S35 decision tomorrow

Oh, that's just what we need our money spent on!

The Scottish Government likely to be charged the costs for this section 35 appeal -

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/snp-government-likely-charged-westminsters-31636459?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

Another appeal could push costs up to 1m.

It’s still incompetence in government. just a different flavour of incompetence.

Weaponised incompetence of a sort.

Just hold in mind that the Scottish government really does not care about gender, or 'trans' people, or independence.

The Scottish government cares about keeping itself in campervans, Jaguars, and lovely comfortable offices. It cares about power, and keeping itself there. That's all.

It's not really incompetence, if you consider that the aim was only ever to get Westminster to block legislation.

This sets up a handy bogeyman for Nationalists to rail against, thus keeping the gravy train going for another indefinite length of time.

Mission accomplished.

But these arguments – and the emotions of those involved – are not, I’m afraid, relevant. This is about good, workable law.

This is the really crucial thing. The utter incompetence of the whole thing is unacceptable.

I totally agree.

Frankly, we shouldn’t have to be looking to the courts to hold the government to account because they should be doing a decent job of legislation. There should be no need to take them to court and it should be an unusual occurrence.

Sadly, it’s all turned into a total shambles.

That's a brilliant piece. So clear. What a bunch of absolute fuckwits we have supposedly running the show.

www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/msps-have-only-themselves-to-blame-for-latest-scotland-gender-recognition-row-euan-mccolm-4439945

Yes to this

How did we get to the point that women on a parenting forum are talking about taking a government to court becuase that is the most sensible way of dealing with legislative incompetence?

I keep thinking "the world has gone mad". I'm in denial that it went mad some time ago.

On the question of whether campaign groups, or corporations with deep pockets can use the courts to change laws, its a two edged sword.

The courts have been used to hold MPs to account, eg Boris proroguing Parliament.

But if the courts are the only way to get MPs to listen, why shouldn't voters do that? (Still cant get over a petition in Scotland being closed / dismissed)

1. People often vote for a party who promises something fairly main stream, but have no idea that within that party there maybe people who have their very own hobby horse, eg get a law passed to say your can change sex
2. A lot of laws are written so badly that in fact what the court cases are giving is a definitive interpretation of the law as written, ie this may not have been the intent, but the words used in a law mean such and such. ie MPs aren't very good, or aren't well enough trained, to do the job of writing laws.
3. Some laws are written because Governments cant get their way through the supposed democratic process of debate then votes. eg Rwanda is found legally not to be a safe country, so the tories pass a bill (or was it an ammendment?) saying that Rwanda is a safe country.

I agree that incredible amounts of money has been spent on court cases, but in some ways it is no different than paying for a high profile advertising campaign. The benefit of a court case is that it gets press coverage (an ad campaign wouldn't) and there is just possible you win the court case - and it then sets a precedent.

Typo I couldn't edit (??)

Just as you looked at the wording of the law re biological women and trans women.

Just as she looked at the wording of the law re biological women and trans women.

Surely it sets in legal terms a strongly worded precedent that making self ID easier is not risk free and it would be right to question this?

Lady Haldance like any other judge isn't making rulings based on personal feelings. Her role is to look clinically at if there is an conflict in concept between the UK wide law and specifically Scottish one.

So she wasn't siding with anyone. She was just saying there is a a clash.

That's why I said when Labour gets into power and changes the UK wide law to allow self id, there will no longer be a clash, and then Scotland as well as NI and Wales wont need to bring in their own self id laws, because if Westminster makes a law it applies to all parts of the UK.

Lady Haldane isn't on our side. She is just saying are the laws compatible. Just as you looked at the wording of the law re biological women and trans women.

A good take on recent green /SNP policy problems around this bill and the bute house agreement

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-snp-should-have-listened-to-kate-forbes/

Superb! Love a wee bit of Shauny 👍😂

People vote Green because they want to see environmental policies in government.

Unfortunately, what they then get is ... the Scottish Green Party. Who are next to useless on green issues, and hot as fuck on batshit identity politics.

Thank you :)

Speaking of independent judiciary ... of course, Scotland does not have this. The Lord Advocate is appointed by the First Minister.

But Joanna Cherry has been trying to change that recently.

'JOANNA Cherry has launched a bid to give Holyrood the power to radically alter the role of Scotland’s top lawyer.
The SNP MP is seeking to give MSPs a say in the role of the Lord Advocate, who as well as being the Scottish Government’s top law officer is also in charge of prosecutions.
There are concerns about both roles being filled by one person and the Scottish Government has commissioned Malcolm McMillan, a former chief executive of the Scottish Law Commission, to conduct research into splitting up the position.

But Holyrood lacks the power to split the functions of the Lord Advocate.
The SNP MP has been given permission to introduce a bill in the Commons to make the change.'

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23976138.joanna-cherry-bid-radically-change-role-scotlands-top-lawyer/

Let's talk about human rights and the law.

Generally human rights laws were about making it possible for individuals or small minority groups to take government or large organisation to court for abused of power against them. It's about holding power to account.

What is fascinating with the trans rights movement is it's the corporations, the large charities and government working against the interests of women - notable more vulnerable women.

Then when this is pointed out, and the system used to defend the existing rights of women against government over stepping the limits of their power or Stonewall misrepresenting and misleading with 'Stonewall law' which goes beyond the scope of the actual law in an abuse of power, it's framed as anti-trans and going against human rights.

It's utterly fascinating (and equally disgusting) to see the bias the BBC are cracking out on reporting it all.

They should be lazer focused on where there is over reach by power. The fact they aren't says a lot.

Just for a wee laugh -

How it started for the voters of Scotland :

We want independence from the UK.
( a smaller we ) We want enviromentally friendly green policies.

How it's going :
Men can be women. Male rapists in prison should be put in with the female prison population so they can rape some more. Women and girls who don't want to undress in the presence of penises are bigots. Free campervans. A corrupt trial against the ex-leader that we will try and hide from the voters. A new thought crime law.

It is surreal how much reality has deviated from the issues the voters gave their votes to support. One bears not the slightest relation to the other.

This is a fair post and I also see arguments that the Greens are pretty small

I’m not sure what would change the outcome bar a huge swing in votes away from those policies, which is highly unlikely

It's mot just the Greens, though.

The SNP are determined to perform difference from the Westminster government and "progessiveness". Most if them are wedded to gender ideology.

When the SNP needed a coalition partner, of course they chose another supposedly progressive partner

The system was designed to encourage coalition government by avoiding large majorities. That:s not worked out so well.

Anyway, as I see it, if the people of Scotland don't agree with the policies of the SNP and the Greens, they need to stop voting for them.

And if the electoral system is a bad one, they need to vote in a party with a manifesto pledge to change it.

Voting Labour won't help with women's rights, of course.

the green ministers are not there because the party got a large enough share if the vote. They got just enough to be what the SNP needed so they could form a coalition - and as part of that insist on policies the people of Scotland do not want, but Green Party activists do.