S35 decision tomorrow

The BBC site has an article headed "Why does the Scottish government keep losing court cases?"

One very interesting paragraph.
"There has been a growing trend of campaign groups crowd-funding cases against policies they don't like. Legal academic Andrew Tickell has been tracking the topic and found millions of pounds has been pledged to litigation over recent years."

Well, yes, if the public don't agree with a party:s policies, and particularly if they see little hope of getting rid of that party, in elections, they will use other means.

Small wonder the SNP want to make changes to ensure a mor compliant judiciary.

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?

I expect so. Labour betrayed Scottish women horribly: when asked in the run-up to the debate at Holyrood they repeatedly claimed they'd fixed the obvious problems with the GRA by adding in various safeguards.

Every single one was struck out. And they still voted for the law. Knowing very well what it meant - no safeguards, no consideration for women.

Actually there may have been one or two who defied the whip, who deserve enormous amounts of credit. But like Rosie Duffield, one or two brave women with integrity is not enough in the face of an overwhelming amount of bland, careerist party stalwarts who just do not give a fuck about women.

So they'll keep quiet, fearing that self ID is unpopular in Scotland and hoping to gain seats in the GE due to the SNPs omnishambles

And quietly confident that a Labour UK government will do its best to bring in a form of self ID.

Worth pointing out that whilst Labour are pro-selfID they have an issue with devolution.

Their best shot at Westminster involves those Scottish seats...

The ridiculous DRS being a case in point.

Well that was always the intent. The SNP rely entirely on differentiating themselves from WM, sometimes to a nose-cutting, face-spiting degree.

It has played into independence narrative

Whether it will do much for beleaguered SNP I’m not sure

The dead horse is nothing to do with gender or trans people- it was seen as a useful lever to give Scotgov another reason to pillory Westminster. Blocking it is exactly what they'd wanted, to allow them to wail about being oppressed by WM without actually having to do anything to address Scotlands issues.

What the hadn't taken into account was that women all over Scotland woke up to the fact they had flung a dead horse on the table and started loudly saying they did not want this horse. Now a sizeable majority of voters are pointing at the horse and asking if the SNP are utterly mad.

Righteous anger and logic really is perfect.

Think most people would see continuing to flog this particular dead horse as a massive waste of time and energy when there are so many more important things to address. And whilst many of the SNP leadership may be somewhat limited in strategic thinking, they're not completely daft.

From the Herald -

'Humza Yousaf is facing a high-profile clash with his Green partners in government after suffering an emphatic court defeat over Holyrood gender reforms.

The Greens urged the First Minister to appeal against the ruling, but many SNP MSPs and MPs want him to accept it and move on, especially with a general election approaching.'

Thanks, the link I posted that got auto hid is to an archive of that article.

'Armed with nothing more than righteous anger and logic,'

😁

Well other than the nutcase Mercedes Villalba who went on a Twitter rant, but I don’t think that counts. 😂

There hasn’t been a formal response, Icake . Ian Murray has been quoted in the press saying it was "disappointing this legalisation ended in the courts but this ruling should be respected"

Thats it from Scottish Labour just now

That was about the gender recognition order so not the same topic (though related) but the Hansard is here

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-12-06/debates/E7306EC2-EFCB-4331-BD82-F01FDF67CCBF/GenderRecognition

Point being, this was what they came up with when they HAD to respond. I assume you could simply send no one to the House but presumably that's never happened before?

And what's come from Labour since the S35 decision - and let's not forget, Scottish Labour was whipped to vote for the GRR - seems to be...<crickets>

Do you have a link to Labour's response?

As KPSS said on the GRC recognition order...

Listen to Labour's response to @ KemiBadenoch and believe them. Because this is a foretaste of what things will be like if they get into power.

x.com/noxyinxxprisons/status/1732443767817347481?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

...and that's from when they had to respond, as well.

From Susan Dalgety's article today -

'Every green, white and purple ribbon tied around a tree, every rally, every hashtag, every email ignored by MSPs, every court case won or lost, has been worth it. Armed with nothing more than righteous anger and logic, a small army of women took on the Holyrood elite and won.

There are too many women to name, too many groups to single out, but they all know who they are and what they did, whether it was resigning a comfortable government position as Ash Regan did, or risking a global reputation like JK Rowling. Women sacrificed careers, lost lifelong friendships, got into debt or risked arrest to campaign against a bad piece of legislation that should never have got past the consultation stage. Women who had never studied law became legal experts, raising cases in the highest court in the land. Women who had never taken an interest in politics became seasoned campaigners. Women who had gone through life quietly found their voice.'

Agree. I think the whole fiasco has certainly brought to light issues with the proposed approach, both for the public and politicians, who either hadn't actually thought very hard about it or thought they could get away with waving it through. If Labour do decide to have a go at this, they definitely won't be able to do so within a culture of no debate and assumption that only bigots don't support it. The debate has moved on.

Precedent!!

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 Haldane said the UK Gov would have needed to risk assess this for the likelihood of fraudulent applications, so this precent will apply also to any forthcoming UK Gov? A good thing then.

The silence of Labour is really worrying, I think 'no debate' is driving this silence. At some point, Labour will have to come clean and I will be watching every word uttered and what is written, for loopholes that will inevitably make their appearance in manifestos and other communications.

All political parties are going to have to make statements at some point. Vigilance and debate, otherwise our moments of gladness will be flushed down the toilet as easily as you can say TWAW.

https://archive.is/PuTfH

Susan Dalgety in the Scotsman.

Haikus inspired by yesterday -

The GRR Bill
Is finished. It has to be,
As sense has prevailed.

The Bute House nonsense!
Humza, grow a backbone, tell
The Greens to fuck off.

No public money
Should be used to challenge this
Folk have had enough.

It is fun to view
The tantrums going on though.
Cry me a river.

Will this ruling have any implications for a UK government who may attempt to pass a self-ID law?

No because if Westminsster did pass a law allowing self id then all parts of the UK would then be covered by that. So then Scotland, NI and Wales would no longer need to pass their own laws for self, and there would be no legal conflict.

And this is probably what will happen when Labour gets into power.

So we might as well enjoy this brief period of the limited protection re GR that the current law allows.

Will this ruling have any implications for a UK government who may attempt to pass a self-ID law?