Westminster to use constitutional tool to block Holyrood gender recognition law.

[danny la rouge]

“Alister Jack is expected to trigger Section 35 of the Scotland Act to prevent the bill being made law - a constitutional first

The bill, passed by MSPs in Scotland before Christmas, is designed to make it easier for people to change their legally recognised gender

But ministers in Westminster say they are concerned it affects UK-wide equality laws”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-64294059

 

[dessiato]

Another way for Westminster to restrict democracy in Scotland

 

[Brainaddict]

Seems likely to advance Scottish independence, but Westminster seem confident that the law wasn't liked by most Scottish people so think they'll get away with it. Anyway, the idea that the Westminster government is doing it to protect anyone's rights is laughable. They couldn't give a shit about rights, as they repeatedly make clear. So I assume it's just deliberate stirring of culture war shit. Which may work for them, or may backfire.

 

[Sue]

Seems likely to advance Scottish independence, but Westminster seem confident that the law wasn't liked by most Scottish people so think they'll get away with it.

There's people not liking it* and there's people being fucked off with Westminster for interfering. These two groups are not mutually exclusive.


*Not sure how true/many folk this is, haven't been following it very closely.

 

[platinumsage]

It's hard to work out to what extent either party leadership cares about the actual legislation vs the electoral politics of the fisticuffs.

 

[8ball]

It's hard to work out to what extent either party leadership cares about the actual legislation vs the electoral politics of the fisticuffs.

Sums up my thoughts.

I have trans friends who moved to Scotland just last year because they didn't like how things seemed to be going in England both in terms of politics and attitudes.
Looks like a political football both sides of the border, though, for varying reasons.

 

[danny la rouge]

It's hard to work out to what extent either party leadership cares about the actual legislation vs the electoral politics of the fisticuffs.

I’m no advocate for Sturgeon, but her commitment to this bill seems sincere and to date back a while. Both the SNP and the Greens have lost members due to this legislation (at least some of the Alba party defection was over this, and it seems to be tied in, in often difficult to follow ways, with other issues in the minds of the discontents). The Greens lost an MSP over the issue.

So for the Scottish government this doesn’t seem to be a matter of expediency. They could have picked a less contentious issue if the whole point was to create a fight with Westminster. And of course the fact remains that a majority was elected to Holyrood with this as part of their platform, and that a majority of parliament did pass this bill. So it’s rather the Westminster interference that’s in question.

Are the SNP above using this to their advantage? Far from it, but the notion that they raised it only for that purpose is, I think, very wide of the mark. It is in these social issues that the SNP sees its “left” identity, rather than in economic issues, on which it remains neoliberal.

 

[Athos]

Will be interesting to read the detail of the SoS's Statement of Reasons, due to be published soon.

ETA: here it is (not read yet):

Statement of reasons related to the use of section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998

The policy rationale considered by the UK government leading to its decision to make an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 preventing the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent.

www.gov.uk

ETA: now read it. In summary, the claim is that the bill would have adverse effects in three ways:

1. As a result of differing regime across the UK. This is the idea that it would result in people having a different sex either side of the border, making cross-border stuff e.g. UK-wide clubs or enployers unworkable.

2. Because of the increased risk of fraudulent applications - primarily that this will deter women from using single- sex facilities.

3. Because of adverse effects on the operation of the Equality Act 2010. These can be further divided:

a. Exacerbating of existing issues including regarding single sex clubs, public sector equality duty, equal pay, and the use of single-sex exemptions.

b. New issues - essentially problems for single-sex schools.

Some are arguable; others seem misconceived. Will be interesting to see how it plays out in The Supreme Court if the SoS's decision is subject to a claim for Judicial Review.

ETA: 3a is quite telling- the idea that the current system is problematic in practice.

 

[maomao]

If they could get Scotland to leave the UK in the next two years they'd have a much better chance in the next GE.

 

[Sue]

If they could get Scotland to leave the UK in the next two years they'd have a much better chance in the next GE.

Who would?

 

[JimW]

The UK government seem to have framed it all as more in sorrow than anger and due to constitutional conflicts that might arise due to a status conferred in Scotland and how to treat that elsewhere etc which sound pretty spurious on the face of it, there must have been prior discrepancies that were accommodated.

 

[danny la rouge]

The UK government seem to have framed it all as more in sorrow than anger and due to constitutional conflicts that might arise due to a status conferred in Scotland and how to treat that elsewhere etc which sound pretty spurious on the face of it, there must have been prior discrepancies that were accommodated.

University tuition fees being one.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The UK government seem to have framed it all as more in sorrow than anger and due to constitutional conflicts that might arise due to a status conferred in Scotland and how to treat that elsewhere etc which sound pretty spurious on the face of it, there must have been prior discrepancies that were accommodated.

The UK's devolution is a constitutional mess, riddled with inconsistencies. But yes of course they are picking and choosing when to use this fact to their political advantage.

 

[maomao]

Who would?

The tories.

 

[andysays]

If they could get Scotland to leave the UK in the next two years they'd have a much better chance in the next GE.

Whether or not this is correct, I'm not sure how relevant it is to the thread topic.

I'm just left wondering if the constitutional tool mentioned in the thread title is danny la rouge's way of referring to the Scottish Secretary

 

[danny la rouge]

For the information of thread users. This is a statement by Scottish NGOs on Westminster’s intervention:

News | A statement from Scottish civil society organisations on the UK Government’s intervention on the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill

We, the undersigned, wish to make clear our strong opposition to this intervention and to any suggestion that these reforms would have an adverse effect on the Equality Act or women’s rights.

www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk

 

[maomao]

Whether or not this is correct, I'm not sure how relevant it is to the thread topic.

More relevant than your cheap innuendo.

 

[Raheem]

University tuition fees being one.

Also, the UK undoubtedly already allows gender recognition documents from countries that have different rules and procedures to it (e.g. The Netherlands).

 

[belboid]

Also, the UK undoubtedly already allows gender recognition documents from countries that have different rules and procedures to it (e.g. The Netherlands).

41 such countries, apparently.

• Australia
• Austria
• Belgium
• Bulgaria
• Canada – not including Northwest Territories and Nunavut
• Croatia
• Cyprus
• Czech Republic
• Denmark
• Estonia
• Finland
• France
• Germany
• Greece
• Iceland
• Italy
• Japan
• Liechtenstein
• Luxembourg
• Malta
• Mexico City, Mexico
• Moldova
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• Norway
• Poland
• Romania
• Russian Federation
• Serbia
• Singapore
• Slovakia
• Slovenia
• South Africa
• South Korea
• Spain
• Sweden
• Switzerland
• Turkey
• Ukraine
• United States of America – not including Idaho, Ohio, Tennessee and Texas
• Uruguay

 

[mojo pixy]

They must have known this 'culture wars' tory government would not accept this policy. This was done IMO specifically to provoke a constitutional crisis, and hey, it's working

 

[Athos]

They must have known this 'culture wars' tory government would not accept this policy. This was done IMO specifically to provoke a constitutional crisis, and hey, it's working

There's a big element of the SNP and Tories using this issue pursue their respective agendas - independence, and playing to the right-wing base.

 

[Sue]

There's a big element of the SNP and Tories using this issue pursue their respective agendas - independence, and playing to the right-wing base.

Seems a very messy/ill-advised way for the SNP to do so given how internally divisive its been.

 

[8ball]

There's a big element of the SNP and Tories using this issue pursue their respective agendas - independence, and playing to the right-wing base.

Seems like something that could easily bite the Tories on the arse.

 

[Joe Chi Min]

Another way for Westminster to restrict democracy in Scotland

Scotland could just declare their independence if they weren’t ran by bourgeoise career politicians

 

[Athos]

41 such countries, apparently.

• Australia
• Austria
• Belgium
• Bulgaria
• Canada – not including Northwest Territories and Nunavut
• Croatia
• Cyprus
• Czech Republic
• Denmark
• Estonia
• Finland
• France
• Germany
• Greece
• Iceland
• Italy
• Japan
• Liechtenstein
• Luxembourg
• Malta
• Mexico City, Mexico
• Moldova
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• Norway
• Poland
• Romania
• Russian Federation
• Serbia
• Singapore
• Slovakia
• Slovenia
• South Africa
• South Korea
• Spain
• Sweden
• Switzerland
• Turkey
• Ukraine
• United States of America – not including Idaho, Ohio, Tennessee and Texas
• Uruguay

The (purported) issue isn't inconsistency between the UK and other counties, but inconsistency within the UK - specifically regarding the operation of a UK-wide law on a reserved matter i.e. equal opportunities.

 

[Athos]

Seems a very messy/ill-advised way for the SNP to do so given how internally divisive its been.

Seems like something that could easily bite the Tories on the arse.

Maybe.

 

[Raheem]

The (purported) issue isn't inconsistency between the UK and other counties, but inconsistency within the UK - specifically regarding the operation of a UK-wide law on a reserved matter.

Aye, it's supposedly intolerable and unmanageable for people within the UK to have differing rights under equality law according to where they were living at the time they obtained their gender recognition. Except we've apparently been able to tolerate and manage that inconsistency with respect to people whose gender was recognised overseas, without the sky falling in.

 

[belboid]

The (purported) issue isn't inconsistency between the UK and other counties, but inconsistency within the UK - specifically regarding the operation of a UK-wide law on a reserved matter.

Except the objections the UK government raise apply equally to trans people coming from other countries. If women might be put off using single sex facilities because there are Scottish trans women there, they'll object if there are French trans women there. Its tosh.

 

[Athos]

Aye, it's supposedly intolerable and unmanageable for people within the UK to have differing rights under equality law according to where they were living at the time they obtained their gender recognition. Except we've apparently been able to tolerate and manage that inconsistency with respect to people whose gender was recognised overseas, without the sky falling in.

Not really, a foreign certificate Is recognised consistently across the UK. That's a bit different from a British citizen having a different sex in England than they do in Scotland.

 

[Athos]

Except the objections the UK government raise apply equally to trans people coming from other countries. If women might be put off using single sex facilities because there are Scottish trans women there, they'll object if there are French trans women there. Its tosh.

You're conflating two different objections (1 and 2a/3a in post #8). Not that either of them are that convincing/would've been insurmountable if the two parties hadn't wanted to engineer a confrontation.