8ball
Decolonise colons!
Agree there, though I'm prepared to defer to danny la rouge regarding it being sincere on Sturgeon's part.
Westminster to use constitutional tool to block Holyrood gender recognition law.
- Thread starter danny la rouge
- Start date
Agree there, though I'm prepared to defer to danny la rouge regarding it being sincere on Sturgeon's part.
They've already announced that they plan to revise the rules so that legal gender gained in a country with self-ID will not apply in the UK and anyone who comes from those countries will have to apply for a GRC to be recognised. So all they'll have to do is find a GP who will refer them to a GIC clinic (which many won't) then spend between 4-7 years on a waiting list depending on where they live before spending another 6 months to two years being interregated by psychologists about their sex lives and whether they wear make up or not after which they then may be granted the necessary diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria. Then they just submit bundles of paperwork in an attempt to prove they have been living in their aquired gender for 2 years before having every aspect of their administrative and medical history submitted to a panel who will never meet them and whose members remain anonymous who will decide whether they are sufficiently transgender or not to qualify. But the good news is it's only a fiver and you can submit all the documents online after the Tories streamlined the process last year.
Last edited:
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
I'm not, I think it's cynical as fuck. Sorry Danny
Raheem
Well-Known Member
That's not my understanding of how it would work under UK-wide law as it stands. Your Scotland-granted gender would be your legal gender throughout the UK, even if it wouldn't have been granted outside Scotland. People wouldn't find their legal status changing between Berwick and Eyemouth.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Not for much longer, says Badenoch right on cue:
“There are now some countries and territories on the list who have made changes to their systems since then and would not now be considered to have equivalently rigorous systems. It should not be possible for a person who would not satisfy the criteria to obtain UK legal gender recognition to use the overseas recognition route to obtain a UK Gender Recognition Certificate. This would damage the integrity and credibility of the process of the Gender Recognition Act.”
Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament regarding the Gender Recognition Act (2004) consultation
A WMS by the Minister for Women and Equalities, Kemi Badenoch MP
Athos
Well-Known Member
No, one of the UK government's is exactly that people will have a different sex either side of the border; it's in the statement I linked to at post #8:
"The Bill does not purport to require that a Scottish GRC issued under its terms would have any legal effect other than in Scots law; it could not, within legislative competence, have done so. It is highly problematic both in principle and practically for a citizen of the UK to have a different gender, and legal sex (including for the purposes of the 2010 Act), depending upon where they happen to be within the UK, and which system of law applies to them. It is practically and legally undesirable for all, including in particular the individual holder of the GRC, that a person will have one legal sex in Scotland and a different one in England, Wales and Northern Ireland."
Raheem
Well-Known Member
OK, but that's a post hoc attempt to sweep away an obvious problem with the UK government's stance. It doesn't change the fact that we've been operating for a number of years in a way that we are now being told isn't tenable.Not for much longer, says Badenoch right on cue:
“There are now some countries and territories on the list who have made changes to their systems since then and would not now be considered to have equivalently rigorous systems. It should not be possible for a person who would not satisfy the criteria to obtain UK legal gender recognition to use the overseas recognition route to obtain a UK Gender Recognition Certificate. This would damage the integrity and credibility of the process of the Gender Recognition Act.”
Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament regarding the Gender Recognition Act (2004) consultation
A WMS by the Minister for Women and Equalities, Kemi Badenoch MPwww.gov.uk
Raheem
Well-Known Member
Or so says the Secretary of State.
Athos
Well-Known Member
In fairness, he right on that point. The Scottish Parliament can't pass a law that applies in England.
Labour MSP Monica Lennon has said she is “very disappointed” at Starmer’s comments and claimed he was “undermining” Scottish Labour.
She told The Daily Record: “I was very disappointed with Keir Starmer’s comments at the weekend on the GRR legislation, which was passed overwhelmingly by the Scottish Parliament and which improves the lives of trans people.
“The bill was also supported by the Labour group of MSPs, who supported lowering the age threshold from 18 to 16.
“His comments have undermined Scottish Labour and are unhelpful in terms of the wider debate on equalities.
“Keir needs to be better briefed before he talks about issues debated extensively by the Scottish Parliament.”
Scottish Labour MSP Paul Sweeney condemned the UK’s intervention as a “cynical attack on devolution”
He said on Twitter: “If the UK Government thought there was a legal basis to challenge the Gender Recognition Bill, they would have done so in the Supreme Court.'
Scottish Labour embroiled in civil war over blocking of gender reform bill
DIVISIONS amongst the Labour Party are beginning to show after the UK Government decided to issue a Section 35 order and block gender reform…
Elpenor
Dancing as fast as I can
Thanks.
Scottish Labour embroiled in civil war over blocking of gender reform bill
DIVISIONS amongst the Labour Party are beginning to show after the UK Government decided to issue a Section 35 order and block gender reform…www.thenational.scot
I guess that Westminster Labour and Holyrood Labour are kind of two separate entities?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Scottish Labour with the SNP. Westminster Labour with the Tories.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
No, but it doesn't need to. The 2004 UK legislation allows someone's legal gender to be determined by their possession of a GRC. So, a GRC issued in Scotland today determines someone's gender throughout the UK, and nothing will change that principle unless there is new legislation from Westminster.
What the Scottish Act does is change the procedure for obtaining a certificate in Scotland, which the Scottish government is legally able to do (no-one seems to dispute this).
Scottish Labour's more a...branch office...
Johann Lamont resignation: Scottish Labour leader stands down immediately
Scottish Labour Party leader Johann Lamont resigns with immediate effect after accusing the UK party of treating Scotland like a "branch office".
www.bbc.co.uk
I'm not, I think it's cynical as fuck. Sorry Danny
Nah Danny's right on this. This was first a manifesto commitment in 2016 and the first consultation was held at the end of 2017. At the time Self ID was also Tory policy and remained that way until May left office in 2019 at which point Boris dithered for a while before they eventually decided to drop it. The second consultation scrutinising the proposals in more details was held in 2020 and the bill was supposed to go through straight after but was held up by COVID. Both consultations saw strong support for the proposals, which were also supported by Labour, the Greens and Lib Dems - and in fact the Greens demanded its implementation as part of the power sharing agreement in 2021.
I think she's personally commmitted to it, perhaps more so after the abuse she's received and many of her detractors falling in with self confessed sex pest Alex Salmond. But it would have been pretty outrageous if the SNP had dropped it after years of supporting it, two consultations which were supportive and all other parties bar the Tories backing it as well.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Erm... that's exactly what the Westminster government DOES dispute. Equal opportunities is an area specifically reserved by the Scotland Act 1998. The objection is based (amongst other things) on the fact that a different regime in Scotland would have an adverse effect on the UK-wide Equality Act 2010.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
No, I don't think the UK government has suggested the Scottish one has done anything illegal or beyond its powers, just that they don't like it (ostensibly because it has deleterious effects on equalities legislation).
Raheem
Well-Known Member
Reading Jack's statement of reasons from today, he seems to base everything on a given that the Scottish Act will automatically have the effect of invalidating Scottish GRCs in England, although he doesn't say it explicitly. This seems to me such a weird reading of the law that he can't possibly hope to sustain it.
I wonder if they hope to make the court case moot by passing legislation in the meantime.
I wonder if they hope to make the court case moot by passing legislation in the meantime.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Yes, sorry, sloppy language on my part. I think it's accepted that gender recognition is devolved, but this bill is blocked because of the (claimed) adverse effect the bill would have on a reserved matter i.e. equal opportunies, through interaction with the Equality Act 2010.
Athos
Well-Known Member
He's been a bit sneaky by basing some of the objections on the idea of what'd happen if they aren't valid (in England), and some on what's happen if they are!
Athos
Well-Known Member
Yeah, pretty much. But on the face of it allowed by s.35. Will be an interesting case in the Supreme Court. Hard to predict which way it'll go.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Yup. I can see how, if people haven’t been following Scottish parliamentary politics for the last 8 years they might think this is about provoking Westminster. But it’s a reading based on limited information.
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
westminster labour appear to have gone for the principled, forensic abstention (with 11 exceptions voting against)
Athos
Well-Known Member
I think this case will throw some light on how limited "Scottish democracy" is. Whether or not that is part of the reason it's got to this point is a matter of debate.
Athos
Well-Known Member
No surprise there.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
That's what I thought at first. But I can't find anywhere that he deviates from an assumption that either Scottish GRCs will be invalid in E&W or that they will be valid only if they would have been issued in E&W (it's not clear which it is). I don't think there's any basis for thinking either is correct (and there's nothing in place for knowing in the latter case). It's as if he wants to make the court case as embarrassing for himself as he possibly can.
Even if they were made invalid in E&W, it wouldn't matter much for practical purposes, because a Scottish person would just use the GRC to get a new birth certificate and passport, after which they don't need the GRC for day-to-day purposes.
Similar threads
