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

[CowboyKangaroo]

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....

Apologies for not responding to this: here is the UKG's legal view. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statement-of-reasons-related-to-the-use-of-section-35-of-the-scotland-act-1998/html-version

My personal view is that these are clearly respectable legal arguments (such that it is not legally improper to make them), but not the better view. In my opinion as the bill has no impact on the effect of a GRC, but merely the process by which they are obtained, the EA impacts are nugatory, and after applying the "purpose" test the matters falls within Scottish competence. I suppose we will see what the Courts think. I'd put it 60:40 in Scotland's favour.

[Nobby Reserve]

Apologies for not responding to this: here is the UKG's legal view. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statement-of-reasons-related-to-the-use-of-section-35-of-the-scotland-act-1998/html-version

My personal view is that these are clearly respectable legal arguments (such that it is not legally improper to make them), but not the better view. In my opinion as the bill has no impact on the effect of a GRC, but merely the process by which they are obtained, the EA impacts are nugatory, and after applying the "purpose" test the matters falls within Scottish competence. I suppose we will see what the Courts think. I'd put it 60:40 in Scotland's favour.

It served the Tory government to S35 it, as it showed them 'standing up to the woke militants' enough to trigger their 'base'

It served the SNP so they could scream "English Tories telling us how to run our country again! We'll not be rid of English domineering until we're independent!"

[ChrisLFCKOP]

Apologies for not responding to this: here is the UKG's legal view. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statement-of-reasons-related-to-the-use-of-section-35-of-the-scotland-act-1998/html-version

My personal view is that these are clearly respectable legal arguments (such that it is not legally improper to make them), but not the better view. In my opinion as the bill has no impact on the effect of a GRC, but merely the process by which they are obtained, the EA impacts are nugatory, and after applying the "purpose" test the matters falls within Scottish competence. I suppose we will see what the Courts think. I'd put it 60:40 in Scotland's favour.

I have read it, and its just an attack on trans people, they are objecting to the process which has no impact on what a GRC does.  Being trans has been declassified as a medical condition by all leading health organisations so why are we still medically gate keeping trans people?

Imagine if a gay person had to go in front a panel to see if they were gay enough to be allowed to marry?

[Nobby Reserve]

I have read it, and its just an attack on trans people, they are objecting to the process which has no impact on what a GRC does.  Being trans has been declassified as a medical condition by all leading health organisations so why are we still medically gate keeping trans people?

Imagine if a gay person had to go in front a panel to see if they were gay enough to be allowed to marry?

A gay person marrying isn't in any way comparable. False equivalence 'arguments' are unhelpful.

What legal recognition of self-identification does is say to women "We don't give a fuck if you feel threatened by the presence of a biological man in your safe or private spaces."

That's before even talking about the potential for abuse of such a system by men who aren't genuine sufferers of gender dysphoria.

[ChrisLFCKOP]

A gay person marrying isn't in any way comparable. False equivalence 'arguments' are unhelpful.

Actually is if you knew what a GRC does.
Should probably added Gay marriage at the end or civil partnership.

What legal recognition of self-identification does is say to women "We don't give a fuck if you feel threatened by the presence of a biological man in your safe or private spaces."

Not covered under the GRA,

That's before even talking about the potential for abuse of such a system by men who aren't genuine sufferers of gender dysphoria.

Why it is a legal declaration and punishable if not found to be lying.

Why would a man get a GRC if they are not a trans women?

[CowboyKangaroo]

I have read it, and its just an attack on trans people, they are objecting to the process which has no impact on what a GRC does.  Being trans has been declassified as a medical condition by all leading health organisations so why are we still medically gate keeping trans people?

Imagine if a gay person had to go in front a panel to see if they were gay enough to be allowed to marry?

It is a legal matter, and the merits of the bill are not a significant part of the analysis. The proper question is whether it alters the operation of the Equality Act. My view is probably not, but its arguable (well not the PSED point - I think that is complete tosh).

[ChrisLFCKOP]

It is a legal matter, and the merits of the bill are not a significant part of the analysis. The proper question is whether it alters the operation of the Equality Act. My view is probably not, but its arguable.

This is why I believe it just attack on trans people.  The outcome (GRC) does not change, if there was clashes with EA then there are issue now under the GRA (2004) and secondly they accept GRC certificates from countries with self ID now, why do they accept these if it alters the operation of the equalities act?

[CowboyKangaroo]

This is why I believe it just attack on trans people.  The outcome (GRC) does not change, if there was clashes with EA then there are issue now under the GRA (2004) and secondly they accept GRC certificates from countries with self ID now, why do they accept these if it alters the operation of the equalities act?

I can't agree with the former point. The GRA was UK wide bill so questions of competence don't arise and indeed the EA was drafted with it in mind. On the latter, which has substantial merit, the proposition is that it is a matter of fact and degree (essentially how many people are now within scope of the various EA provisions). How strong that proposition is remains to be seen.

[Bioluminescence]

It is a legal matter, and the merits of the bill are not a significant part of the analysis. The proper question is whether it alters the operation of the Equality Act. My view is probably not, but its arguable (well not the PSED point - I think that is complete tosh).

The Haldane ruling found that "in this context, which is the meaning of sex for the purposes of the 2010 Act, ‘sex’ is not limited to biological or birth sex, but includes those in possession of a GRC obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their acquired gender, and thus their sex.” The problem then is that the GRR Bill removes most safeguards while opening up the process to many more people. The case of Isla Bryson shows what the issues with this is. It's worth noting that Patrick Harvie knew that amendments were needed if the Scottish Government wanted to avoid the UK government from intervening. A major issue what the different criteria for gaining a GRC in Scotland versus the rest of the UK. All a bit of a mess really.

Still, apparently that's not the main reason for Sturgeon's resignation.

[CowboyKangaroo]

The Haldane ruling found that "in this context, which is the meaning of sex for the purposes of the 2010 Act, ‘sex’ is not limited to biological or birth sex, but includes those in possession of a GRC obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their acquired gender, and thus their sex.” The problem then is that the GRR Bill removes most safeguards while opening up the process to many more people. The case of Isla Bryson shows what the issues with this is. It's worth noting that Patrick Harvie knew that amendments were needed if the Scottish Government wanted to avoid the UK government from intervening. A major issue what the different criteria for gaining a GRC in Scotland versus the rest of the UK. All a bit of a mess really.

Still, apparently that's not the main reason for Sturgeon's resignation.

On the bold; indeed - that is the key point put forward by the LO's. On the italics; that is a point I have made earlier - it could have easily been drafted in a way which did not fall in this grey area. (And of course he knew: LSAG and the AG will have been discussing this for months, along with Parliamentary Counsel and the GLD!)

This is going to be very contentious legally.

[ChrisLFCKOP]

The Haldane ruling found that "in this context, which is the meaning of sex for the purposes of the 2010 Act, ‘sex’ is not limited to biological or birth sex, but includes those in possession of a GRC obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their acquired gender, and thus their sex.” The problem then is that the GRR Bill removes most safeguards while opening up the process to many more people.

Why is this an issue? the process it horrible atm and therefore many don't bother getting one as it has no impact on their day to day life.

The case of Isla Bryson shows what the issues with this is.

They can be rightly declined a womens prison space with or without GRC

It's worth noting that Patrick Harvie knew that amendments were needed if the Scottish Government wanted to avoid the UK government from intervening. A major issue what the different criteria for gaining a GRC in Scotland versus the rest of the UK. All a bit of a mess really.

How so? Currently they accept trans people with a GRC from a self ID system from a different country.

[Bioluminescence]

On the bold; indeed - that is the key point put forward by the LO's. On the italics; that is a point I have made earlier - it could have easily been drafted in a way which did not fall in this grey area. (And of course he knew: LSAG and the AG will have been discussing this for months, along with Parliamentary Counsel and the GLD!)

This is going to be very contentious legally.

It's proving to be quite the issue. The way forward would be to push forward with reforms that simplify the GRC process while reinforcing protections for women, for example by changing the wording of the Equality Act so that sex refers to biological sex only and not legal sex. The problem is that people insist that there are no conflicting rights, when they clearly are. Until this is acknowledged I don't see how all the issues can be resolved.

[Bioluminescence]

Why is this an issue? the process it horrible atm and therefore many don't bother getting one as it has no impact on their day to day life.

They can be rightly declined a womens prison space with or without GRC

How so? Currently they accept trans people with a GRC from a self ID system from a different country.

It's a problem because it means predatory men like Isla Bryson, Katie Dolatowsky or Karen White will take advantage of laws/policies that are open to abuse. No problem with the process being made easier as long as women's rights are fully protected. This includes the rights to safety (including feeling safe), privacy and dignity, something that mixed-sex spaces threaten. The GRR bill applies to Scotland only, which means we end up with a dual system. The UK government covered it all here.

[Nobby Reserve]

The problem is that people insist that there are no conflicting rights, when they clearly are. Until this is acknowledged I don't see how all the issues can be resolved.

I've never seen it put so succinctly before. Nice one.

[FlashGordon]

Find it slightly funny that Conservatives are now worried about prisoner welfare and their rights 

[Red-Soldier]

Find it slightly funny that Conservatives are now worried about prisoner welfare and their rights 

Only when it suits them.  You'll see all these mysogynists come out to defend womens rights. 

[Red-Soldier]

It's proving to be quite the issue. The way forward would be to push forward with reforms that simplify the GRC process while reinforcing protections for women, for example by changing the wording of the Equality Act so that sex refers to biological sex only and not legal sex. The problem is that people insist that there are no conflicting rights, when they clearly are. Until this is acknowledged I don't see how all the issues can be resolved.

Of course there are, but nobody seems to want to acknowledge and have a proper discussion about it.

[Elmo!]

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission takes the view that any GRA reform will not impact the exceptions in the Equality Act for single sex spaces.

Under the Equality Act people are protected from sex discrimination on the basis of their legal sex. This means that a trans woman who does not hold a Gender Recognition Certificate is legally male and is treated as a man for the purposes of the sex discrimination provisions, and a trans woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate is treated as a woman. The sex discrimination exceptions in the Equality Act therefore apply differently to trans people with and without Gender Recognition Certificates.

In most circumstances it would be inappropriate to ask a person to prove their legal sex by producing a birth certificate or Gender Recognition Certificate, and in some circumstances this could be unlawful.

Exceptions in the Act set out circumstances in which it is permissible to treat someone less favourably because of their sex or gender reassignment, for reasons of public policy or to protect the rights of others. The sex exceptions operate on the basis of legal sex. The gender reassignment exceptions are not determined by whether or not an individual has a Gender Recognition Certificate (the one exception to this relates to the solemnisation of marriage through religious ceremony – Equality Act 2010, Schedule 3, paragraph 24). The use of such exceptions generally needs to be justified as being a proportionate way to achieve a legitimate objective.

Because the operation of the Equality Act gender reassignment exceptions does not rely on possession, or not, of a Gender Recognition Certificate, any reform of the Gender Recognition Act will not erode the special status of services provided separately for men and women, or for men or women only, as defined by the Equality Act 2010, such as domestic abuse refuges, health services and clubs. We have issued clear, practical guidance for providers of separate and single-sex services to help them fully understand how to meet the needs of all women and men.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/protecting-people-sex-and-gender-reassignment-discrimination

[Nobby Reserve]

Of course there are, but nobody seems to want to acknowledge and have a proper discussion about it.

People have. And they've suffered.

Joanne Rowling, Rosie Duffield, etc.

[PatriotScouser]

Hopefully the SNP are stupid enough to select Kate Forbes as leader. I actually quite like her personally but politically she'd be eaten alive.

[Elmo!]

Hopefully the SNP are stupid enough to select Kate Forbes as leader. I actually quite like her personally but politically she'd be eaten alive.

She's really getting pushed by the likes of the Telegraph, which tells you all you need to know.

I don't think she would win, plus she's literally just had a baby, so not sure if shw even wants it.

[TepidT2O]

Interesting numbers

[Elmo!]

This is the first poll where fieldwork was done after the resignation.

Savanta UK
@Savanta_UK
🚨NEW #indyref2 voting intention for @TheScotsman
 

First IndyRef2 VI since Sturgeon resigned

✅ Yes 44% (=)
❎ No 46% (=)
❓ Undec. 9% (=)

w/o Undec.
✅ Yes 49% (=)
❎ No 51% (=)

1,004 Scottish adults, 15-17 Feb

(change from 16-21 Dec)

Savanta UK
@Savanta_UK
🚨NEW Scottish Westminster VI for @TheScotsman

First Scottish VI since Sturgeon resigned

🎗️SNP 43% (-1)
🌹LAB 30% (+2)
🌳CON 17% (-1)
🔶LD 8% (=)
⬜️Other 2% (-1)

1,004 Scottish adults, 15-17 Feb

(change from 16-21 Dec)


Savanta UK
@Savanta_UK
🚨NEW Holyrood constituency VI for @TheScotsman

First Scottish VI since Sturgeon resigned

🎗️SNP 42% (-1)
🌹LAB 32% (+2)
🌳CON 17% (-2)
🔶LD 6% (=)
⬜️Other 3% (+1)

1,004 Scottish adults, 15-17 Feb

(change from 16-21 Dec)



Obviously shouldn't really read too much into results from different pollsters but posssibly a post resignation bounce.... which would Sturgeon was the issue.

[TepidT2O]

If Sturgeon had joined the Labour Party, we might have swerved a decade of Tory rule……

[Nobby Reserve]

If Sturgeon had joined the Labour Party, we might have swerved a decade of Tory rule……

Labour don't elect women leaders, mate 

[Elmo!]

It's a bit "if my Auntie had bollocks". She was SNP through and through from a young age.

[KillieRed]

Find it slightly funny that Conservatives are now worried about prisoner welfare and their rights 

They should put their own house in order. As I posted above, there are more trans prisoners in England & Wales (per capita) than in Scotland. They obviously have not come up with a solution.

[KillieRed]

Hopefully the SNP are stupid enough to select Kate Forbes as leader. I actually quite like her personally but politically she'd be eaten alive.

You want a “centrist” to lead the SNP? For what purpose? Don’t bother answering, I’m too old to wrestle with pigs. Cheerio.

[AndyInVA]

Sturgeon always seemed like a determined decent politician who stuck to her principles and elevated to high office on the back of it.

But what a hill to die on, getting embroiled in the Trans debate and supporting self determination at 16. That is a sad legacy to be remembered for.

[KillieRed]

It’s not about that.

[Elmo!]

Angus Robertson isn't standing (has 2 very young children).

Very uninspiring choice so far between Kate Forbes, Ash Regan (quit minister role over GRR and very much an indy hardliner saying a majority of seats won in election is mandate for independence not just a referendum) and Humza Yousaf (widely seen as incompetent).

Going to be some grim times for the party. Think it's going to be their equivalent of the Labour Corbyn years. Whoever wins if going to see splits in the party.

[Indomitable_Carp]

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).

That's true. But sometimes all it takes is a few incidents to tip a lot of waverers. The decline in support for Catalan nationalism was not over night either, but more of a gradual accumulation of issues, which coincided with the change in central government.

One thing that the SNP has done uniquely well is managing to continue rallying the vast bulk of the Scottish nationalist movement under one party banner. That is a rarity, although I imagine in party helped by the FPTP system in Westminster election.

As you say, it will be interesting how the SNP splits play out.

It's a bit "if my Auntie had bollocks". She was SNP through and through from a young age.

Might not be the best turn of phrase in this particular discussion 

[Nobby Reserve]

Kate Forbes has announced she's standing.

It gets better for the Labour up there. She's well to the right of the positioning that the SNP has held for the past couple of decades, both economically and socially. She's a Christianist who publicly opposes the GRR and has made anti-abortion mutterings.

[Elmo!]

Kate Forbes has announced she's standing.

It gets better for the Labour up there. She's well to the right of the positioning that the SNP has held for the past couple of decades, both economically and socially. She's a Christianist who publicly opposes the GRR and has made anti-abortion mutterings.

she's what's known as a Wee Free, a member of the Free Church of Scotland. In fairness to her, she has generally managed to keep her personal beliefs on abortion etc out of politics, though conveniently was on maternity leave for the GRR vote (she could have voted remotely if she wanted to).

I'd vote for Labour over a Forbes led SNP as things stand.

[PatriotScouser]

I think Yousaf will probably win.

[Elmo!]

Oh dear. What a pity.


Alexander Brown
@AlexofBrown
Senior member of Kate Forbes campaign says "she has fucked it" after the finance secretary said she would have voted against gay marriage

[Red-Soldier]

Oh dear. What a pity.


Alexander Brown
@AlexofBrown
Senior member of Kate Forbes campaign says "she has fucked it" after the finance secretary said she would have voted against gay marriage

Always a risk with a Bible Basher.

Shame for Labour that.

[killer-heels]

Why does anybody even select Evangelical Christians to be part of their party? In a way it would have been good for Labour if she won.

[Red-Soldier]

Why does anybody even select Evangelical Christians to be part of their party? In a way it would have been good for Labour if she won.

That's why I said it was a shame.  Maybe she still can.........?

[Elmo!]

That's why I said it was a shame.  Maybe she still can.........?

I'm wrong about things all the time... but I think she has just handed the leadership to Yousaf.