OK, but if I was Starmer I'd take advice from people who actually wanted me to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by weecounty hibby
Printable View
OK, but if I was Starmer I'd take advice from people who actually wanted me to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by weecounty hibby
Your discounting the fact the Scottish Labour Party have already taken sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
The issue itself isn’t the problem. I doubt that moves a single vote. It’s the impression of cowardice.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you take FM, I've no doubt you would hail her bravery on this issue. There are also people in her own party who see this as reckless, dangerous and can't understand why you choose this hill to die on. Time will tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I'd be stunned if most of the uk didn't really care about what Starmer is or isn't saying about this. It's obviously going to go to a big long court case. He was in pf he would be mad to talk now, just wait and see what the outcome is. If its shown to be illegal then all the talk beforehand was utterly pointlessQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
As much as I am firmly an independence supporter I want Labour to win a UK election.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
2 years out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
In terms of the electorate that Starmer is playing to, it's just not an issue. To the Red Wall, Scottish politics rarely register and are an irrelevance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
In many ways, keeping silent and watching the debate is a learning experience. When England decides to move on gender reform, much of the debate will be pre-rehearsed, based on the Scottish experience.
Braver are the people speaking up when they know it will affect their career by challenging the billQuote:
Originally Posted by archie
Your bet will still count. If I thought they wouldn't win I'd be mad not putting a decent wedge on the tories winningQuote:
Originally Posted by weecounty hibby
If anyone knows it would be him, probably the most qualified of all the different "experts" that have had an opinion. Says it's a "mistake" for the Scottish Government to take this to court as they will lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
If he is right and the court agrees there is going to be some very senior politicians embarrassed as they are categorically saying it doesn't impact UK legislation.
On the flip side if it doesn't impact UK laws there will be equally embarrassed politicians on the other side.
Losing the court case will be bad for trans people but not for people who support Indy. It will be another example of Scotland not being able to make decisions without permission from England.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
The UK govt forcing the Scottish Parliament to go to court to act on devolved issues isn’t bad for building support for independence.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This has the potential to blow up in everyone's face. I think the Haldane judgement has been a game changer. That feeds directly into the same sex spaces argument that UKG has put forward. I'm not a lawyer, but it appears to me that it makes the SG case harder, partly because the other points UKG has raised don't look like slam dunks. But we'll see.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Don't think that's true when about 80% of people polled are against sections of the bill. This doesn't fall on regular political linesQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
OK, but there is danger too. Does FM really want to be seen in the same light as Maggie Chapmam? Losing another case doesn’t scream competence. And like it or not, when there is a case that can in any way be linked to the legislation, you can be sure that the finger will be pointed at the ScottishQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Government. And allowing the Tories to position themselves as defenders of women's rights!
Anyone know when Alister Jack is due to appear before the Equalities Committee at Holyrood? Has he been called to appear yet?
Ah yet another reason for Independence! Or alternatively it's a court of law making a judgement on the law. If the Scottish Parliament via the Scottish Government has passed illegal Bills that's their problem, I don't see how that boosts the case for Indy. Can't see the logic in people thinking the Scottish Government messed up and passed an illegal Bill as they failed to do the correct checks and balances, where do I sign up for the Yes campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
You were adamant the Supreme Court ruling would boost the case for Indy, that pretty much everything will boost the base for Indy actually, last poll for Indy? 44%.
You keep bringing this back to Independence and Nicola Sturgeon, is that where your real concerns are, the impact this has on Independence and Nicola Sturgeon?
James, that last paragraph really hurts. It shows you are not reading my posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
All the rest is drivel.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He was called yesterday. My bet is he won't attend.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Ta.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Is there a mechanism for sanction if he dingies them?
I hope he does, and doesn't refuse to attend like Nicola Sturgeon did when invited to the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster. She was "busy".Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Mark Drakeford has been at Westminster a few times at the Welsh Committee.
Will anyone believe the Tories are the defenders of women though. I think not.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
They could always attach the rape clause at the bottom of their leaflets.
Don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
You're such a bitch sometimes :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by James310
I hope he attends too, but not for petty party points scoring reasons.
Miaow.
She's deeply entrenched in your every thought. 😂Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Any idea where she was? You'll have it in your diary.📒
Unless by some miracle we could have Indy next year, I desperately want Labour to win UK-wide and I think they will. I don't mind if Starmer is centrist but I'm not keen on spineless. Not standing up for the right of Holyrood to pass legislation that's within competence and the lack of or extremely lukewarm support for the unions are both spineless imo. I think he risks looking like a phony and that's about the only way I can see him managing to lose tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Agree with regards to the unions. In regards to this legislation will you retract that opinion if the court proves its not legalQuote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
And yet because of how this has been approached they have been given the space to do this. Incide, do you know what the 'rape clause' is?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
I don’t think it’s legality has been challenged?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I suspect the poster was anticipating 'democratic outrage' argument if the SoS didn't attend. FWIW I would attend if I was him. It would give him a platform as a defender of womens rights in the face of attacks from Committee members. Whether that is justified isn't the point. SG actions allow him to frame it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Semantics. Whether it impacts on non devolved laws, but you know thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
That’s what it will look like in front of the 5 women on the committee.[emoji106]Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Firstly, it's legality is not in dispute and Holyrood's competence to legislate on it is not in dispute either. If it were the UK gov would be using section 33 of the Scotland act. Section 35 gives them a veto:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Clearly (b) is in play but it's a practical implementation based judgment, not a letter of the law one.Quote:
If a Bill contains provisions—
(a)which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would be incompatible with any international obligations or the interests of defence or national security, or
(b)which make modifications of the law as it applies to reserved matters and which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters
Secondly, Starmer should be standing behind his Scot Lab colleagues who notwithstanding some dissenters voted as a party for this legislation, whatever his personal feelings on the issue.
Maggie Chapman is one on the committee and she's the current laughing stock of the press and social media just now. A free ride for a politician right now opposing that fruitcakeQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Semantics again. If they lose the court case will you say fair enough it wasn't competent.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Starmer is correct in waiting for the courts to decide
Well if he frames his comments and answers carefully it could be quite effective. Tories on the Committee will feed him softballs and if he wants to go for the jugular he would keep bringing up Maggie Chapman's comments to get them on the official record. Sadly the point of the meeting will be all concered trying to get their soundbites on the news. He's got plenty to work with. Whether he would be any good at it I simply don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I found this site to be very informative on the rape clause.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
https://www.womensaidni.org/everythi...w-rape-clause/
I think the reasonable grounds issue is quite a low bar. If the UKG law officers give the SoS advice to that effect then does that provide reasonable grounds? I don't know. But as I understand it, SG has sought a judicial review of the decision. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that a judicial review would test if UKG a) had the power to act (they clearly do) and b) whether it was reasonable. Have I got this right?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Sounds like he's made his mind up then. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by archie
FWIW I'd like the SOS to attend, as I'm sure the women will eat him alive. :greengrin
I think the 'rape clause' is a fantastic weaponisation of language. The clause actually proves additional funding for women who have a child through rape. The rationale is, presumably, that it was unfair to apply the two child benefit cap where a women had been raped. In the miserable legislation it is part of it was a little chink of compassion. Paradoxically, scrapping the provision would worsen the position of people affected.But it was irresistible for politicos not to link Tories and rape in the same sentence. Cynical, but effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
I give you that as a score draw v Alistair Jack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, I agree and I think you've got it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I suspect Jack knows what sex he is, which gives him a head start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Predicting legal cases like this is a mugs game. There is so much open to interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I looked at Jack’s document yesterday and thought there appears to be nothing in it but the law might just interpret that there doesn’t need to be and what the SoS says goes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It really isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Different sport they are playing. Jack is mentally competent but an evil money grabbing spiv. Chapman is just not in the real worldQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Carefully made, due to the callous Tories taking away benefits from families who need it.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
There are many other issues on the removal of the child benefit for families who have more than two children. Some women don't use contraception due to their religious beliefs, but this bit in the link covers it well enough.
"Any other issues?
Well, yes. The policy may discriminate against people who don’t use contraception or disagree with abortion on religious grounds. Families from Catholic, Evangelical, Muslim or Jewish faiths tend to have bigger families for these reasons. There are also strong human rights and equality arguments, as the cap will disproportionately affect women, children, and fail to meet the UK’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women."
Sometimes those making laws just have to accept the flack coming their way, and I for one won't hesitate to link the Tories with the rape clause. It was of their making.
There's probably not much to debate until after the probably drawn out court case. Hopefully the loser has the good grace to say they were wrong
I think the point of the judicial review is whether UKG acted reasonably, rather than if they are 'right' if you know what I mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Indeed. Can the courts really be trusted to apply the actual law rather than being swayed by political influence these days? I personally don't think that they can. The tories have made huge strides over the past 12 years to butcher the judiciary system for their own end.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Yes, but that's for effect. The issue is surely the two children cap. But that doesn't have the same impact. And the use of language has been effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
The only people losing are trans people. The rest of us will be just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Whichever way it goes I’ll see as the Scottish Parliament being weakened.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When women's aid groups are using it, who am I to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I sort of agree but the whole idea of punishing children because their parents have more than 2 is so awful that any weaponisation is more than warranted imo. Plus the actual rape clause only grants an exemption if rape is proved. *******s.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...ab1067cfbf.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Immediately after accusing Oz of always bringing this back to Nicola Sturgeon. Brilliant 😂Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
This whole parody thing of pretending you’re for real posting like this every single day for so long is an incredible effort. I would have put money on you coming out with a ‘gotcha’ style reveal long before now.
It’s wrong but we won’t come out and say it’s wrong. How very Scottish labour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
One of the funniest things I've ever read on here. Been chuckling to myself all morning. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by WeeRussell
Small things amuse small.....you know the rest. I will be chuckling to myself for a while about that as looks like we are both easily amused.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Ian Murray must have a whole lot of blisters on his backside from all the fence sitting he did yesterday while he desperately tries to calculate what side of the fence is in the interests of his own personal career.Quote:
Originally Posted by WeeRussell
Like many, if Nicola Sturgeon is on one side, he is on the other. No matter what the issue might be.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Everybody is positioning on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
I'm not so sure about that. I don't think any of the MSPs who were brave enough to back this bill did so in the belief that it would be a career booster, considering the horrendously negative coverage it has received in the British Media over the years.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Surely you agree that effects on career progression were worst for snp mps that apposed the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Not if they stand as independents or for another party in the next election and ultimately win the popular vote. The Gender Reform Bill isn't exactly a vote winner based on current social attitudes towards it (heavily influenced by the media).Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Glaikit is the word that sprung to mind when I heard her car crash interview the other day, but fruitcake is more apt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
This is just mental stuff. So it would be good for there career if they quit the snp, win against the snp as an independent or change party and win 👍Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
If they thought they were going to lose their seat as an SNP MSP anyway, then yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I think their view was that it would be, but maybe the ground has shifted beneath their feet. One of the unintended consequences that I see is that commentators down south whobwould have a positive view of FM (mainly due to Brexit) are more critical.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Tories tying themselves in knots over their proposed ban on conversion therapy in England for trans people.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...nts-criminals/
I thought yesterday's announcement was too good to be true, and I was a bit suspicious about its timing.
I wonder if this is going to be the next drafting mess of legislation. My fundamental issue with the gender reform legislation is vagueness and lack of clarity of definitions. This has the potential to be worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
All conversation therapy should be illegal. Conversations between parents and kids were surely never going to be close to being criminalised
You see this is the issue. People quite rightly have a horror at some of the cases of beatings, forced exorcism etc. But these are already illegal. So what is it you want to ban? That vagueness is where the concerns around therapy, counselling etc. Come in. Also, what if someone wants conversion therapy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Here's a decent starting point. The SG is slightly ahead of the UKG in developing something.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
https://www.gov.scot/publications/ex...tions/pages/3/
Start by banning any organisation or group who's raison d'etre is conversion. You can't police everything and things will go underground ect but you do what you can. Is someone wants support they should be able to have it and it should be impartialQuote:
Originally Posted by archie
I don't think anybody wants conversion therapy. Nobody can be happier in life pretending to be anything other than themselves. Some people however feel that they have to get it, due to peer and societal pressures and stigma that simply shouldn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcas...=1000595021007
Worth a listen.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think this had caught Keir by surprise.
Keir Starmer's spokesman says the party can't identify any aspect of the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform act that would undermine single sex spaces, but want to wait to see the government's own legal advice before offering a view.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/stat...02357110853632
I've seen it. Just not clear what problem they need to solve that isn’t already illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
That's a hell of a wide definition. What do you mean by conversion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Really? No one ever wants to change themselves? This also assumes that people live in a steady state throughout their lifetime. But surely people's perspective can change.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Sexuality and gender identification are not perspectives. People don't choose to be attracted to the same sex and transgenderism isn't some hobby that people lose interest in. It's hard wired into their very being.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
How would you explain detransitioners then? Some gave very powerful evidence to the committee in the Scottish Parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-b1041530.html
“When I presented myself to a gender identity clinic, I felt so certain that medical transition was the only solution for me, but now I wish that greater care had been taken to consider all my underlying issues"
It can't be hard wired into them all would you accept?
If it isn't hard wired, then it isn't transgenderism. A transgender person doesn't "think" that they are transgender, they simply are. They couldn't possibly be themselves if they weren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
I have no doubt there are people who get gender reassignment surgery who ultimately regret it, because it's not who they truly are. Just as they'll be people who go through life and regret not getting gender reassignment surgery because it is who they are.
Not sure I agree with you here.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Sexuality is a spectrum, that people can and do move up and down throughout their lives.
Or have I picked you up wrong?
Sexuality is a spectrum. However that doesn't mean that people simply move around it. It's not that people's sexuality changes over time. It's that it can take time for a person to discover what their true sexuality actually is. A person can spend years in a straight relationship for example, only to discover that they are actually gay. Does that mean that they were straight up to that point and just suddenly decided they were going to be gay from now on? I don't believe it works that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Just pure coincidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://twitter.com/glennbbc/status/...4w_0bHAan8HlMQ
Scottish Labour MSP’s seem to be unhappy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They absolutely do.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Sexuality is not binary. It can evolve and change based on life circumstances and experiences; many people move between straight, gay, bi, pan, asexuality etc. Most people, of course, stay at the same point on the spectrum throughout their lives, but of itself sexuality is fluid.
https://twitter.com/glennbbc/status/...4w_0bHAan8HlMQ
Very weak from Sarwar. They would have been just as well sticking with Richard Leonard.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That implies that there is a 'true' state that someone has that, once achieved, can't be moved from. There are plenty of examples of people who have been in same sex relationships who then move on to a straight relationship. I wouldn't presume that either of these were their 'true self'.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
So where does this person fit in your spectrum? https://wearethecity.com/inspirational-profile-pips-bunce-director-credit-suisse/Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Listened to it earlier, very good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
As an aside, the Newsagents podcast is very good generally.
Best one out there imo. You can tell they are enjoying being free from the BBC.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibby rae
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Most here will ignore this because the KC'S opinion was sought by a religious group, but there are issues raised that should give pause for thought https://www.scottishlegal.com/articl...sals-draconian
Absolutely, that one and one last month (I think) about the Government's actions against refugees were top-tier journalismQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Good coverage from Phil here, regarding the situation between Holyrood and Westminster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvJmoXnFJWA
If the UK Government were in anyway confident in their rhetoric about this bill impeding on non-devolved issues, they would have enacted Section 33 rather than Section 35. Section 35 is an order intended for emergency situations. The order is deliberately very vague and open to interpretation, which basically allows the UK Government to use it whenever they see fit to overrule any devolved legislation without legal scrutiny.
You are familiar with the term 'bisexuality' right? :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
That was good.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Agree with all of it and been saying it for a while, pretty much every Tory act right now is part of an electoral strategy.