Indyref 2 (2)

[Malcolm]

9 hours ago, EddardStark said:

I think the Gender Recognition issue is just about the worst battleground for the Scottish Govt to take on the U.K. Govt in terms of the constitutional issue. There is significant opposition in Scotland. 

 

it was a strategic error from a political perspective.  It would have been a different story if they had blocked legislation that was actually popular with the public.  It’s not scientific by any means but the number of people that are saying on twitter “I’m pro Indy but glad this was blocked”.

This has been driven and championed by the greens - it might be the undoing of the snp.

 

 

[Malcolm]

maggie chapman wants children as young as six or seven to be supported through gender transition.  If that’s not a lunatic fringe view I don’t know what is.  
 

being associated with this and the now national (by that I mean Uk) publicity this is getting has massively backfired for the snp.

[scotlad]

9 hours ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Is it not because it impacts the UK equality act, rather than them just not liking the bill?

Maybe it’s just politics at play, let’s be honest the torries don’t give a fuck about women etc. 

But depending on who you listen to, it was a badly written bill. 

That's the official explanation but if so I'd like to know which bits of the equalities act it impinges on. It's also funny that they've only started making noises about it lat in the day which tells me they're almost certainly playing politics.

I'd rather this issue wasn't the one they'd "gone to war" over but I want a parliament where we can make our own mistakes and correct them ourselves if needs be, not be "saved" from ourselves by the nanny stepping in and taking our toys away. 

[hampden_loon2878]

10 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

Fuck me, there was life before oil. There will be life after it. Also 120k jobs are not going to go overnight. A movement across to renewables has already started and will continue and oil will be around for a while yet, just maybe not as big as it was.

Also if scots want well paid oil jobs over indy then thats the choice they make. Other countries had to fight and die for independence. If scotland wants to remain british over oil money then its obviously not that bothered about independence and you trying to blame the snp isnt going to make any difference.

Your continually making excuses for the scottish ppl in order to blame/scapegoat the ppl who have tried their best to get us out of the union. Its weak and pathetic. 

If scotland doesnt want independence then you and i need to take responsibility instead of pinning blame on ppl like sturgeon, swinney etc.

The buck stops with us.

thats why we will not achieve independence, the lack of engagement in folk that are maybe on the fence, the platform i work on has yes stickers all over the place, the majority are indy leaning however give them a choice between no job or independence yes dramatic i know then they will choose independence.. out with the health and wellbeing of my family, there is nothing on this earth  i would want more, i am not being dramatic in saying if my family were to be looked after i would give up everything for independence.. through all this back and fourth debate you are missing the point i am trying to put acroos, possible due to my bad english skills.. try looking at it from a different angle. would sturgeon not gain more votes(or lose less) by coming out and saying looks we want to move away from fossil fuels, the industry is in its twilight and production is reducing naturally in the meantime we will invest in green energy(as is happening)  invest in carbon capture until such time our homes dont require gas central heat and our dependency on oil/gas imports fall to negative. tell me how that angle wouldn't work, i opposes the centre green voters and keeps us energy secure.. the policies the SG are fucking insane from an independence point of view,, folk need to waken up!!

[aaid]

4 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

Mob rule? Not sure the majority ofvyhe electorate being against something is mob rule? If MSPs weren't whipped I highly doubt this would have gone through. I know this isn't unusual but on a an issue as serious as this, having MSPs whipped to vote with the party doesn't seem right. Can hardly take the moral highground on what's democratic when you've ejected MSPs too scared to vote  with their own convictions.

What action has been taken against those MSPs that broke the whip?  Nothing, nada, no-one has been disciplined, by any party.   Ash Regan had to resign from the government because of collect responsibility and I think there was probably one Labour front bench spokesperson who did the same. 

Where is your evidence that the vote wouldn’t have passed?

[aaid]

For someone who generally has plenty to say on this subject, Joanna Cherry has been very quiet for the last 24 hours.

[PapofGlencoe]

16 minutes ago, aaid said:

What action has been taken against those MSPs that broke the whip?  Nothing, nada, no-one has been disciplined, by any party.   Ash Regan had to resign from the government because of collect responsibility and I think there was probably one Labour front bench spokesperson who did the same. 

Where is your evidence that the vote wouldn’t have passed?

i doubt the squirrel has any.  but there's no evidence that it would have passed either. we'll never know.  what we know is that it was whipped and that it is unpopular with the public on a basis of 2/3 to 1.  very unlike capital punishment which is below 50% support.

I do agree on the lead point.  Based on polling, it is fair to say that many have changed our minds on gay marriage for example.

But I don't think these issues are analogous.  

[Redz]

Regardless of what people believe / think, what happens the next time WM don't agree with / like legislation that's devolved and been passed through the Scottish Parliament ?

[aaid]

1 hour ago, PapofGlencoe said:

i doubt the squirrel has any.  but there's no evidence that it would have passed either. we'll never know.  what we know is that it was whipped and that it is unpopular with the public on a basis of 2/3 to 1.  very unlike capital punishment which is below 50% support.

I do agree on the lead point.  Based on polling, it is fair to say that many have changed our minds on gay marriage for example.

But I don't think these issues are analogous.  

This is the point though, we don’t elect politicians to *only* do the popular things, we also elect them to do the difficult and possibly unpopular things and to make sense of complex problems.   On one hand it is a very simple bill, it does nothing other than to make it easier for trans people to get a GRC and to change their sex on their birth certificate.  That should hardly be controversial unless you are a bigot - not all people who oppose this bill are bigots btw, but all bigots oppose it.

The issues perceived and real are all in the Equality Act and how that is operated, particularly in the intersection between rights of women and rights of transwomen.   It took me a long time to understand this.

Those tensions have been there - unresolved - since 2010 and probably before then.   This is why you see all the scare stories about men in women’s prisons and men getting into women’s changing rooms, that is all happening now.

Unfortunately, the public debate has been completely hijacked and so what the vast bulk of the public hear are all the pish arguments such as those the likes of Malcolm are promulgating on here.

The argument seems to be “ah, but there will be more of ‘them’”, which I’m not sure is really valid.  There may well be more trans people with GRCs but is that a reason for blocking the bill.  Those who oppose the bill often use the “one is enough” argument to justify their opposition, but men are already doing the things they think the GRR bill will cause.

Your point on same-sex marriage is very to the point, that wasn’t universally popular at the time and I recall a lot of similar arguments being made, god forbid that had happened at a time when social media was prevalent.  Nowadays, the vas majority would not only support it but would be outraged at someone who suggested that it should be overturned.   You say that you don’t think that the two are analogous, I’d disagree with that, with same sex marriage, it only impacts a small number of people, those it doesn’t impact should have no right to dictate someone’s right to marry the person they love.

This challenge may well succeed but if it does, it will be because the Equality Act is at fault, not the GRR bill.

[Och Aye]

7 minutes ago, Redz said:

Regardless of what people believe / think, what happens the next time WM don't agree with / like legislation that's devolved and been passed through the Scottish Parliament ?

Can't see it happening often. They've jumped all over this issue as they've been advised it could cause division and it's worked a treat. It's the only reason they are doing it. Even Sir Keir is on it despite Labour MSP's being for it.

[aaid]

18 minutes ago, Redz said:

Regardless of what people believe / think, what happens the next time WM don't agree with / like legislation that's devolved and been passed through the Scottish Parliament ?

Nail, head, hit on.

Now about that sending off on Sunday 😉

[ParisInAKilt]

2 hours ago, scotlad said:

That's the official explanation but if so I'd like to know which bits of the equalities act it impinges on. It's also funny that they've only started making noises about it lat in the day which tells me they're almost certainly playing politics.

I'd rather this issue wasn't the one they'd "gone to war" over but I want a parliament where we can make our own mistakes and correct them ourselves if needs be, not be "saved" from ourselves by the nanny stepping in and taking our toys away. 

Changing sex?

[ParisInAKilt]

52 minutes ago, Redz said:

Regardless of what people believe / think, what happens the next time WM don't agree with / like legislation that's devolved and been passed through the Scottish Parliament ?

Write better legislation 

[Orraloon]

Leaving aside any actual gender issues here and just looking at the constitutional angle. I'm wondering if the best outcome for the Independence movement would be for the Court of Session to rule in favour of the SG only for it then to be knocked back by the Supreme Court in London. That would highlight a real constitutional issue. I'm not sure if that's how it would work though? Maybe the Court of Session would just bottle it and pass the whole thing onto the Supreme Court without making a decision?

[Malcolm]

55 minutes ago, aaid said:

This is the point though, we don’t elect politicians to *only* do the popular things, we also elect them to do the difficult and possibly unpopular things and to make sense of complex problems.   On one hand it is a very simple bill, it does nothing other than to make it easier for trans people to get a GRC and to change their sex on their birth certificate.  That should hardly be controversial unless you are a bigot - not all people who oppose this bill are bigots btw, but all bigots oppose it.

The issues perceived and real are all in the Equality Act and how that is operated, particularly in the intersection between rights of women and rights of transwomen.   It took me a long time to understand this.

Those tensions have been there - unresolved - since 2010 and probably before then.   This is why you see all the scare stories about men in women’s prisons and men getting into women’s changing rooms, that is all happening now.

Unfortunately, the public debate has been completely hijacked and so what the vast bulk of the public hear are all the pish arguments such as those the likes of Malcolm are promulgating on here.

The argument seems to be “ah, but there will be more of ‘them’”, which I’m not sure is really valid.  There may well be more trans people with GRCs but is that a reason for blocking the bill.  Those who oppose the bill often use the “one is enough” argument to justify their opposition, but men are already doing the things they think the GRR bill will cause.

Your point on same-sex marriage is very to the point, that wasn’t universally popular at the time and I recall a lot of similar arguments being made, god forbid that had happened at a time when social media was prevalent.  Nowadays, the vas majority would not only support it but would be outraged at someone who suggested that it should be overturned.   You say that you don’t think that the two are analogous, I’d disagree with that, with same sex marriage, it only impacts a small number of people, those it doesn’t impact should have no right to dictate someone’s right to marry the person they love.

This challenge may well succeed but if it does, it will be because the Equality Act is at fault, not the GRR bill.

The equality act (or more specifically the parts that allow men in to womens spaces) should be reversed.  As, I have said, people should be allowed to live their lives as they want, but science is science - biological men are men, no matter how much an individual wishes it not so.  Birth certificates should reflect reality. I would have no issue with some separate document for an individual stating they wanted to be considered a woman but the facts are if they were born a man, they are still a biological man.  I don’t believe that to be a bigoted view in the slightest.

 

 

 

[Malcolm]

12 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Leaving aside any actual gender issues here and just looking at the constitutional angle. I'm wondering if the best outcome for the Independence movement would be for the Court of Session to rule in favour of the SG only for it then to be knocked back by the Supreme Court in London. That would highlight a real constitutional issue. I'm not sure if that's how it would work though? Maybe the Court of Session would just bottle it and pass the whole thing onto the Supreme Court without making a decision?

Inevitably this is becoming a Scotland v Uk argument which I think is not helpful for an issue like this.  I don’t think it will help the independence movement as the Scottish public are so heavily against this legislation - the snp picked the wrong battle here.

If independence really matters more than anything to the snp they would have been better off trying to attract moderate voters in the centre ground - this has done the opposite.

[PapofGlencoe]

19 minutes ago, aaid said:

This is the point though, we don’t elect politicians to *only* do the popular things, we also elect them to do the difficult and possibly unpopular things and to make sense of complex problems.   On one hand it is a very simple bill, it does nothing other than to make it easier for trans people to get a GRC and to change their sex on their birth certificate.  That should hardly be controversial unless you are a bigot - not all people who oppose this bill are bigots btw, but all bigots oppose it.

The issues perceived and real are all in the Equality Act and how that is operated, particularly in the intersection between rights of women and rights of transwomen.   It took me a long time to understand this.

Those tensions have been there - unresolved - since 2010 and probably before then.   This is why you see all the scare stories about men in women’s prisons and men getting into women’s changing rooms, that is all happening now.

Unfortunately, the public debate has been completely hijacked and so what the vast bulk of the public hear are all the pish arguments such as those the likes of Malcolm are promulgating on here.

The argument seems to be “ah, but there will be more of ‘them’”, which I’m not surte is really valid.  There may well be more trans people with GRCs but is that a reason for blocking the bill.  Those who oppose the bill often use the “one is enough” argument to justify their opposition, but men are already doing the things they think the GRR bill will cause.

Your point on same-sex marriage is very to the point, that wasn’t universally popular at the time and I recall a lot of similar arguments being made, god forbid that had happened at a time when social media was prevalent.  Nowadays, the vas majority would not only support it but would be outraged at someone who suggested that it should be overturned.   You say that you don’t think that the two are analogous, I’d disagree with that, with same sex marriage, it only impacts a small number of people, those it doesn’t impact should have no right to dictate someone’s right to marry the person they love.

This challenge may well succeed but if it does, it will be because the Equality Act is at fault, not the GRR bill.

I can't say i've looked into this in the same way others have but when it was a topic before Christmas I had concerns about consequences in Sport.  This law seemed to make it difficult to keep sexually segregated sport which impacts other people in real ways (unlike gay marriage).  I don't see how that doesn't affect others.  

For me, I haven't heard any proponent of this bill say categorically transmen will not compete against women/girls in sport and the law backs organisations (say domestic amateur girls football leagues or boxing leagues) prevent it (if they choose, they can equally allow it but have the right in law to prohibit).  From what I read it would be illegal to ask someone if they have a certificate so how can it be possible to segregate?  Is it the Equality act that says you can't legally ask someone if they have a GRC?  Genuine question.  is this the interaction with the Equality act that causes an issue?  Which Act says that a person is legally the sex they have chosen?  Is that the Equality Act or the Scottish one?  does it say they are a trans person or does it say they are literally a women?  I genuinely don't know.  It's all very well saying, they can discriminate in one act but if there's no meaningful way of doing it because of another act; then it's not enforceable. 

I might be totally wrong.  i'm no versed enough on it but it doesn't seem thought through.  I don't think a mum should feel anxiety about wondering why a big laddie is playing in their daughters football/ski/rugby/handball/basketball team.  Or that the local club needs a legal team if and when it happens.   

I don't like the political football that people are being made of here.  Like the gay marriage bill in Ireland, i can't believe that was put to a public vote.  A disgrace.  However, i really don't see the analogy.  Gay people exist.  But you literally cannot change sex.   Yet we've put it into law.  People should live as they want but if they affect others then they need to compromise.  God knows, what a stooshie.  A lot of energy expended on this while serious issues go unattended.  

 

[Squirrelhumper]

3 hours ago, aaid said:

What action has been taken against those MSPs that broke the whip?  Nothing, nada, no-one has been disciplined, by any party.   Ash Regan had to resign from the government because of collect responsibility and I think there was probably one Labour front bench spokesperson who did the same. 

Where is your evidence that the vote wouldn’t have passed?

I don't have evidence but why the Nedd to whip if it would pass anyway?

[aaid]

55 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Write better legislation 

With respect, that’s lazy bullshit.  The reason why Holyrood legislation is routinely challenged is because the Scotland Act allows it.   Westminster legislation is not subject to the same level of scrutiny, no-one can veto it, because WM is sovereign.  The operation of laws can be subject to judicial review but only after it has taken effect and only when it has had an impact.

If you think that this law has been badly drafted, please give examples.

[aaid]

Here’s Tory MP and Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee , Caroline Noakes, giving her opinion on the impact on the Equalites Bill.
 

 

[aaid]

28 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

I can't say i've looked into this in the same way others have but when it was a topic before Christmas I had concerns about consequences in Sport.  This law seemed to make it difficult to keep sexually segregated sport which impacts other people in real ways (unlike gay marriage).  I don't see how that doesn't affect others.  

For me, I haven't heard any proponent of this bill say categorically transmen will not compete against women/girls in sport and the law backs organisations (say domestic amateur girls football leagues or boxing leagues) prevent it (if they choose, they can equally allow it but have the right in law to prohibit).  From what I read it would be illegal to ask someone if they have a certificate so how can it be possible to segregate?  Is it the Equality act that says you can't legally ask someone if they have a GRC?  Genuine question.  is this the interaction with the Equality act that causes an issue?  Which Act says that a person is legally the sex they have chosen?  Is that the Equality Act or the Scottish one?  does it say they are a trans person or does it say they are literally a women?  I genuinely don't know.  It's all very well saying, they can discriminate in one act but if there's no meaningful way of doing it because of another act; then it's not enforceable. 

I might be totally wrong.  i'm no versed enough on it but it doesn't seem thought through.  I don't think a mum should feel anxiety about wondering why a big laddie is playing in their daughters football/ski/rugby/handball/basketball team.  Or that the local club needs a legal team if and when it happens.   

I don't like the political football that people are being made of here.  Like the gay marriage bill in Ireland, i can't believe that was put to a public vote.  A disgrace.  However, i really don't see the analogy.  Gay people exist.  But you literally cannot change sex.   Yet we've put it into law.  People should live as they want but if they affect others then they need to compromise.  God knows, what a stooshie.  A lot of energy expended on this while serious issues go unattended.  

 

Sorry, but this has absolutely nothing to do with Sport.

[PapofGlencoe]

11 minutes ago, aaid said:

Sorry, but this has absolutely nothing to do with Sport.

Okay given you've not attempted to answer my query forgive me if I don't just take your word for it.

[aaid]

14 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

Okay given you've not attempted to answer my query forgive me if I don't just take your word for it.

I have concerns as regards sport.  I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that someone who has gone through male puberty is - generally speaking - faster, stronger and bigger, and in sports that will at best have advantages and at worst be a danger to other competitors.

This is though for sports authorities to work out how they deal with it and that is something that has to be done internationally and by each individual sport. It is not something that an individual government can solve.

FWIW, my view is that ultimately what will have to happen is that there becomes a new category which will involve trans athletes, in the same way as the Paralympics have done so successfully.

But as I say, these issues exist today, the GRR bill changes nothing.  

Edited January 17, 2023 by aaid

[PapofGlencoe]

19 minutes ago, aaid said:

I have concerns as regards sport.  I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that someone who has gone through male puberty is - generally speaking - faster, stronger and bigger, and in sports that will at best have advantages and at worst be a danger to other competitors.

This is though for sports authorities to work out how they deal with it and that is something that has to be done internationally and by each individual sport. It is not something that an individual government can solve.

FWIW, my view is that ultimately what will have to happen is that there becomes a new category which will involve trans athletes, in the same way as the Paralympics have done so successfully.

But as I say, these issues exist today, the GRR bill changes nothing.  

Yes i agree with most of this but it's not a full answer.

most sport is not international, it's not even particularly about medals.  most sport is down your local club.  to enjoy as a normal part of everyday life.  which was why my query was about local, amateur sport.  although i don't think the international angle solves it anyway.

if a bill says they are actual women, then can these bodies discriminate or not?  Does the Equality Act allow for sex segregated spaces?  it seems it does.  but does the Scottish bill change a trans person into a literal women in the law (has that not been established as part of the consultations on this law...i.e. a change)?  It's a fairly simple question.  if it does, then does it restrict the ability to discriminate?  which law says they're literally a women and which law states you cannot ask if someones has a GRC?  unless im missing something there are issues here.  Even if it was all based on international sporting bodies, FIFA law does not trump national law surely.  In fact if an international sporting body decided they should discriminate, does the Scottish law and Equality Act allow them to do this in Scotland?

if none of this means a translad can make a legal case against a local girls boxing club then fair doos.  I've just not seen anyone state this as a certainty.  surely this should be beyond doubt.      

 

Edited January 17, 2023 by PapofGlencoe

[scotlad]

1 hour ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Write better legislation 

They've spent years working on it and involved lawyers to check it didn't contravene the Equalities Act.  It was then debated at length in HR and eventually passed with a comfortable majority.  MSPs from all parties voted in favour of it, even a couple of Tory "rebels".  

51 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

I don't have evidence but why the Nedd to whip if it would pass anyway?

Is that not just normal parliamentary procedure?