Wasn't me that brought Sumption into the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Printable View
Wasn't me that brought Sumption into the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I saw this and decided not to post links. It's an evisceration of some of the key players. Not a comfortable read. He better be right in what he is asserting.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Incidentally, I saw someone posted a twitter screenshot of Wings responding to a "You Yes Yet?" the other day with, "No", so I think we can officially say he's jumped the dyke to the supporters of the Union side. Best of luck with your new recruit. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
He doesn't get a vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I don't understand the point. Are you saying what he has posted isn't true? My sense is that his issue is with a section of the yes movement rather than independence per se.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Has a small cadre of, possibly criminal, trans activists hijacked the Scottish Govt?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I don't think that is true, no.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
I don't know, I haven't read it. Having read his stuff about Hillsborough and his Kezia Dugdale fixation, I think he's a bit unhinged tbh. I know he's absolutely obsessed with gender stuff, has been for a few years, is ferociously anti-SNP/Greens and reserves particular poison for Nicola Sturgeon. He is now being embraced by a section of opportunistic anti-Indy people.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Get your longest spoons out would be my advice.
Have you read the article? TBF he points the finger at politicos from parties other than Greens/SNP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Sadly I read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Has a small cadre of militant trans people hijacked the Scottish Govt?
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
It's a rough read, which is why I didn't link it. It's also not something for a football site with a mixed age readership. My reading of it wasn't a general hijacking, but that a small group appeared to have a disproportionate influence in pushing the legislation. The underlying tone was why this issue in particular.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Scrolling up from the bottom of the page I didn't know who was being discussed, then I read this post and though 'ah that'll be Wings Over Scotland'.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
The guy is a deranged, angry, little man imo.
He's a bigot claiming the government of Scotland has "surrendered" to a bunch of people he claims are bigots and criminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Rather than give him any import my advise is to treat him like any other bigot.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Just out of interest, in what way is he a bigot?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Badenoch confirms she's not going to bother coming up to the Scottish Parliament to discuss what's wrong with the bill.
They even offered for her to do it virtually.
Feel the love.
Labour, both at Holyrood and Westminster, seem to be caught in a kind of no-man's land (biological or otherwise) on this issue. Starmer has tied himself in knots, while Sarwar, despite whipping his MSPs to vote in favour of the bill is now calling on the Equalities and Human Rights Commission to step in and resolve 'concerns over its impact on single sex spaces'. Why vote for a bill you had such concerns about?
Gender law impasse can be broken - Sarwar - BBC News
He had a long-running defamation battle with Kezia Dugdale who accused him of being homophobic. IIRC the court rejected the homophobia accusations but awarded damages to Dugdale, though I can't remember the full details.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
You're right about his latest post being an uncomfortable read and I can't claim to have read it all. I found it all a bit bewildering.
He was spot-on, though, about the furore the SG bill would spark, pointing out its inherent problems several years ago.
Letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government to the Secretary of State for Scotland regarding the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill and Section 35 order.
Dear Alister
I have noted your letter received on the evening of 16 January, informing us of your intention to make an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 which you then tabled on 17 January.
As the First Minister has set out, we consider that this unprecedented intervention represents an attack on the democratically elected Scottish Parliament and its ability to make decisions on devolved matters. The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, which passed the Bill last month by an overwhelming majority of MSPs with support from members of all five parties.
Your letter provided scant detail on the reasons for the order, and like everyone else we had to wait until publication late on Tuesday afternoon of your policy statement to see any substantive explanation. We will respond in full to the points raised in the appropriate forum which, given the approach taken by the UK Government, is now likely to be through the courts.
My immediate concern, however, is to clarify contradictions in your letter and statement.
You have said that you hope we can work together to find a constructive way forward which respects devolution and the operation of UK legislation. This seems utterly incompatible with your approach of waiting until after the Bill has been passed to implement a power of veto never used before, with no warning communicated about the use of that power or prior attempt to engage on the detailed issues now raised. Please would you clarify how the Scottish Government can work constructively with you under these circumstances.
It is disappointing that you have refused the invitation to appear at the Scottish Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee to explain your decision. This does not seem consistent with your stated aim to do all you can to respect the devolution settlement.
You have said that you are open to consideration of an amended Bill, yet the reasoning you have set out includes a fundamental objection to the existence of two different systems within the UK.
This is in direct contradiction of the position set out in the UK Government’s 2018 consultation on gender recognition reform, which stated:
“Gender recognition is devolved to Scotland. That means Scotland can have its own system for gender recognition if it wants to. Some areas dealt with by the GRA are not devolved, however, such as pension and benefit entitlements. The Scottish Government consultation clearly sets out what is and is not devolved with respect to its proposals and where, in the future, they might have to work with the UK Government.
“The UK Government is committed to working closely with the Scottish Government on its proposals, especially on the implementation of its proposals where powers are not devolved, mutual recognition of certificates issued in different parts of the UK across the UK (this would include those issued under the current system and those issued in the future), residency requirements that applicants might need to meet and the implications of any difference in legal rights conferred by the issuing of a GRC in Scotland as opposed to England and Wales.”
If it is now the UK Government’s position that the existence of two different gender recognition systems within the UK is unacceptable, please clarify what an amended Bill could possibly include, and how this position can be consistent with the recognition both by your Government and by the Equalites and Human Rights Commission that gender recognition is a devolved matter.
I will also note that the positions of the UK and Scottish Governments were broadly consistent, with each proposing similar reforms, until September 2020 when the UK Government announced it would not take forward the proposed reforms set out in its 2018 consultation, despite 64% of respondents agreeing that the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria should be removed. That was the point when it became clear that there would likely be different approaches within the UK – over two years ago.
The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill has been years in the making, has involved input from tens of thousands of organisations and individuals through public consultation, extensive evidence-taking and consideration by the Scottish Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, and significant joint working from MSPs of all parties.
The UK Government has had countless opportunities to engage, express views, or request changes since we set out our intention to reform the Gender Recognition Act 2004 in our Programme for Government of September 2016.
This included the two Scottish Government consultations that closed in March 2018 and March 2020, the Scottish Parliament call for views that closed in May 2022, and the Equalities Committee’s detailed consideration of the Bill from March to October 2022.
Officials in the Scottish and and UK Governments have had ongoing and regular cordial discussions on cross-border interaction of the Bill.
There has also been Ministerial engagement on the Bill. I wrote to then Equalities Minister Nadhim Zahawi in October 2022 highlighting relevant policy decisions for the UK Government and committing to work together on an order under section 104 of the Scotland Act, which is the usual process for handling cross-border issues or implications for reserved law.
Kemi Badenoch’s letter of 7 December to me was in response to that letter, two months later. I believe in comments you made during your statement in the House of Commons you may have given the impression that Ms Badenoch initiated this correspondence but that was not the case.
Following that correspondence I met with Ms Badenoch on 19 December. Both Ms Badenoch and I committed to working together constructively, including ongoing official level meetings.
In none of the above opportunities for engagement or actual discussions has the UK Government given any indication it would consider using any powers, let alone a Section 35 power to effectively veto the bill, or that it had issues that could possibly warrant doing so.
The UK Government has only raised concerns about two specific issues with the Bill, both of which were quickly resolved. The first was provision relating to asylum seekers added at Stage 2 by an MSP and which the Scottish Government was clear it did not support. The competence of this amendment was queried by the Office of the Advocate General, and it was removed by a Scottish Government amendment at Stage 3. The second was an issue raised by Ms Badenoch on the morning of 22 December, during the Stage 3 process, in relation to remarks made on the evening of 21 December during the Stage 3 debate. This was resolved the same day through clarification that the existing GRC process will continue to be open to those in Scotland.
Using the Section 35 power to impose a veto on the Bill when already passed by the Scottish Parliament, after ignoring every opportunity to raise these issues or seek changes to the Bill over several years, demonstrates complete disregard for devolution, and flies in the face of the 2013 Memorandum of Understanding between our Governments which states that these powers should be seen “very much as a matter of last resort”.
I therefore ask that if you really want to work together in a partnership of equals, then you should acknowledge that your use of Section 35 in this way is completely incompatible with such a partnership, and you should immediately revoke the order. That would enable constructive discussions about the issues you have raised.
I am of course happy to meet with you to discuss any of these issues as soon as possible, as I would have been at any point throughout the Bill process.
Shona Robison
If it's going to court is it appropriate for live discussion about it? Generally we here that if it's a live court case politicans and the public in general won't comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
It's not at court is it.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
This is in the public domain.
#Pepperami
It's going to court though, the Scottish Government has asked for a judicial review. Will likely end up in Supreme Court.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
What's the pepperami reference?
The Letter gives clear time line of events which might be too spicy for you. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
The problem with the GRRB is that it makes being a woman an identity category rather than the reality of biological sex, it actively encourages predatory men to identify as women to gain entry to women only spaces. The GRRB would make the process of changing gender easier and quicker by removing the need for applicants to have a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and reducing the time adults are expected to have lived as their acquired gender from two years to three months. The new law would also have lowered the age at which people can apply to change their gender from 18 to 16.
Sunak was right to use the powers enshrined in Section 35 of the Scotland Act, to stop the GRRB, because it would not only be women and children in Scotland who would have been impacted by the new law. There would have been nothing to stop a man moving from England to Scotland for three months, gaining a GRC before heading back down South to live as a woman and access woman only spaces.
Incidentally Starmer might pretend he doesn't know what a woman is, and look terrified when asked if a woman can have a *****, a question any moderately intelligent 6 year old could answer, but if he was in power, the reality of governing would have meant that he would also have used the same powers to stop the GRRB as a safe guarding measure to protect women and children, just as Sunak did.
Here is an example of why the make believe policy of saying 'I identify as' being taken serious over the reality of biological sex is a danger to women and children. Stephen Mallon was jail for raping five women. However Stephen Mallon has now changed his name to Charlene, and boasts that he will be in a woman only prison in three months time.
This is not to say that trans people are predators, it's saying that a small number of men are predators and that safe guarding measures have to be put in place for the protection of women and children. Society has to be have a sex category that is based on the reality of biological sex not the make believe 'I identify as', where any Tom, Dick or Harry can walk into the ladies shower room by simply identifying as something they are not.
http://reduxx.info/scotland-serial-r...g-name-change/
Also from the article you posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
Ten years later, Mallon is eager to be around women once again, inside sources told The Sun. One fellow inmate reportedly said Mallon has “…been saying to people he has changed his name by deed poll and is going to the women’s hall in three months. But I don’t think he is. I don’t know how they can put a sex offender who rapes women into a women’s hall. I’m sure prison bosses will see through it.”
This idiot plus Maggie Chapman before her, some event
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/poli...-to-auschwitz/
Dundee SNP councillor slammed after comparing gender reform battle to ‘Auschwitz
I think it's a mix of:Quote:
Originally Posted by rona8ldo7
- don't do it on legal advice ( coupled with a realistic assessment that SG don't want to 'fix' the Bill)
- power play
- reciprocating for FM declining to attend Westminster
- not giving SG anything to divert attention from what they are going through.
This has been the case for years. The new Gender Reform bill isn't making this possible now, it already was.Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
Tory Andrew Bridgen got roundly criticised when he made a link between the holocaust and vaccines. I think even the PM waded in and said how unacceptable it was. Surprisingly not a peep from the leadership of the SNP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
They're likely struggling to keep up with it all. Before you even get a chance to criticise the tories on something, there's already something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Prison bosses have previous for housing prisoners along the make believe 'I identify as' line rather than the reality of biological sex. Look at Stephen Wood who was jailed for a string of offences against woman and children, he had raped one woman who was in her 20's 5 or 6 times, the second woman he raped was two months pregnant, however after a name change to Karen White was transferred to the women only wakefield prison and went on to rape two women there.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ailed-for-life
I see this happened over 4 years ago under the current system in England. Did the person have a GRC?Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian