View Full Version : Deflection?
Goodfellers
12-Apr-23, 12:59
I read our FM is trying to redirect the public's attention away from the SNP's woes and get them worked up about 'bad' Westminster. It might work for the die hard fans, but I bet the ex-Labour supporters can see through it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65249431
I read our FM is trying to redirect the public's attention away from the SNP's woes and get them worked up about 'bad' Westminster. It might work for the die hard fans, but I bet the ex-Labour supporters can see through it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65249431
Hazna isn't reading the room very well here, there are a hell of a lot of folk against this stupid bill.
He headed for this particular corner quite willingly it seems and so left himself no choice.
Goodfellers
13-Apr-23, 08:21
I hope HY releases the legal advice that says this course of action is merited as no doubt it will be tax payers money used to fund this folly. He did say he would persue legal action after he'd taken advice. I know it will play well with many SNP supporters and apparently the Greens were threatening to withdraw from power sharing if he didn't challenge Westminster. Maybe, if the Scottish gov lose, and the legal advice was not to challenge the section 35 order, HY could ask SNP supporters for some more cash and pay legal fees that way....or maybe put an expensive motorhome on Autotrader.
Corky Smeek
13-Apr-23, 12:00
What are you complaining about here? The comments above throw little light on the matter. Are you against the gender reforms or are you against the SG challenging HMG over their interference in Scottish affairs. It's probably both knowing the views of some of you.
In a properly functioning democracy it is likely that every piece of proposed legislation will face opposition. That is the partisan nature of multi-party politics after all. However, we must also accept that a governing party will secure its legislative programme if it can garner a majority of support for it in parliament.
I have reservations about the SG's gender reform legislation. BUT, I demand the right for my parliament to pass the legislation it sees fit even if it is bad legislation. If due parliamentary process is followed then, surely no other body has the right to intervene in that legislative process.
This is a matter of principle that goes to the heart of democracy in Scotland and I demand the right for us to be able to make our own mistakes in exactly the same way every other country can.
Goodfellers
13-Apr-23, 12:52
What are you complaining about here? The comments above throw little light on the matter. Are you against the gender reforms or are you against the SG challenging HMG over their interference in Scottish affairs. It's probably both knowing the views of some of you.
In a properly functioning democracy it is likely that every piece of proposed legislation will face opposition. That is the partisan nature of multi-party politics after all. However, we must also accept that a governing party will secure its legislative programme if it can garner a majority of support for it in parliament.
I have reservations about the SG's gender reform legislation. BUT, I demand the right for my parliament to pass the legislation it sees fit even if it is bad legislation. If due parliamentary process is followed then, surely no other body has the right to intervene in that legislative process.
This is a matter of principle that goes to the heart of democracy in Scotland and I demand the right for us to be able to make our own mistakes in exactly the same way every other country can.
Corky, you sound just like the Brexiteers.
Many of them were complaining that EU laws prevented the UK from adopting certain laws. You need to remember that if Scotland ever got independence and wanted to join the EU.
It's the same principle here, Scotland has to abide by UK law first and foremost.
Corky Smeek
13-Apr-23, 13:14
Aye, but the big difference in the EU is that an Indy Scotland would have a seat at the table; be an equal member and have a veto. In the UK it's just a question of "dae whit yer telt. We know best. Youse lot are too wee, too poor and too stupid. Know your place Scotland".
In the UK it's just a question of "dae whit yer telt. We know best. Youse lot are too wee, too poor and too stupid. Know your place Scotland".
I cant say that I have ever heard that terminology from any of the other members of the UK.
Interesting that you attempt to write that in a Scots slang method rather than the King's English, as its only ever been a Scottish person I have heard spout it.
You keep banging on about independence, however support for it is about as low as its ever been, the latest poll done by Reuters shows below 40% now willing to vote Yes.
And that's before the wee Jimmy Krankie's skeletons have even began to come out of the closet.
Goodfellers
13-Apr-23, 14:31
A bit of a harsh assesment as it's only the first time in history the UK has used this power. Opinion polls suggest there is very little support amongst the public for this bill. Very similar views amongst my circle of friends/family. I personally believe many of the MSP's don't support it, but need to be seen as 'woke'. Talking of 'woke' Scottish blood turn away Dr from donating blood as he refused to confirm he wasn't pregnant. Apparently all men have to confirm they're not pregnant for fear of upsetting the miniscule minority who seem to have the loudest voice. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/13/scotland-nhs-male-blood-donor-turned-away-pregnant/
"Research by Panelbase for the Sunday Times found that 18 per cent believe Yousaf should launch a legal challenge against the UK government’s decision to block the legislation.Instead, 44 per cent say he should abandon the bill completely, 24 per cent think a compromise should be found with the UK government and 14 per cent of those surveyed said they didn’t know."
Corky Smeek
13-Apr-23, 16:14
It may be the first time HMG have used this power but they have prevented all sorts of other things long before they got to the legislative stage not least of which was/is the denial of a S.30 order.
The last couple of posts suggest that it is the bill itself that you are protesting about. Well, I'm sorry but plenty of bills have been passed by the UK parliament that I (and millions of others) found to be utterly reprehensible but we just had to make our protests and get on with it because it was law. The UK government has no right involving itself in this matter and it should butt out. Apart from anything else they are just using the issue as a political stick with which to beat the SNP/Greens.
On the matter of the percentages quoted by Goodfellers I shall employ his arithmetical logic to the figures. 44% want the bill to be abandoned. That must mean that, using his logic, all the other votes should be counted together. That being the case then 56% of voters did not want the bill abandoned - his figures: his logic.
Section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 gives the Secretary of State for Scotland the power, in certain circumstances, to veto legislation enacted by the Scottish Parliament, even if it deals with a devolved matter.
It is in the Scotland Act so the UK Gov. does have the right- at this present time anyway.
Corky Smeek
13-Apr-23, 18:45
I know that Fulmar. It's the law and so I have to accept it however much I don't like it. I don't like the fact that a Secretary of State for Scotland acts like a colonial Governor General watching from afar to make sure the natives don't do anything that HMG don't like. He is not Scotland's man in Westminster but is in fact Westminster's man in Scotland. It's is an utter disgrace that TSoSfS can step in like this and over rule the will of the Scottish Parliament. As I have said, I'm not all that keen on this bill either but I will fit tooth and nail to ensure that the Scottish Parliament has the right to pass those laws (whether I agree with them or not; whether they are good laws or bad laws) it sees fit.
I also think it is worth saying that one of the consequences of the No vote in 2014 was to maintain the status quo. The people voted to keep a constitutionally hamstrung Scottish Parliament under the control of HMG. In other words this set of circumstances is a direct consequence of people voting No. If we were independent, like other grown-up countries, the arguments over this bill would be about content not legislative authority. If Westminster continues to poke its nose in then spats like this will continue so long as a pro-Indy majority exists in Holyrood. If the Unionists (Red Tories; Blue Tories and the Lib Dem Tories) ever gain a majority then no doubt they will just roll over and invite Westminster to do whatever it likes with Scotland. At that point you really will know what you have lost now that it's gone.
Corky Smeek
13-Apr-23, 19:18
rather than the King's English
Just for you mi16 I thought I'd respond to your request for posts to be in the King's English.
The other morning I was sitting on the veranda (Indian) of my bungalow (Indian) wearing my newly purchased cashmere (Indian) pyjamas (Indian). I was musing on what I might do that day. A trip to a country (French) restaurant (French) might be nice. I could sit on their patio (Spanish) and have a curry (Indian) with my favourite chutney (Indian) for lunch; or perhaps I could have a hamburger (German) with loads of ketchup (Chinese). And then afterwards I could spend an hour or so in my favourite cafe (French) sitting at one of their teak (Indian) tables listening to music (French) with a small glass of something alcoholic (Arabic) at my elbow. It was then I thought about the new delicatessen (German) that had just opened in the plaza (Spanish). I imagined how I could fill my rucksack (German) with no end of tasty goods. And on the long walk home I could spoil myself by buying a vanilla (Spanish) and chocolate (Nahuati) ice cream and then laze under a tree smoking my favourite tobacco (Spanish). I'm not sure if you will like my little story so I will expect a typhoon (Chinese); indeed, a tsunami (Japan) of protest at my disregard for the King's English.
Sorry, I was bored.
Just for you mi16 I thought I'd respond to your request for posts to be in the King's English.
The other morning I was sitting on the veranda (Indian) of my bungalow (Indian) wearing my newly purchased cashmere (Indian) pyjamas (Indian). I was musing on what I might do that day. A trip to a country (French) restaurant (French) might be nice. I could sit on their patio (Spanish) and have a curry (Indian) with my favourite chutney (Indian) for lunch; or perhaps I could have a hamburger (German) with loads of ketchup (Chinese). And then afterwards I could spend an hour or so in my favourite cafe (French) sitting at one of their teak (Indian) tables listening to music (French) with a small glass of something alcoholic (Arabic) at my elbow. It was then I thought about the new delicatessen (German) that had just opened in the plaza (Spanish). I imagined how I could fill my rucksack (German) with no end of tasty goods. And on the long walk home I could spoil myself by buying a vanilla (Spanish) and chocolate (Nahuati) ice cream and then laze under a tree smoking my favourite tobacco (Spanish). I'm not sure if you will like my little story so I will expect a typhoon (Chinese); indeed, a tsunami (Japan) of protest at my disregard for the King's English.
Sorry, I was bored.
I love it Corky, English is anything but the King's. The language is an amalgam of tongues of people who have invaded or visited these islands or have been garnered by our ancestors who have invaded or visited foreign lands. It is continually changing and evolving. To label it as ‘The King’s English’ is ill-informed and simplistic.
Regarding the original discussion; commentators might want to take a closer look at the Equality Act of 2010. This Act clearly says that you must not be discriminated against because of gender reassignment. If ever there was to be a discussion regarding issues such as ‘safe spaces’ it should have been immediately upon the introduction of the 2010 (Westminster) Act.
What the Scottish Government has done over the last six or seven years is to progress the issue through discussion and debate to align with some other progressive countries in Europe, i.e. Ireland, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Belgium, Luxemburg, Portugal, Switzerland and Malta.
The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed by 86 votes to 39. Among those supporting the Bill were Jamie Green, Sandesh Gulhane, Clare Haughey and Jackson Carlaw from the Conservatives; Jackie Baillie, Sarah Boyak, Rhoda Grant and Anas Sarwar for Labour; Alex Cole-Hamilton, Willie Rennie and Beatrice Wishart from the Lib Dems. IMHO there was broad agreement across all the parties and while some might not agree with this Bill, they surely cannot deny democracy was enacted.
Yes, but meantime a huge number of ordinary Scottish women are very upset and scared by this and if you read some of the things high lighted by For Women Scotland you can totally understand why.
Goodfellers
14-Apr-23, 08:16
Regarding the original discussion; commentators might want to take a closer look at the Equality Act of 2010. This Act clearly says that you must not be discriminated against because of gender reassignment. If ever there was to be a discussion regarding issues such as ‘safe spaces’ it should have been immediately upon the introduction of the 2010 (Westminster) Act.
What the Scottish Government has done over the last six or seven years is to progress the issue through discussion and debate to align with some other progressive countries in Europe, i.e. Ireland, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Belgium, Luxemburg, Portugal, Switzerland and Malta.
The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed by 86 votes to 39. Among those supporting the Bill were Jamie Green, Sandesh Gulhane, Clare Haughey and Jackson Carlaw from the Conservatives; Jackie Baillie, Sarah Boyak, Rhoda Grant and Anas Sarwar for Labour; Alex Cole-Hamilton, Willie Rennie and Beatrice Wishart from the Lib Dems. IMHO there was broad agreement across all the parties and while some might not agree with this Bill, they surely cannot deny democracy was enacted.
I don't think the legal challenge is anything to do with 'they surely cannot deny democracy was enacted'. It's more about enacting a law the Scottish parliament didn't have the right to do. As mentioned earlier, the UK could not enact laws that were at odds with the EU, same here, the UK government is the veto. As things currently stand, Scotland is part of the UK which has given Scotland limited powers to self govern in certain areas. Reading the papers this morning, HY's legal challenge appears to stand little chance of sucess, yet in a cash crisis, he's willing to 'waste' a huge sum of tax payers cash to 'bribe' the Greens to continue supporting him. I say call the Greens bluff, once someone has 'power' they are very reluctent to give it up.
Scotland is not an independent country able to make its own rules. Long may that continue, unless we can elect a decent Scottish government that's more interested in the people of Scotland rather than a self serving elite who only have one item on the agenda.
Just for you mi16 I thought I'd respond to your request for posts to be in the King's English.
The other morning I was sitting on the veranda (Indian) of my bungalow (Indian) wearing my newly purchased cashmere (Indian) pyjamas (Indian). I was musing on what I might do that day. A trip to a country (French) restaurant (French) might be nice. I could sit on their patio (Spanish) and have a curry (Indian) with my favourite chutney (Indian) for lunch; or perhaps I could have a hamburger (German) with loads of ketchup (Chinese). And then afterwards I could spend an hour or so in my favourite cafe (French) sitting at one of their teak (Indian) tables listening to music (French) with a small glass of something alcoholic (Arabic) at my elbow. It was then I thought about the new delicatessen (German) that had just opened in the plaza (Spanish). I imagined how I could fill my rucksack (German) with no end of tasty goods. And on the long walk home I could spoil myself by buying a vanilla (Spanish) and chocolate (Nahuati) ice cream and then laze under a tree smoking my favourite tobacco (Spanish). I'm not sure if you will like my little story so I will expect a typhoon (Chinese); indeed, a tsunami (Japan) of protest at my disregard for the King's English.
Sorry, I was bored.
What a bellend (English)
Corky Smeek
14-Apr-23, 09:19
Scotland is not an independent country able to make its own rules. Long may that continue
Thanks for saying that Goodfellers. You have just provided me with all the motivation I need to continue the fight for independence. It is beyond me how anyone could rejoice at that first sentence. I cannot imagine feeling joy because I live in a country where another country makes the rules by which I must live and slaps me down every time I have the audacity to speak out. I'm sorry, but I freely admit to being utterly unable to comprehend how anyone can have that mindset. Independence is normal, after all. I suppose, by implication, that means you are advocating something that is abnormal.
Corky Smeek
14-Apr-23, 09:35
What a bellend (English)
I just checked the etymology of the word "bellend (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bell-end)".
I'm sorry to have to tell you that, whilst it may have its origins in these islands, it is considered to be a slang, vulgar and offensive term. And there you are, advocating using only the King's English, but using such a derogatory term. I may have to get on to Buck' House to check what they think. I think The Tower of London awaits you for implying the King would ever approve such a disrespectful term.
Goodfellers
14-Apr-23, 10:17
Thanks for saying that Goodfellers. You have just provided me with all the motivation I need to continue the fight for independence. It is beyond me how anyone could rejoice at that first sentence. I cannot imagine feeling joy because I live in a country where another country makes the rules by which I must live and slaps me down every time I have the audacity to speak out. I'm sorry, but I freely admit to being utterly unable to comprehend how anyone can have that mindset. Independence is normal, after all. I suppose, by implication, that means you are advocating something that is abnormal.
I respect your right to fight for independence. I personally feel you're wasting your time, but it's your time.
The majority of Scots feel the same as I do. Therefore I don't think it's fair to consider us 'abnormal'. Abronmal different from what is usual (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/usual) or average (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/average), especially (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/especially) in a way that is bad (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bad):
I'm happy that we remain in the UK, that might change if a Scottish government could run the country well. To date that has been far from the case. I believe FM contenders admitted as much. I'm sorry, but the SNP/Greens have made a pigs ear of running Scotland. Polls show disatisfaction with the SNP/Greens is growing. I hope the independence vote will now get split between Alba/SNP/Greens allowing Labour in.
Scotland will improve with a Westminster and Holyrood Labour government. It's coming.
Corky Smeek
14-Apr-23, 12:03
Well, I'll tell you something Goodfellers. The mere idea that anything is better with Labour in power is truly stretching the bounds of credibility. They have done nothing for Scotland, ever. Well, OK the NHS. I'll give you that. Instead the Scottish people are still paying the price for Labour's utterly disastrous PFI policy.
And how long have they been promising to abolish the HoL? I'll tell you how long - exactly the same amount of time they have been nominating and electing Labour peers to it.
The last Labour/Lib Dem Scottish Government even sent money back to Westminster saying everything in Scotland was just tickety-boo and that there was nothing north of the border that needed any money spent on it.
I know you are an ardent Unionist but open your eyes, please. Nothing is better in Scotland when Labour is in power.
I just checked the etymology of the word "bellend (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bell-end)".
I'm sorry to have to tell you that, whilst it may have its origins in these islands, it is considered to be a slang, vulgar and offensive term. And there you are, advocating using only the King's English, but using such a derogatory term. I may have to get on to Buck' House to check what they think. I think The Tower of London awaits you for implying the King would ever approve such a disrespectful term.
I believe our Majestic King has referred to his son Harry as a "total bellend" in the past, therefore its accepted as Kings English.
His dearly departed mother the late Queen Elizabeth II also referred to Harry as a "bloody throbber"
Both of which are apt for yourself
Well, I'll tell you something Goodfellers. The mere idea that anything is better with Labour in power is truly stretching the bounds of credibility. They have done nothing for Scotland, ever. Well, OK the NHS. I'll give you that. Instead the Scottish people are still paying the price for Labour's utterly disastrous PFI policy.
And how long have they been promising to abolish the HoL? I'll tell you how long - exactly the same amount of time they have been nominating and electing Labour peers to it.
The last Labour/Lib Dem Scottish Government even sent money back to Westminster saying everything in Scotland was just tickety-boo and that there was nothing north of the border that needed any money spent on it.
I know you are an ardent Unionist but open your eyes, please. Nothing is better in Scotland when Labour is in power.
What exactly is good about Scotland with SNP/Greens in power?
Pay the most taxes of anyone in UK
NHS crap
Police force crap
Public transport crap
Roads in worst state ever
A96 and A9 still awaiting upgrade
Drug deaths off the charts
Ferrys costing billions still in dock
Missing money
Sex pest scandals
"Forgetful" first ministers
Its just a total catalogue of failures and sleaze
Corky Smeek
14-Apr-23, 13:43
What exactly is good about Scotland with SNP/Greens in power?
Pay the most taxes of anyone in UK
NHS crap
Police force crap
Public transport crap
Roads in worst state ever
A96 and A9 still awaiting upgrade
Drug deaths off the charts
Ferrys costing billions still in dock
Missing money
Sex pest scandals
"Forgetful" first ministers
Its just a total catalogue of failures and sleaze
Well, if you view the SG as a failure it's your fault for voting No in 2014. Your No vote ensured that the Scottish Parliament remained largely toothless with extremely limited powers to raise its own revenue. As consequence you left Scotland with a "pocket money economy" (Ruth Davidson) with more than half of the revenue raised in Scotland being retained by Westminster. This meant HMG could:-
fix London's sewers - designated a UK infrastucture project
build the London Docklands Light Railway - designated a UK infrastucture project
waste vast amounts of money failing to build HS2 - designated a UK infrastucture project
squander billions upon billions of £s making a complete mess of the covid response
make Tory donors rich, at your expense, by fraudulent public contract deals
make a total dog's dinner of Brexit
make everyone in the country, except the super rich, significantly poorer
If you and all you fellow No voters had not been duped by project fear you could have been living in a very different country with who knows, perhaps even a Labour Government in power.
The utter hypocrisy of claiming that the current SG has failed is mind blowing. With the limited resources at its disposal it has:-
abolished bridge tolls
provided free prescriptions
built a new Forth crossing - not designated a UK infrastructure project so paid for by the SG
re-opened the Borders railway - not designated a UK infrastructure project so paid for by the SG
begun dualling the A9 - not designated a UK infrastructure project so paid for by the SG
built the Aberdeen by-pass - not designated a UK infrastructure project so paid for by the SG
increased child payments by 150%
provided free bus travel to over 2 million Scots
100% increase in the health and social care budget
the best performing health service in the UK
introduced the Adult Disability Payment
free tuition fees
baby boxes
free personal and nursing care
free period products
free school meals for the youngest school pupils
free dental care for the under 26s
overseen the building of more than 100,000 affordable homes.
made Scotland virtually self-sufficient in domestic renewable energy
free eye tests for all
lowest crime rates in the UK
I could go on and on. Considering how financially constrained the SG is I think they have done brilliantly.
You don't know what you've got 'till it's gone.
Well, if you view the SG as a failure it's your fault for voting No in 2014. Your No vote ensured that the Scottish Parliament remained largely toothless with extremely limited powers to raise its own revenue. As consequence you left Scotland with a "pocket money economy" (Ruth Davidson) with more than half of the revenue raised in Scotland being retained by Westminster. This meant HMG could:-
fix London's sewers - designated a UK infrastucture project
build the London Docklands Light Railway - designated a UK infrastucture project
waste vast amounts of money failing to build HS2 - designated a UK infrastucture project
squander billions upon billions of £s making a complete mess of the covid response
make Tory donors rich, at your expense, by fraudulent public contract deals
make a total dog's dinner of Brexit
make everyone in the country, except the super rich, significantly poorer
If you and all you fellow No voters had not been duped by project fear you could have been living in a very different country with who knows, perhaps even a Labour Government in power.
The utter hypocrisy of claiming that the current SG has failed is mind blowing. With the limited resources at its disposal it has:-
abolished bridge tolls
provided free prescriptions
built a new Forth crossing - not designated a UK infrastructure project so paid for by the SG
re-opened the Borders railway - not designated a UK infrastructure project so paid for by the SG
begun dualling the A9 - not designated a UK infrastructure project so paid for by the SG
built the Aberdeen by-pass - not designated a UK infrastructure project so paid for by the SG
increased child payments by 150%
provided free bus travel to over 2 million Scots
100% increase in the health and social care budget
the best performing health service in the UK
introduced the Adult Disability Payment
free tuition fees
baby boxes
free personal and nursing care
free period products
free school meals for the youngest school pupils
free dental care for the under 26s
overseen the building of more than 100,000 affordable homes.
made Scotland virtually self-sufficient in domestic renewable energy
free eye tests for all
lowest crime rates in the UK
I could go on and on. Considering how financially constrained the SG is I think they have done brilliantly.
You don't know what you've got 'till it's gone.
all these things you claim as free are a complete myth.
it’s only free if you are a layabout non tax payer.
All of these “free” things are the reason the taxpayer pays more tax in Scotland than anywhere else in the UK
well that and to fill out the pockets of Sturgeon and her cronies
The A9 duelling was set a deadline of 2025, this will be missed by many years.
the A96 duelling was pledged in 2011, we are in 12 years on and not a single bit has begun.
AWPR a disaster of a job, ended up costing 3x the estimated cost coming in at over 1bn
Corky Smeek
14-Apr-23, 21:08
Yes, but meantime a huge number of ordinary Scottish women are very upset and scared by this and if you read some of the things high lighted by For Women Scotland you can totally understand why.
I'm sorry Fulmar I forgot to address the points you made. I share your concerns completly. The reasons you have pointed out are the same ones which give rise to my reservations over this legislation.
As I see it there are two separate issues here - firstly there is the matter of whether this legislation is good law and secondly does another legal jurisdiction have the right to step in to veto it.
On the first point I think the intention behind this bill is to reduce inequality in Scotland. I think that is very laudable and it has my complete support. Unfortunately, I think this bill has been hastily written and passed without due consideration being given to the concerns of many people in Scotland. It was a good idea badly carried out. I would suggest that it is in fact a bad law; not in intention but in enactment.
However, it was passed by the Scottish Parliament entirely in accordance with all the procedures and practices of that body. As Gronnuck has pointed out it passed into law with a considerable majority and with cross-party support. There can be no doubt that the will of Parliament was satisfied. That being said it is outrageous that HMG is intent upon preventing enactment of this law.
It is a bad law but it is our bad law and no other body has the right to interfere (I accept that techincally The Scotland Act 1998 provides for Westminster to veto certain actions taken by our Parliament). However, the Scotland Act was proposed by a governing party with strong unionist credentials and it was enacted by the Westminster Parliament who wished to limit the powers of the new Assembly (now Parliament).
It's also worth bearing in mind the reasons HMG object to this bill. It is not because it is bad law but rather because it effectively creates different standards of equality on these islands. That is a pretty poor excuse given that matters such as marriage law have been different for centuries. HMG are not worried by the many concerns over the bill. All they are intent upon is not allowing Scotland to appear a more progressive and socially responsible country than the rest of the UK which might show up the social conservatism that exists at the heart of government.
In summary, therefore, I think the Gender bill is well-intentioned but technically bad law. However, the Scottish Parliament has the right to make its own mistakes and to fix them when it sees fit and not when Westminster says so.
But how are we (and I speak as a woman here) supposed to welcome the passing of a bad law that leaves many women so worried- especially on the issue of rape crisis/sexual abuse services in which the victim cannot now be guaranteed to be seen/supported by a woman only. I want things to be better and more accepting of transgender people but not at the expense of others and one groups rights should not put those of another group at risk. It seems to me that there are unintended consequences of this law and that is why there has been intervention.
The Horseman
16-Apr-23, 19:04
But how are we (and I speak as a woman here) supposed to welcome the passing of a bad law that leaves many women so worried- especially on the issue of rape crisis/sexual abuse services in which the victim cannot now be guaranteed to be seen/supported by a woman only. I want things to be better and more accepting of transgender people but not at the expense of others and one groups rights should not put those of another group at risk. It seems to me that there are unintended consequences of this law and that is why there has been intervention.
Well said!
Corky Smeek
16-Apr-23, 22:16
But how are we (and I speak as a woman here) supposed to welcome the passing of a bad law that leaves many women so worried- especially on the issue of rape crisis/sexual abuse services in which the victim cannot now be guaranteed to be seen/supported by a woman only. I want things to be better and more accepting of transgender people but not at the expense of others and one groups rights should not put those of another group at risk. It seems to me that there are unintended consequences of this law and that is why there has been intervention.
You have summed up the dilemma posed by this legislation very well and I agree with the sentiments you have expressed. It's a horrible situation and there is no easy solution.
Firstly, you have a substantial section of society who have real and legitimate concerns about the unintended consquences of this bill. Secondly, there are the rights and concerns of those for whom this bill is supposed to provide legal protection. And then there is a constitional issue of huge significance for Scottish democracy. As I said in an earlier post I think this bill was conceived through good intention but hastily assembled and without sufficient thought for the wider consequences. I don't know how you can reconcile all of these issues given all that has happened recently.
The only thing I do know for sure is that HMG did not, no matter what they or the Daily Mail say, intervene to protect anyone's rights. They did it to prevent dual standards of equality in the UK, particularly since the bill made rUK look less equal than Scotland.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.