S35 decision tomorrow

You are being totally disingenuous in this.

The list MPs system that the greens scrape through on is in no way a mandate for the greens dictating policy.

Their policies are deeply unpopular. They managed 8% of the regional vote - and only 1% of the constituency vote.

just because the stupid system enables the greens to get into ministerial positions in no way means that the Scottish electorate wanted that. The results very clearly show that the majority of Scot’s absolutely did not want that.

The system is broken. Thats why we end up with this shit.

People in Scotland did not vote for the greens with their list MSPs as ministers to be driving policy and holding the SNP effectively to ransom.

I wonder why they did vote for the Greens, then?

Ministers are selected from amongst the MSPs. If voters give their vote to a party in large enough numbers, it will have MSPs, who may very well then become Ministers.

..driven by ministers no one voted to be in power.

*Eh? All Scottish Government Ministers are MSPs. They were voted in - albeit by a Byzantine electoral system, but peole still had to vite.^

The system is broken.

People in Scotland did not vote for the greens with their list MSPs as ministers to be driving policy and holding the SNP effectively to ransom.

That is ‘ministers no one voted to be in power’.

The system is shit.

GRR is an example of a policy that people in Scotland don’t want...

In this case people in Scotland can tank the Westminster government for the result, rather than a crowdfunding campaign.

..driven by ministers no one voted to be in power.

Eh? All Scottish Government Ministers are MSPs. They were voted in - albeit by a Byzantine electoral system, but peole still had to vite.

I’d rather we fixed the actual problem rather than celebrating the courts being the venue for working out political issues.

Well, that would be marvelous A road map would be a geat help.

I’d just like a competent government that actually works in line with its democratic mandate. That would solve the problem entirely.

Sadly we are so far off that, I can’t imagine it happening.

That's fair.

A second chamber to scrutinise all legislation would help with that.

Such dreams.

Also: the SNP passes a lot of legislation where definitions are to be added later, which is highly concerning. You could completely change the meaning of legislation by a carefully-worded definition.

Recently they've had to shelve some land reform legislation they passed about 10 years ago because no one could agree on what a specific term should mean, and the legislation couldn't be enacted until that definition was agreed. (I can't remember specifics; DH was telling me about it as it would have impacted his job so he was relieved they shelved it.)

All legislation should be clear, transparent, and needing as little interpretation as possible. If it's shoddily written there are going to be challenges.

Re the Scottish gvt, a woman was told to take off her For Women Scotland XX badge before going into the Scottish parliament building.

Which took me to this page:

forwomen.scot/badges/

Completely unrelated, stocking fillers are always useful.

I’m still not celebrating what is quickly becoming a groups with the deepest pockets - crowd funded and otherwise - being the ones that pick the issues on which the government should be held to account.

That is a problem.

Yes.

The system is broken. It’s dreadful.

it’s broken in so many ways.

If a government cannot pass legislation that is in line with the law then of course bad legislation should be struck down. That it takes court cases to do this is the problem, not the cases themselves.

Governments should follow the law. If the law is bad then change it. If the law is good then they should be held to account.

We have an independent judiciary for this reason; and in a uni-cameral system it's becoming increasingly clear how important this is.

I’m not sure it’s as nice or simple as this.

I think that encouraging a system where those with the deepest pockets (and the most affluent patrons - globally) tie governments up in as much litigation as possible is a bad thing for democracy.

Yes there are genuine grassroots campaigns. But there will also be lots of tying up in obscure and pedantic stuff to prevent policy making. And ministers acting in anticipation of this - rather than thinking about the electorate.

This sort of thing catches on and breeds problems.

and it IS a symptom of a fundamentally broken system.

GRR is an example of a policy that people in Scotland don’t want - driven by ministers no one voted to be in power. I’d rather we fixed the actual problem rather than celebrating the courts being the venue for working out political issues.

Not least because I’m not convinced that this is all grassroots stuff. A lot if it is just another lobbying avenue for already well funded and powerful groups (like bloody stonewall who can probably generate a lot of funding from North America to influence British policy and law).

Stonewall already influences policy in the UK, very heavily.

Lobbying is a different matter from court cases.

Successful crowdfunded cases ensure that the law is upheld, they don't change it.

One of the main problems at the core of our political system has been the ability of trans extremist groups to access the corridors of power and get their preferred policies implemented instantly. No democratic accountability yet women's rights to sport, single sex spaces, child safeguarding etc disappear on demand with politicians parroting foolish cliches and looking fools.

Yes, because the article is about the Scottish Government's history of losing cases in courts, not just the case whose result was announced yesterday.

Just to check the crowd funding part I assume they mean other policies not this case?

I think it is deeply problematic that the courts are increasingly being used to try to control of dictate government policy. It’s really a sign that something is fundamentally broken in the system.

This court case is not the same - it’s an intra-governmental argument using the constitutional means set out around devolution.

But it isn’t a good thing if well funded organisations or internationally and social media enabled crowd funded groups are using the courts to more or less subvert the democratic processes in the UK.

Obviously the government should either abide by the existing law or properly make changes to it (with all the process that involves!) to deliver their manifesto promises. But I’m not convinced this is the nice David and Goliath story of holding the nasty government to account we might hope it is.

Not least because I’m not convinced that this is all grassroots stuff. A lot if it is just another lobbying avenue for already well funded and powerful groups (like bloody stonewall who can probably generate a lot of funding from North America to influence British policy and law).

I think it’s quite troubling. But also that it’s a symptom of deeper problems at the core of our political system.

They both resigned from front bench positions as a result (Spokesperson for Drugs - Claire and Spokesperson for Mental Health - Carol).

Claire said 'she accepted there would be consequences when she went against the party’s whip'.

Ah. Both stepped down.

'Claire Baker stood down as Labour’s spokesperson for drugs after voting against the Bill which will make it easier for transgender people to legally change their gender.

Carol Mochan. Labour’s spokesperson for mental health also resigned her portfolio after voting against.'

https://www.fifetoday.co.uk/news/politics/fife-msp-quits-party-post-after-gender-bill-opposition-vote-3968039

Thank you, I couldn't remember who they were. Am I remembering right that one lost a role because of it?

Oh, and stupid BBC, it's not just "policies they don't like", it:s policies that are contrary to law, or thd SNP wouldn't' keep losing, now would they?

Spot on.

The only two Labour MSP's to defy the party whip over the GRR bill were - Claire Baker and Carol Mochan.

Two brave women in a party of craven cowards.

The BBC are so shit on pro women stuff

Not out and out TRA as The Guardian but more insidious because they are not meant to be pro men

Oh, and stupid BBC, it's not just "policies they don't like", it:s policies that are contrary to law, or thd SNP wouldn't' keep losing, now would they?

Quite and the fact that women have to raise this kind of money just to uphold our rights in law, because politicians are too cowardly or captured to listen is infuriating

Yes @Chersfrozenface you've got to love that headline though 😂