Topic: Scottish politics [brought to you in association with Walkers shortbread]

[Elmo!]

Of course they don’t.  He’s just reading off a Greens crib sheet I think.  It’s possible eg as a joint enterprise, but rare, and the real obvious point is the risk posed by a woman who’s been convicted is massively different from that of a male rapist.  Everyone knows this, it’s real off-the-deep-end stuff to think that ordinary people would buy this sophistry.

Come on Iska, you can do better than resorting to this childish nonsense. Stick to the arguments.

[ChrisLFCKOP]

Come on Iska, you can do better than resorting to this childish nonsense. Stick to the arguments.

I wouldn't engage, they clearly either don't know what a GRC does or does and wont say as it will show the misleading information they peddling.  Classic move to deny facts.

[TepidT2O]

Well techically what I said isn't true, but it's semantics. Women technically aren't capable of rape under UK law because it is defined by the use of a penis. But it's pointless semantics.

Women do rape women, and go to prison for it, in women's prison. Just doing abit of googling, seems like 2% of reported rapes were committed by women.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/natureofsexualassaultbyrapeorpenetrationenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2020

This doesn’t matter one iota, it’s just me being pedantic….  But literally no women have been gaoled for rape then..
and we have no idea what percentage of those sexual assaults were on women if any ..or what percentage ended in a custodial sentence

Any way, I’m splitting hairs… It would be great if we could actually convict people for rape any more … a heinous crime which should be punished and for some reason no longer seems to be

[Elmo!]

I wouldn't engage, they clearly either don't know what a GRC does or does and wont say as it will show the misleading information they peddling.  Classic move to deny facts.

Well, it's worth writing out for the benefit of others.

[Mumm-Ra]

This doesn’t matter one iota, it’s just me being pedantic….  But literally no women have been gaoled for rape then..
and we have no idea what percentage of those sexual assault me were on women if any ..or what percentage ended in a custodial sentence

Any way, I’m splitting hairs… It would be great if we could actually convict people for rape any more … a heinous crime which should be punished and for some reason no longer seems to be

Putting aside the UK legal language technicality because we can all agree that's pointless semantics, I don't think you can even infer that 2% of the assaults were done by women just because 98% said they were done by men. I don't think that necessarily checks out. The 2% could be "don't know who did it"

It's just ridiculous to say it happens all the time when it is clearly extraordinarily rare.

These debates always leave me feeling old and befuddled 

[Elmo!]

Putting aside the UK legal language technicality because we can all agree that's pointless semantics, I don't think you can even infer that 2% of the assaults were done by women just because 98% said they were done by men. I don't think that necessarily checks out. The 2% could be "don't know who did it"

It's just ridiculous to say it happens all the time when it is clearly extraordinarily rare.

These debates always leave me feeling old and befuddled

That's fair, and obviously "all the time" is subjective and maybe not the best phrase to use. But then how often have men pretended to be women and then gone to a womens prison and then raped someone? It's also extraorinarily rare.

There's also the separate - and I suspect a far bigger issue - of rapes committed by prison staff.

[Iska]

But then how often have men pretended to be women and then gone to a womens prison and then raped someone? It's also extraorinarily rare.

The way you’re thinking about this is political bubble territory, it’s not real life.  We’ve had segregated prisons for more than a century, primarily for safety reasons.  Now progressive reforms are trying to change that.  Does that make rapes in prison more or less likely?

That’s how people judge whether this is a good or a bad policy - citing individualised risk assessments or respecting an inner sense of self, or whatever other justification you may have for putting men in women’s prisons, persuades nobody.  They simply don’t think your premises justify changing something that works.  Saying it’s vanishingly rare also just comes across as callous - if it happens once, or creates a risk of happening once, then that makes your policy a bad one.  It only takes one Karen White, or one Isla Bryson, and any justification you think is reasonable completely falls apart for the ordinary person.

[Mumm-Ra]

That's fair, and obviously "all the time" is subjective and maybe not the best phrase to use. But then how often have men pretended to be women and then gone to a womens prison and then raped someone? It's also extraorinarily rare.

There's also the separate - and I suspect a far bigger issue - of rapes committed by prison staff.

I'd never heard of this story until today so am just catching up - to be honest I'm confused as to what the problem is. To the bold part - well, yeah - I don't think it's ever happened and that's why the furore happened. Because having this person, who as a man committed two rapes on women, in a prison full of women, is obviously a bad idea and would be putting women in danger. Nobody's arguing that are they?

[Elmo!]

The way you’re thinking about this is political bubble territory, it’s not real life.  We’ve had segregated prisons for more than a century, primarily for safety reasons.  Now progressive reforms are trying to change that.  Does that make rapes in prison more or less likely?

That’s how people judge whether this is a good or a bad policy - citing individualised risk assessments or respecting an inner sense of self, or whatever other justification you may have for putting men in women’s prisons, persuades nobody.  They simply don’t think your premises justify changing something that works.  Saying it’s vanishingly rare also just comes across as callous - if it happens once, or creates a risk of happening once, then that makes your policy a bad one.  It only takes one Karen White, or one Isla Bryson, and any justification you think is reasonable completely falls apart for the ordinary person.

It's good nothing is changing in this regard then.

Honestly it's pointless arguing with you about this. You just ignore all the actual arguments made, and only want to talk about how people feel regardless of the facts.

And you're point about talking about things being rare - you are the one who has just said that women never rape women.

[Mumm-Ra]

I'd never heard of this story until today so am just catching up - to be honest I'm confused as to what the problem is. To the bold part - well, yeah - I don't think it's ever happened and that's why the furore happened. Because having this person, who as a man committed two rapes on women, in a prison full of women, is obviously a bad idea and would be putting women in danger. Nobody's arguing that are they?

Just read Iska's post and looked up the Karen White case - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-45825838 - 

I stand corrected. That is majorly fkd up and I don't care if it's the only time it's ever happened, once is enough. That's unbelievable

[Max_powers]

I surprises me this one case is such a big deal. Just deal with it based on case by case basis. If the person is likely to harm others in prison, isolate them. The Trans part doesn't even matter.

Guess what prison is full of rapists, killers and in general awful people. They manage to keep them running somehow, whether through top down rules or prison code.

Its not like completely segregated prisons are somehow a magical solution. US have them and rape is so common its a media trope these days. 

[TepidT2O]

I’m not sure rape is a trope..

I think people might find that highly offensive

But none of this brought Sturgeon down…she’d just had enough

[Max_powers]

I’m not sure rape is a trope..

I think people might find that highly offensive

But none of this brought Sturgeon down…she’d just had enough

I mean it is a trope in the media. Shows and movies showing prison life often show rape, sometimes even as a joke.

[Iska]

Honestly it's pointless arguing with you about this. You just ignore all the actual arguments made, and only want to talk about how people feel regardless of the facts.

This is politics though, it’s *about* how people feel.  You aren’t going to persuade anyone unless you can change how they feel, and I think you’re fundamentally mistaken about how - or to be honest even whether - that’s possible.  The fundamental bottom line imo, if I really wanted to nail it down, is that people don’t actually believe there’s any such thing as transgender.  They will go along with the idea to the extent that it helps people deal with their anguish - but push it beyond that into demedicalising it, blocking puberty, surgery for teens, access to prisons, allowing men into women’s sports, etc. and I do not think the public will ever accompany you there.  Anything that harms others or even infringes on others is just not going to be acceptable.  Some might acquiesce to a pronoun but even that is pushing it.  End of the day people have very limited scope for accepting things that aren’t true.

I’m sorry but I think your good intentions on this issue are misguided and I do not think the public will ever believe that your progressive policies are the right way to tackle the issue.  I do not think it is one you can win.

And lastly, minor point, but since you’re picking me up on this I actually said the opposite:

And you're point about talking about things being rare - you are the one who has just said that women never rape women.

It’s possible eg as a joint enterprise, but rare

[Mumm-Ra]

I mean it is a trope in the media. Shows and movies showing prison life often show rape, sometimes even as a joke.

Prison rape is clearly a trope and nobody would find that offensive, not genuinely anyway.

[ChrisLFCKOP]

This is politics though, it’s *about* how people feel.  You aren’t going to persuade anyone unless you can change how they feel, and I think you’re fundamentally mistaken about how - or to be honest even whether - that’s possible.  The fundamental bottom line imo, if I really wanted to nail it down, is that people don’t actually believe there’s any such thing as transgender.  They will go along with the idea to the extent that it helps people deal with their anguish - but push it beyond that into demedicalising it, blocking puberty, surgery for teens, access to prisons, allowing men into women’s sports, etc. and I do not think the public will ever accompany you there.  Anything that harms others or even infringes on others is just not going to be acceptable.  Some might acquiesce to a pronoun but even that is pushing it.  End of the day people have very limited scope for accepting things that aren’t true.

I’m sorry but I think your good intentions on this issue are misguided and I do not think the public will ever believe that your progressive policies are the right way to tackle the issue.  I do not think it is one you can win.

And lastly, minor point, but since you’re picking me up on this I actually said the opposite:

Please stop posting misleading and harmful information.

All the worlds leading medical organisations do not agree with your position.

[ChrisLFCKOP]

I surprises me this one case is such a big deal. Just deal with it based on case by case basis. If the person is likely to harm others in prison, isolate them. The Trans part doesn't even matter.

This is the position now and would be the position after the GRR.

There is a very vocal opposition who would love to think they are silenced when they clearly being heard as there misinformation is being spread around (with the help of the British media to demonise trans people, its the "gay panic" all other again, to the point where there has been calls for a new section 28 from people who support opposition of the GRR).

[Elmo!]

This is politics though, it’s *about* how people feel.  You aren’t going to persuade anyone unless you can change how they feel, and I think you’re fundamentally mistaken about how - or to be honest even whether - that’s possible.  The fundamental bottom line imo, if I really wanted to nail it down, is that people don’t actually believe there’s any such thing as transgender.  They will go along with the idea to the extent that it helps people deal with their anguish - but push it beyond that into demedicalising it, blocking puberty, surgery for teens, access to prisons, allowing men into women’s sports, etc. and I do not think the public will ever accompany you there.  Anything that harms others or even infringes on others is just not going to be acceptable.  Some might acquiesce to a pronoun but even that is pushing it.  End of the day people have very limited scope for accepting things that aren’t true.

I’m sorry but I think your good intentions on this issue are misguided and I do not think the public will ever believe that your progressive policies are the right way to tackle the issue.  I do not think it is one you can win.

And lastly, minor point, but since you’re picking me up on this I actually said the opposite:

It's clear now why the people you speak to in real life don't change their mind once given the facts, because it's clear they aren't actually being given the facts. You keep swerving the point that the proposes legislation doesn't have any impact on the concerns you raise.

[Riquende]

The stench of the right wing was permeating the News board so absoutely no surprise to see the usual suspects have crawled out of the woodwork in here.

[TepidT2O]

The stench of the right wing was permeating the News board so absoutely no surprise to see the usual suspects have crawled out of the woodwork in here.

The usual suspects?

Such as?

[FlashGordon]

The usual suspects?

Such as?

Iska is clearly on the right on any topic I've seen him/her engage in.

[CowboyKangaroo]

This bill has been on the cards for 6 years, when even the Tories in Westminster under May were proposing similar legislation and had support across the board. It isn't, and never was some trick to boost support for independence. It was always going to cause division with the SNP and the indy movement, rather than boost it, and they progressed with it anyway, as it was party policy and a manifesto commitment.

A reasonable counter point - I would suggest however, in my view, it was possible to draft the bill without it stepping into the grey areas of reserved matters so even if the overall bill was not originally intended to make the case for independence, I would be extremely surprised if when preparing its execution it was not considered. I have no inside information here though.

I also want to stress that I do not see that type of politics as a bad thing at all. Indeed, I think it quite prudent.

[ChrisLFCKOP]

A reasonable counter point - I would suggest however, in my view, it was possible to draft the bill without it stepping into the grey areas of reserved matters so even if the overall bill was not originally intended to make the case for independence, I would be extremely surprised if when preparing its execution it was not considered. I have no inside information here though.

I also want to stress that I do not see that type of politics as a bad thing at all. Indeed, I think it quite prudent.

Where did the bill step on reserved matters?

The GRC purpose is no affected, The Tories even proposed similar reforms under May 5 years ago.  The current Tory government wont even say what they think it will effect because they know it doesn't its just another dunk on Trans people to distract others from the corrupt in there government.

They also currently accept GRC from nations with self-id for getting a GRC....

[Elmo!]

A reasonable counter point - I would suggest however, in my view, it was possible to draft the bill without it stepping into the grey areas of reserved matters so even if the overall bill was not originally intended to make the case for independence, I would be extremely surprised if when preparing its execution it was not considered. I have no inside information here though.

I also want to stress that I do not see that type of politics as a bad thing at all. Indeed, I think it quite prudent.

There was not a whiff of anyone claiming it impacted reserved powers for 6 years up until the weeks leading up to the final vote. Westminster had years to put in their objections if they thought so and declined.

[Red-Soldier]

The usual suspects?

Such as?

Iska has terrible views on mysogyny (ironically) and equality.

As Flash said above.

[CowboyKangaroo]

There was not a whiff of anyone claiming it impacted reserved powers for 6 years up until the weeks leading up to the final vote. Westminster had years to put in their objections if they thought so and declined.

I am absolutely certain that is not correct and certainly not how the process would work. From direct experience there are frequent discussions back and forth between Government lawyers representing both the Scottish bodies and UK bodies on all manner of bills in relation to competence. Usually when concerns are raised they are not made public (and usually the Scottish lawyers adopt suggested variations on the legislation so as to avoid the possible issue). These discussions usually only happen once the policy is settled (which would have been circa 1.5 years ago) and often only once the draft legislation is circulated (normally would be about 6 months ago, but varies so could be different here).

The timeline for the concerns becoming public is not untoward or even surprising. However, as a former public lawyer I am heartened by how organised you think we are  (or our clients for that matter)!

Also to add: it was entirely possible for the measure to not have entered that grey area - why should the UK Government be raising issues before there is an issue?

[Elmo!]

I am absolutely certain that is not correct and certainly not how the process would work. From direct experience there are frequent discussions back and forth between Government lawyers representing both the Scottish bodies and UK bodies on all manner of bills in relation to competence. Usually when concerns are raised they are not made public (and usually the Scottish lawyers adopt suggested variations on the legislation so as to avoid the possible issue). These discussions usually only happen once the policy is settled (which would have been circa 1.5 years ago) and often only once the draft legislation is circulated (normally would be about 6 months ago, but varies so could be different here).

The timeline for the concerns becoming public is not untoward or even surprising. However, as a former public lawyer I am heartened by how organised you think we are  (or our clients for that matter)!

Regardless, it was Westminster that took the nuclear option of going straight to S35 order, when the normal procedure would be to challenge the law in the courts, rather than a move straight to outright blocking.

[CowboyKangaroo]

Regardless, it was Westminster that took the nuclear option of going straight to S35 order, when the normal procedure would be to challenge the law in the courts, rather than a move straight to outright blocking.

Quite. But that's what made it very clever politics! They baited the UK G into making a very foolish move. That being said - there is little practical difference between s33 and s35 in that s35 orders are reviewable, and ends being scrutinised in the same way. Its substantively a political difference (the seemingly nuclear option as you say)

[TepidT2O]

Iska is clearly on the right on any topic I've seen him/her engage in.

Not really sure this is a left right issue to be honest .. It does it a disservice to describe it that way.

[Iska]

Not really sure this is a left right issue to be honest .. It does it a disservice to describe it that way.

Yep, that’s a key point I think - if what I’m saying makes you too uncomfortable then at least take this on board.  You cannot call this and the other stuff we’re alluding to left/right issues because they are more fundamental than that - when people really have to take a view on them they transcend left/right loyalties.  If you make trans a cause for the left, it won’t mean that the left swings in behind the official line.  Instead it will break the left apart - half of that side will not go along with it.  That is the lesson to draw from what has happened to Nicola Sturgeon.

[KillieRed]

I doubt very much that the GRA issue had any major impact on Sturgeon resigning/retiring. She was at uni at the same time as me 30 years ago in Glasgow and was a political activist then. I suspect like Jacinda Arden she’s just had enough and is not up to continuing the daily struggle.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I doubt very much that the GRA issue had any major impact on Sturgeon resigning/retiring. She was at uni at the same time as me 30 years ago in Glasgow and was a political activist then. I suspect like Jacinda Arden she’s just had enough and is not up to continuing the daily struggle.

Id add to this there is little chance of an referendum in the rear future. She will want to try something else.

Good luck to her

[TheShanklyGates]

Wasn't sure whether this belonged here or in the Labour thread, but wow:

Election Maps UK
@ElectionMapsUK
Scottish Westminster Voting Intention:

SNP: 38.2%
LAB: 35.4%
CON: 15.5%
LDM: 5.6%
GRN: 2.7%

Via @YouGov
, 10-15 Feb.

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1626561507101229056

Election Maps UK
@ElectionMapsUK
My Seat Model:

LAB: 30 (+29)
SNP: 21 (-27)
CON: 3 (-3)
LDM: 5 (+1)

Changes w/ GE2019.



Maybe Sturgeon chose now to stand down because she can see the writing on the wall?

At the risk of triggering oldfordie though, it's an abomination that Labour could get a majority of Scottish seats on 35% of the vote whilst being the second largest party by vote share.

[TepidT2O]

Watch out for don’t knows…

But even if you factor them in it’s good news for Labour

[Indomitable_Carp]

I mean that is the way these "liberal" nationalist movements tend to go in Western democracies anyway. Massive peaks when there is an obnoxious conservative right-wing central government in power, before falling away again when the right-wing national government gets booted out.

Same deal here in Catalonia. As soon as PP (who can give our Tories a run for their money in the belligerently-incompetant stakes) were booted out in favour of a centre left government, the Catalan nationalists quickly devolved into infighting as it becomes much harder to pin all their woes on central government. The nationalist movement here is now the least energised it's been since probably before the 2008 crash, with a lot of younger people turning away from it.

[KillieRed]

It was always a mistake to assume people voting SNP were all raving Nationalists. I firmly believe it had more to do with Labour’s drift right and their ineffectual opposition to the Tories. In Scotland it was viewed as “may as well vote Tory” if that was your thing. Fingers crossed, but I have little confidence that Labour will do anything radical regarding electoral, parliamentary or devolution reform if they gain power.

[Musketeer Gripweed]

For me, on of the main reasons SNP can't get independence at the moment is because they have been in power too long in Scotland and don't actually make a very good Government for day to day policies. Not all their fault that the whole UK is going to shit at the same time, it has to be said.

[Commie Bobbie]

Best politician on these islands by a country mile.

Its a real shame that it looks like she has been tripped up by the Radicals of the 80s, who have become the reactionaries of the 2020s.

I've never felt threatened by a Trans person, however I have been raped by a old, white man - when do we get to treat them all like second class citizens?

[Elmo!]

I mean that is the way these "liberal" nationalist movements tend to go in Western democracies anyway. Massive peaks when there is an obnoxious conservative right-wing central government in power, before falling away again when the right-wing national government gets booted out.

Same deal here in Catalonia. As soon as PP (who can give our Tories a run for their money in the belligerently-incompetant stakes) were booted out in favour of a centre left government, the Catalan nationalists quickly devolved into infighting as it becomes much harder to pin all their woes on central government. The nationalist movement here is now the least energised it's been since probably before the 2008 crash, with a lot of younger people turning away from it.

Aside from the fact the Tories have not actually been booted out yet, I don't think that is what has happened here though. It's been clear for ages Labour are almost certain to win the next election, and yet it was only a few weeks ago we had polls showing the SNP would get over 50% if they ran the next election as a de facto referendum.

It seems like support has crashed over the space of a few weeks, and I'veno doubt a lot of it is down to GRR, but also various other issues (NHS performance, party financing, ferries etc).

[Nobby Reserve]

It was always a mistake to assume people voting SNP were all raving Nationalists. I firmly believe it had more to do with Labour’s drift right and their ineffectual opposition to the Tories. In Scotland it was viewed as “may as well vote Tory” if that was your thing.

I'd agree to a very large extent.

But also add that Scottish voters knew the SNP would always seek to put Scottish interests first, second and third. Whereas there was a strong belief (not without reason) that Labour, even in the Scottish Parliament, would always be somewhat in hoc to the main Labour Party, centred in Westminster.