happening exactly?

I think a big chunk of that is they’ve ramped up over recent years to upgrade the digital network, once that’s completed they’ll have no need for most of them.

Simon Johnstone and Lesley Riddoch, so I got that wrong.

The last person who tried that got a sine die ban. I don’t take that you’re genuinely suggesting that from your post. People can get up to whatever they want in their private lives as long as it’s consensual and legal (age, etc). There are a few caveats to that with respect to politicians though. Firstly if they are promoting publicly, an image and policies that are opposite to there own personal behaviour, so for example someone who promotes “family values” and then plays around - I don’t think applies to Salmond. The other is where someone behaves with a recklessness that would borders on the irresponsible and which would likely be a resignation matter if it were to become public - that I do certainly believe applied to Salmond and he should’ve been reigned in by those close to him. You seem to think that a verdict of not guilty means that what the accused said is by definition true and what those accusing him said is lies. That’s not the case, all you can infer is that the required level of proof was not met. As we know, two people can have very different recollections and experiences of any historic event and neither are lying, their viewpoints are just different. Salmond admitted as much when he gave evidence saying that some of the incidents had been blown up out of all proportions - that means they happened. I happen to think - in the main - that there is some truth in each of the accusations but that they didn’t meet the burden of proof. There is one witness some of whose evidence I think is problematic although I suspect there was an incident which may have been unwanted but she didn’t raise it at the time for her own reasons. I’m not suggesting she’s lying btw, just that her evidence was problematic.

Yes. In terms of newspapers, there’s only really the Mirror and Guardian that could be considered as being anti-Tory. The other papers are pretty much pro-Tory and only have a go at the government when it suits their particular faction. The BBC however is supposed to be notionally independent but there’s a clear difference in how the two incumbent governments are treated by the respective News and current affairs organisation. As an example, I’m sitting watching FMQs, Douglas Ross has been throwing accusations around about Jenny Gilruth, based on an article in today’s Daily Mail. He’s clearly been given the source information by the Mail. I’m prepared to be that one of the two lobby journalists they get on afterwards to sum up FMQs will be Michael Blackley from the Mail.