Humza Yousaf - how bad will it be?

Yes, this I have no argument with, however, it seems that there are solutions to the deadlock that do not require the sledgehammer of the S35, which is why I'm of the opinion that motivation for the use of the S35 stems purely from a difference in ideological outlook rather than any genuine concern about legislative over-reach.

I suppose we'll find out in the fullness of time, because when, if as expected, the Supreme Court sides with the UK government, then there is going to have to be some practical discussion about what exactly the SG can do to resolve the UKG's objections, because right now all that the S35 supporting documentation contains is some vague hypotheticals relating to employment law, IT systems and so on.

Hopefully bad enough to break the cult voting for the SNP

I don't think its great for Scotland but I don't necessarily think it's bad for women's rights 😉

He won't win in court and its more publicity for women's rights and the clash with men's rights.

I think he will be similar to Truss. Both in competence and tenure.

There is still a lot of rot to come out. I reckon that will start very soon.

The UNCRC was not the problem, the SG bill was:

The Supreme Court held that three provisions of the UNCRC Bill affect the UK Parliament's ability to legislate for Scotland and therefore cannot become law:

• The first relates to the interpretation of legislation enacted by the UK Parliament in areas where the Scottish Parliament also has the power to legislate. It provides that "so far as possible to do so" an Act of the UK Parliament "must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with" the UNCRC. The Court held that, if enacted, this provision may require the courts to modify the meaning and effect of legislation enacted by the UK Parliament and as a result would place a restriction on its legislative power.

• The second concerns the power to 'strike down' provisions of Acts of the UK Parliament that are incompatible with the UNCRC, provided they were passed before the relevant section of the UNCRC Bill comes into force and relate to matters on which the Scottish Parliament can also legislate. It provides that a court "may make a declarator stating that the provision ceases to be law" to the extent to which it is incompatible with the UNCRC. The Court held that making the validity of Acts of the UK Parliament conditional on compatibility with the UNCRC would interfere with the UK Parliament's power to make laws for Scotland.

• The third relates to the ability to declare provisions of the UK Parliament incompatible with the UNCRC, provided they were enacted after the relevant section of the UNCRC Bill came into force and concern matters on which the Scottish Parliament can also legislate. This provision would entitle the Courts to issue an incompatibility declarator but would not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision subject to the declarator. The Court held that this provision would affect the UK Parliament's powers to legislate as it would put pressure on the UK Parliament to do so in a way which would avoid such a declarator or to amend or repeal provisions after such a declarator had been made.

The Court also considered the legality of section 6 of the UNCRC Bill, which would make it unlawful for any public authority, carrying out any function, to act in a way which is incompatible with the UNCRC.

It was accepted by the Scottish Government that this provision is, on its face, outwith the powers of the Scottish Parliament. However, the Scottish Government argued that the provision could be interpreted by the Courts in such a way as to make it compatible with the powers Scottish Parliament. The Court determined that it should not be left to the courts to impose qualifications upon the provision on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, this provision was also held to be beyond the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

https://brodies.com/insights/government-and-public-sector/uncrc-in-scotland-supreme-court-upholds-uk-governments-challenge-to-scottish-parliaments-powers/

He also referenced M. Thatcher: 'where there is division'.

This is plainly nonsense, because if GRR Bill is outwith competence because of interactivity with EA, then current GRA is also incompatible with EA, yet here we are in a situation where the two coexist

That doesn't follow, though, because there is nothing to stop the UK Government passing a statute that may have an impact on the operation of another statute, whereas there is an explicit provision to allow it to block this happening in Scotland - presumably on the grounds that, if the UK Government passes an act that affects another negatively, it is its own mess to sort out, whereas, if a devolved government does so, the UK government can be left with the problem without the power to correct it.

This is plainly nonsense, because if GRR Bill is outwith competence because of interactivity with EA, then current GRA is also incompatible with EA, yet here we are in a situation where the two coexist.

People in Scotland can still acquire a GRC as things are, so if you are contending that making that process simpler conflicts with EA then you must also be of the belief that current GRA conflicts with EA. This is a completely different argument altogether, and if that is your contention, then you must ask yourself why Westminster is seemingly content that current GRA legislation is not in conflict with EA, yet contends that simplifying the process would lead to a conflict. It's irreconcilable to hold both positions at the same time.

I'm aware of this, the point I was making is that the UNCRC itself is not an SG Bill and therefore there's nothing the SG can do with regard to amending it. The incorporation bill is, obviously, but as the inherent problems appear to lie with UNCRC itself, I'm unsure as to how an SG can remedy that to the satisfaction of the UK government.

If the UK government comes back on GRR and states what needs to be amended, then that is entirely within the ability of the SG remedy, however it appears that the UKG will not accept the bill in any format that makes any meaningful change to GRA as it already exists, so that would seem to render the whole premise pointless. As I said, this will only move when there is a change of UK government, because the current one has no interest whatsoever in passing any Scots GRR Bill of any description no matter what the SG because the objections are ideological rather than practical.

Also significantly, SNP MSPs have climbed out of the box and rebelled. Rebellion is catching and with such a slim majority he daren’t expel rebels.

He lacks the shrewd political nous of Sturgeon. He lacks charisma. He's not popular, and he lacks self control. He's a blatant and obvious liar. He has absolutely no substance or gravitas whatsoever.

I don't think he'll last long, tbh.

The GRR Bill is not out with competency.

Lady Haldane’s judgement makes it clear that GRR interacts with the Equality Act. As the Equality Act is reserved the GRR falls outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

The GRR Bill is not out with competency

It doesn't need to be. For a Section 35 to be valid, a bill just has to affect the operation of law(s) that are reserved, in this case the EA/GRA.

To quote Michael Foran (Scottish public law expert):

Section 35 is designed to apply to Bills which are within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, but which nevertheless affect or modify the law relating to reserved matters so as to give rise to reasonable beliefs that there would be an adverse effect on the operation of the law relating to reserved matters.

Humza has had several roles in the Scotgov, and promised many things.

I will now write a list of all the things Humza has achieved:

The UNCRC Bill was passed unanimously by the Scottish Parliament on 16 March 2021, but could not be made law because of a legal challenge brought by UK Government Law Officers. The Supreme Court has now ruled that certain parts of the Bill fall outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/implementing-united-nations-convention-rights-child-introductory-guidance/pages/5/

https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/united-nations-convention-on-the-rights-of-the-child-incorporation-scotland-bill/overview

That would be the intelligent thing to do. But we are talking Humza.

My money is on some grandstanding legal gesture so that he can paint himself as a judicial William Wallace, but he'll be secretly hoping the UK successfully defend the block.

If Sunak really wants to shaft him, he could let the JR process around the current bill play out in full, thus exposing all the potential harms to even more scrutiny and bad publicity, then withdraw the block and turn Humza into the dog that caught the car.

Passed for Royal Assent to become law, rather.

Unless I'm missing something, the UNCRC is not a Scottish Government Bill, so is in no way comparable.

The GRR Bill is not out with competency. Holyrood made sure of that by rejecting poison pill amendments lodged in bad faith and for no other purpose than to try and drag it outwith competence. The S35 is clearly in play for no other reason than it's a Bill that conflicts with Tory position on trans rights, which is made abundantly clear by the flimsiness and downright absurdity of some of the 'justifications' put forward in the S35 documentation.

What do you mean “passed to the Lords”? What have they got to do with it?

So far yes, but there is already chatter that Jack is willing to use S35 to prevent the DRS bill being passed to the Lords

No pro-independence FM can retain any credibility while they meekly submit to Wesminster vetoing bills passed with the overwhelming support of cross-party MSP's within Holyrood

ALL the parties voted for the UNCRC bill and they seem to have meekly submitted to that. Haven’t even bothered to come up with amendments so it can pass.

It's a precedent that no FM should countenance, because it will inevitably lead to a slew of arbitrary and petty S35's over the coming 18 months

Any FM with any sense would distance themselves as far away as possible for the GRR bill. In terms of s35s these require that Scottish Parliament to step outwith its competency. I wouldn’t put that past Humza and the misogyny party.

It will be great. Hea the gift that goes on giving.

The UNCRC incorporation (scotland) bill got blocked by the Supreme Court too because it impacted UK law, as the Scot Gov was clearly told by their lawyers before they passed it. Not sure what the legal route was for that though. It has since been sitting with no timescale for amendment which rather suggests it was a political act.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX
”… a precedent that no FM should countenance, because it will inevitably lead to a slew of arbitrary and petty S35's over the coming 18 months until the Tories are emptied at the next GE.”

Seems pretty unlikely - isn’t the GRR one the only one?