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

[Athos]

Yeah, well, after 5 years of this shit I'm not quite as ready to jump in to discussions like this any more. But I am watching.

Cool. Hopefully you'll see that the vast majority of people are much more even-tempered and sensitive when discussing these issues that they were in some of the older threads.

 

[danny la rouge]

Ever feel like you're standing, ignored, on the sidelines while everyone else discusses your rights? I do.

I look forward to your input if you feel like chipping in.

I get your point though that this feels like people talking past the actual point. I think that’s right: this is news because of the constitutional conflict. And I think that the notion that this is Sturgeon’s purpose in bringing this legislation is very wide of the mark. I think that’s a very Anglocentric way of viewing Scottish politics.

 

[Athos]

You’re right that devolution isn’t independence. However, the thing about the devolution act is the way it deals with the discussion about what is reserved and what is devolved. And that is that it specifies the reserved powers and then says anything else is assumed to be devolved. In a way it should be called the reserved powers act. It’s not really a surprise that a legislature told its competence is everything else will want to get involved in those matters.

As to the culture wars and the SNP and Tories playing to their respective bases, it should be remembered that the Prime Minister when Sturgeon began talking about this was Cameron, who was a very different beast on these individual social matters, being the PM who introduced equal marriage law in England.

Yes, I don't blame them for wanting to push the envelope, nor the UK government for resisting that. There's always gonna be that. Previously, though, they've chosen to work through it. I think it'll be Scottish trans people who lose out if both parties make this a constitutional stand-off.

Yes Cameron and May were both closer to Sturgeon on these issues than Boris, Truss, or Sunak.

 

[danny la rouge]

I think it'll be Scottish trans people who lose out if both parties make this a constitutional stand-off.

I agree on who will lose out. Where I disagree is upon whom it is that has made this a constitutional standoff. I honestly don’t think Sturgeon planned to use this as the pivot issue for an independence campaign.

I think this video is instructive:

 

[Athos]

I agree on who will lose out. Where I disagree is upon whom it is that has made this a constitutional standoff. I honestly don’t think Sturgeon planned to use this as the pivot issue for an independence campaign.

I think this video is instructive:

For the record, I'm not saying it's just her side; I'm saying it's the Tories too. But maybe you're right; maybe she's motivated entirely by concern for trans rights, without any thought to the wider independence issue. For now, I remain sceptical, but I suppose we'll never know for sure. Either way, the two important issues - trans rights and the scope of devolved powers - need to be resolved.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, I don't blame them for wanting to push the envelope, nor the UK government for resisting that. There's always gonna be that. Previously, though, they've chosen to work through it. I think it'll be Scottish trans people who lose out if both parties make this a constitutional stand-off.

Yes Cameron and May were both closer to Sturgeon on these issues than Boris, Truss, or Sunak.

I wouldn't overplay the ideological commitment of the various actors, though. May famously changed her mind wrt equality laws and made a big public play of having done so as part of Cameron's 'modernising' of the Tories. (And Cameron himself had previously voted against equalising the age of consent.) Johnson was purposely rowing back Cameronism (at least rhetorically) but again for political reasons. Sunak? Who knows what he really thinks on such issues?

I agree with Danny that of all of them, Sturgeon seems to be the one with the greatest commitment to the principle, but again, it also forms a part of the SNP's public image as 'progressive', which is at least partly performative, as is much of the Tories' anti-woke posturing.

I suspect that this will bite the Tories more than the SNP, though. I don't think their anti-woke narrative is quite the vote-winner that they think it is.

 

[danny la rouge]

For the record, I'm not saying it's just her side; I'm saying it's the Tories too. But maybe you're right; maybe she's motivated entirely by concern for trans rights, without any thought to the wider independence issue. For now, I remain sceptical, but I suppose we'll never know for sure. Either way, the two important issues - trans rights and the scope of devolved powers - need to be resolved.

I don’t wish to be misunderstood: Sturgeon will use this conflict now that it has arisen. And she is obviously going to create conflicts in order to use them in her quest for independence. However not everything the SNP government does is done with that motivation, and I really don’t think this was something they’d have chosen to use as a pivot point. First, at the beginning of its journey there wasn’t the culture war happening between the administrations, secondly it isn’t an issue she can be certain of bringing people to the independence cause over, thirdly it has been a contentious issue in Scottish political discourse these past several years, resulting in defections from both the SNP and the Greens, and fourthly the SNP leadership does see itself as a socially progressive reforming force in society.

This is all said as someone critical of the SNP’s record in government and critical of its constitutional strategy.

 

[danny la rouge]

Sturgeon seems to be the one with the greatest commitment to the principle, but again, it also forms a part of the SNP's public image as 'progressive', which is at least partly performative, as is much of the Tories' anti-woke posturing.

Indeed.

 

[Sue]

Nonetheless, from this London backstreet it looks like the Sturgeon government trolling, knowing full well that this proposed law will be rejected and that they will be able to present that as overbearing centralisation during their independence campaigning.

It's not all about Westminster.

 

[Sue]

And I think that the notion that this is Sturgeon’s purpose in bringing this legislation is very wide of the mark. I think that’s a very Anglocentric way of viewing Scottish politics.

This in spades.

 

[Athos]

I don’t wish to be misunderstood: Sturgeon will use this conflict now that it has arisen.

Then I don't think we're that far apart at all. I think that's what's she's doing despite there being options to deescalate. I'm not saying she never had a care about trans rights, and set out six years ago to pick a constitutional battle on this issue.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't think Sturgeon, or anyone, could have known six years ago that this would be such a contentious issue. The Tories at one time backed similar legislation after all. Six years ago, I think it would have looked like something that was going to happen in both Scotland and the rest of the UK.

 

[danny la rouge]

I don't think Sturgeon, or anyone, could have known six years ago that this would be such a contentious issue. The Tories at one time backed similar legislation after all. Six years ago, I think it would have looked like something that was going to happen in both Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Indeed, as the Stonewall statement correctly says:

“Scotland’s Bill aligns it with leading international practice endorsed by the United Nations and adopted by 30 countries, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and most of the United States of America.”

I’m not sure what deescalation the Scottish government can or should be doing in the face of Westminster trying to block the implementation of a law already debated and passed by the Scottish Parliament. A law that brings Scotland in line with the countries mentioned by Stonewall (and belboid further up the thread).

It was only recently that Johnson’s government u-turned on similar legislation.

 

[danny la rouge]

And for the record, I support this legislation and I oppose conversion therapy. And I oppose Jack’s attempt to overturn this.

 

[smokedout]

I do get that there's history to this, and political and emotional attachment too. It's also clear and 100% foreseeable that this particular 'culture wars' tory govt would (indeed could) not accept it. fwiw a labour govt made of the current crop would almost certainly have raised the same objection, but it being tories is a fortunate conjunction for obvious historical reasons.

So are you suggesting that the SNP should have dropped a six year long manifesto commitment and blown up the power sharing agreement with the Greens simply because the Tories chose a new leader who might not like it? How could the Scottish Parliament function if they only proposed bills that Westminster approved of, and not just that but they would have to pre-empt the possibility that the Westminster Government might change their mind in the future - because Self ID was Tory policy when this was first proposed in the SNP manifesto and stayed that way throughout two public consulations. It's also currently Labour policy incidentally not that you'd know it from their craven response.

Right up until the passage of this bill there had been not even a murmour of Section 35. It was passed after extensive public consultation by a large majority with the support of MSPs from all parties including the Scottish Tories. It was specifically drafted so as to not affect the Equality Act or any other area of UK law with amendments added to ensure that. If anyone's trolling in this situation it's not the SNP.

 

[smokedout]

Perhaps worth noting that since Ireland passed a similar law in 2016 only around 1000 people have applied for an Irish GRC (about one in five thousand). There have been no problems in the UK because of this despite considerable movement of people between the two countries. Many US states and Canadian provinces also operate self ID as well as the countries listed upthread. This has not resulted in one recorded problematic incident on UK soil. In fact it will be hard to see how the Home Office can refuse to honour the legal sex of those from overseas as all of their ID will be in their aquired gender. Are customs supposed to start demanding medical histories from anyone whose sex appears to be a bit ambiguous before they are allowed to cross the border? It remains to be seen what the courts make of this as it's completely new ground, but the Westminster position looks pretty thin to me.

 

[belboid]

Perhaps worth noting that since Ireland passed a similar law in 2016 only around 1000 people have applied for an Irish GRC (about one in five thousand). There have been no problems in the UK because of this despite considerable movement of people between the two countries. Many US states and Canadian provinces also operate self ID as well as the countries listed upthread. This has not resulted in one recorded problematic incident on UK soil. In fact it will be hard to see how the Home Office can refuse to honour the legal sex of those from overseas as all of their ID will be in their aquired gender. Are customs supposed to start demanding medical histories from anyone whose sex appears to be a bit ambiguous before they are allowed to cross the border? It remains to be seen what the courts make of this as it's completely new ground, but the Westminster position looks pretty thin to me.

there is plenty of crossing between borders for, eg, school on the island of Ireland as well, which rather undermines some of Jack's objections.

 

[mojo pixy]

So are you suggesting that the SNP should have dropped a six year long manifesto commitment and blown up the power sharing agreement with the Greens simply because the Tories chose a new leader who might not like it? How could the Scottish Parliament function if they only proposed bills that Westminster approved of, and not just that but they would have to pre-empt the possibility that the Westminster Government might change their mind in the future - because Self ID was Tory policy when this was first proposed in the SNP manifesto and stayed that way throughout two public consulations. It's also currently Labour policy incidentally not that you'd know it from their craven response. Right up until the passage of this bill there had been not even a murmour of Section 35. It was passed after extensive public consultation by a large majority with the support of MSPs from all parties including the Scottish Tories. It was specifically drafted so as to not affect the Equality Act or any other area of UK law with amendments added to ensure that. If anyone's trolling in this situation it's not the SNP.

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm stating explicitly that the SNP must have known this would happen. I don't understand what the issue is, everyone is behaving exactly as anyone would expect them to. And I didn't use the word 'trolling'. This is just high-stakes politics as normal IMO.

 

[danny la rouge]

I didn't use the word 'trolling'. I

I don’t think anyone accused you of doing so. It was used by newbie

 

[mojo pixy]

I don’t think anyone accused you of doing so. It was used by newbie

In the post I was replying to it was used as an element of the reply, so I was clarifying that it wasnt introduced by me. Additionally sorry for edits and not quoting properly, my phone keeps removing all formatting from my posts.

 

[JTG]

Charlie Falconer, former Justice Secretary/Lord Chancellor seems to think the govt's reasons are pretty flimsy:



Would that his party (at Westminster at any rate) had the courage to say so as well

 

[Petcha]

Late to this one. But it's an awful balance to strike. I was living by myself, paying my bills, tax, working full time at 16. But was still a numpty who wasn't sure whether I was gay or straight, or anything really. I was a kid, albeit a far more experienced one than most 16yos. I do honestly think 16 is too young for this kind of decision.

The argument alone about single sex schools and how they'll manage that, well. There's a minefield. Do they make the kid leave their friends and change to a girl's school (for example)?

edit: could begin an argument against single sex schools actually which could be good

 

[JTG]

Late to this one. But it's an awful balance to strike. I was living by myself, paying my bills, tax, working full time at 16. But was still a numpty who wasn't sure whether I was gay or straight, or anything really. I was a kid, albeit a far more experienced one than most 16yos. I do honestly think 16 is too young for this kind of decision.

The argument alone about single sex schools and how they'll manage that, well. There's a minefield. Do they make the kid leave their friends and change to a girl's school (for example)?

Good luck with campaigning for raising the age of consent, marriage, joining the armed forces etc etc

If you're not intending to do so, suggest you not worry about whether anyone's too young at 16 to know who they really are

 

[Sue]

The argument alone about single sex schools and how they'll manage that, well. There's a minefield. Do they make the kid leave their friends and change to a girl's school (for example)?

Can only think of one single sex state school in Scotland and it may not be for much longer. (They were consulting on changing it.)

Eta Apparently it is the only one and is going coed.

 

[JTG]

Can only think of one single sex state school in Scotland and it may not be for much longer. (They were consulting on changing it.)

And anyway, as Falconer says:


I'm certain that the miniscule numbers of people affected by this particular situation can be accommodated perfectly well

 

[belboid]

Late to this one. But it's an awful balance to strike. I was living by myself, paying my bills, tax, working full time at 16. But was still a numpty who wasn't sure whether I was gay or straight, or anything really. I was a kid, albeit a far more experienced one than most 16yos. I do honestly think 16 is too young for this kind of decision.

you didn't know. Lots of us weren't sure about all kinds of questions around sex, sexuality, gender and identities at that age. But a, fairly small, number of young people have been living their lives and do know what they need, why should they be put through another two years of shit?

 

[Pickman's model]

So are you suggesting that the SNP should have dropped a six year long manifesto commitment and blown up the power sharing agreement with the Greens simply because the Tories chose a new leader who might not like it? How could the Scottish Parliament function if they only proposed bills that Westminster approved of, and not just that but they would have to pre-empt the possibility that the Westminster Government might change their mind in the future - because Self ID was Tory policy when this was first proposed in the SNP manifesto and stayed that way throughout two public consulations. It's also currently Labour policy incidentally not that you'd know it from their craven response.

Right up until the passage of this bill there had been not even a murmour of Section 35. It was passed after extensive public consultation by a large majority with the support of MSPs from all parties including the Scottish Tories. It was specifically drafted so as to not affect the Equality Act or any other area of UK law with amendments added to ensure that. If anyone's trolling in this situation it's not the SNP.

I suspect Rishi Sunak and the Westminster tories don't think of their Scottish colleagues as proper tories

 

[Sasaferrato]

I agree on who will lose out. Where I disagree is upon whom it is that has made this a constitutional standoff. I honestly don’t think Sturgeon planned to use this as the pivot issue for an independence campaign.

I think this video is instructive:

I would not be surprised if Sturgeon engineered this to draw attention away from government failures in health, education, transport and of course £200m on over budget ferries.

Incidentally, why would you trust a party whose finances are in such a shambles that Murrell (and possibly Sturgeon) had to lend them over £100k?

 

[smokedout]

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm stating explicitly that the SNP must have known this would happen. I don't understand what the issue is, everyone is behaving exactly as anyone would expect them to. And I didn't use the word 'trolling'. This is just high-stakes politics as normal IMO.

I'm not convinced they did expect this, although obviously they will have known it was a possibility. The mood throughout from the UK government had seemed to be one of grumpy acceptance. It was only the Haldane judgement made a couple of weeks before the bill was heard and which found that trans people with a GRC should be treated as their aquired sex for the purpose of the Equality Act which seemed to re-energise the Tories against it. I'm not sure this verdict actually makes any difference myself, but they didn't ask me.

On a more cynical level it going to court is no bad thing for Sturgeon. If the Scottish government wins, which seems more than possible, the bill passes, and Sunak looks like, well a loser. And if they lose then the UK courts over-riding the will of the Scottish Parliament is strong fodder for the independence campaign. Also the SNP can use any verdict to redraft the bill and present it again without any risk of Section 35. On that basis alone it might have been assumed by the SNP that Sunak would stay out of this. He doesn't have much to gain and any fleeting love-bombing from the gender criticals has already vanished now it's been announced the conversion therapy ban is back and will include trans people. He's possibly naive enough to think he could play both sides. Turns out all he's doing is making everyone hate him.

 

[hitmouse]

Glasgow demo now has an insta page thing: