Page 13 | Nicola Sturgeon Resigns

Helleofabore · 15/02/2023 13:41

I have a huge amount of respect for how well she has done despite the near constant media harassment and screeching from irrational TERF's.

I have a huge amount of respect for how well she has done despite the near constant media harassment questions and engagement and screeching being held accountable for putting males in prison with female prisoners from irrational TERF's constituents.

Fixed that for you.

ismu · 15/02/2023 13:41

@C8H10N4O2 to be fair I knew it was out of date, but can you define who you mean by European leaders?

If there are 44 countries in Europe, 27 in the EU and the article I've screenshotted gave us 6 + 3 who aren't in the EU maybe you need to do different sums?

I wonder who we will get next. It's revolting to hear Alex Salmond trotted out on radio 4, at least Ruth Davidson had some good reflections. Interesting that RD has no axe to grind on GRR too.

Shutuplouis · 15/02/2023 13:43

Speak with confidence and people will think you know what you talking about.

Education
Drug deaths
Ferries
Making Covid rules for point scoring
Her pal Alex Salmond
Financial Irregularities
Using gender reform to pick a fight with Westminster to use as a reason for independence.
She has done more harm than good for GR
Sandyford clinic closing in news today - coincidence?
Feminist Aye Right

Abitofalark · 15/02/2023 13:45

Good riddance to the grandiose Scottish dictator, brought down by hubris, ideological posturing, scheming and stupidity - some wilful, some inadvertent. Too late in the day and a lot of harm already done though. She's leaving to spend more time with her family. Hah! She brought the family along didn't she?

I dread to think which of the bench of ideological fools we saw stupidly defending the anti-women nonsense with staggeringly reasoning will take her place.
That former leader Angus Robertson who's been mentioned as a potential replacement, used to shout a lot in the House of Commons, only to be followed by another even worse shouter, who has now resigned. The state of politics is dire. Interesting that Scotland came up with three female party leaders, all of whom have now resigned. Remember the Labour Party one who is now doing something in a university and the Conservative who went off to have a baby and is now in the House of Lords. They're never out of a job.

Botw1 · 15/02/2023 13:45

Do trans women screech, out of interest?

Or is just TERfs?

Isithotinhere · 15/02/2023 13:49

I really liked her, but for the self-id crusade she got caught up in, I just don't understand why she made it such a key issue.

TheKeatingFive · 15/02/2023 13:52

Some interesting stuff on Twitter about what might be forcing her out the door

Tinkerbyebye · 15/02/2023 13:53

Good

C8H10N4O2 · 15/02/2023 14:15

ismu · 15/02/2023 13:41

@C8H10N4O2 to be fair I knew it was out of date, but can you define who you mean by European leaders?

If there are 44 countries in Europe, 27 in the EU and the article I've screenshotted gave us 6 + 3 who aren't in the EU maybe you need to do different sums?

I wonder who we will get next. It's revolting to hear Alex Salmond trotted out on radio 4, at least Ruth Davidson had some good reflections. Interesting that RD has no axe to grind on GRR too.

Google is your friend - wikipedia has a list of female elected and appointed leaders which is updated pretty regularly.

I read your out of date EU map says - the point is its out of date, only includes EU members and even then only includes the EU council reps, a max of one per member (so for example would not show a female leader for the UK if we were still a member as Sturgeon is leader of a part of the member country).

The point is that your claim that "all these" women are being hounded out of office when referring to TWO long serving leaders standing down is just silly.

Abhannmor · 15/02/2023 14:16

TheKeatingFive · 15/02/2023 13:52

Some interesting stuff on Twitter about what might be forcing her out the door

Meh. I remember when Harold Wilson suddenly resigned. Lots of Tories told me he was a Russian spy and ' it's all going to come out now!'
Still waiting. Of course there might some financial stuff lurking.

But surely the polls will have been the proximate cause?

Waitwhat23 · 15/02/2023 14:56

Thebestwaytoscareatory · 15/02/2023 13:36

People can change sex officially though, at least in a legal sense, that has not been up for debate or review at any point. The point of the GRR bill was to address concerns raised over the difficulties in obtaining a GRC, which had been raised since the introduction if the GRA in 2004.

As gender recognition is devolved the Scottish government undertook a public consultation on the matter in 2017, which found the majority of respondents favoured changes to the GRA that made it easier to obtain a GRC. They then produced a draft bill, which had cross-party input and support, and undertook a 2nd public consultation in 2019, where again the majority of respondents were in favour of the bill.

Westminster also undertook a consultation on the matter in 2018 but, despite the majority of respondents being in favour of removing most of the barriers to obtaining a GRC, chose not to act on it.

They then spotted an opportunity to sow more division and to distract the public from their own scandals and fiasco and so blocked the Scottish GRR bill from taking effect. What was their reasoning again? That we couldn't possibly have two different GRC standards as we need equality legislation to be uniformed across the UK? That sounds reasonable until you realise that equality legislation is not even remotely uniform across the UK (why devolve parts of it if this is your goal??), the Equalities Act 2010 doesn't even apply to Northern Ireland ffs (but I forgot they don't count as part of the UK in they eyes of Westminster).

Whatever your thoughts on the content of the GRR bill, the fact remains that the Scottish government followed the democratic process and had full parliamentary and public support for the bill. (You can argue as to whether or not there was true public support but, both consultations returned majorities in favour of the changes. If you disagree then you should have participated in the consultations and encouraged others to do so as that's how our democracy works.)

Westminster on the other hand ignored public opinion and rode roughshod over democratic process. If anyone has blindness in these areas it's those who refuse to engage with governments to ensure their views are legitimately heard and those who will happily ignore attacks on the democratic process because they have strong feelings on a subject.

Back to the topic of the thread. I feel it's a shame to loose an experienced, committed and passionate politician but as she alluded to herself it's better to go out willingly than being torn to shreds by your own party.

Show quote history

The first consultation showed the strongest support for GRA reforms (60%) -

/publications/review-gender-recognition-act-2004-analysis-responses-public-consultation-exercise-report/

This dropped for the second consultation -

www.gov.scot/publications/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-analysis-responses-public-consultation-exercise/

And the most recent, the Call for Evidence, showed a clear majority against the changes proposed in the GRR Bill -

murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2022/06/02/who-is-giving-evidence-to-the-committee-on-gender-recognition-reform/

And all these were before the issue of the 'before the law' policy of self ID by the SPS was revealed and before amendments to restrict convicted sex offenders from changing their gender was voted down.

I wonder what a public consultation would show now?

And yes, I have contributed to all of these consultations.

Waitwhat23 · 15/02/2023 15:05

Jizzle · 15/02/2023 13:00

I think it is a huge shame she has stepped down, I think she has been great for Scotland, and despite what a lot of people on here seem to think, great for women and rational policies.

I have a huge amount of respect for how well she has done despite the near constant media harassment and screeching from irrational TERF's.

In her and Arden we have lost two really strong, determined women from front line politics due to the unbelievable stress and pressure that is put on them by the media and men who just want to see them fail.

Except the 'screeching TERFS' weren't so irrational after all, were they? The concerns about self id being ripe for abuse by predators was entirely valid.

Helleofabore · 15/02/2023 15:14

Thebestwaytoscareatory · 15/02/2023 13:36

People can change sex officially though, at least in a legal sense, that has not been up for debate or review at any point. The point of the GRR bill was to address concerns raised over the difficulties in obtaining a GRC, which had been raised since the introduction if the GRA in 2004.

As gender recognition is devolved the Scottish government undertook a public consultation on the matter in 2017, which found the majority of respondents favoured changes to the GRA that made it easier to obtain a GRC. They then produced a draft bill, which had cross-party input and support, and undertook a 2nd public consultation in 2019, where again the majority of respondents were in favour of the bill.

Westminster also undertook a consultation on the matter in 2018 but, despite the majority of respondents being in favour of removing most of the barriers to obtaining a GRC, chose not to act on it.

They then spotted an opportunity to sow more division and to distract the public from their own scandals and fiasco and so blocked the Scottish GRR bill from taking effect. What was their reasoning again? That we couldn't possibly have two different GRC standards as we need equality legislation to be uniformed across the UK? That sounds reasonable until you realise that equality legislation is not even remotely uniform across the UK (why devolve parts of it if this is your goal??), the Equalities Act 2010 doesn't even apply to Northern Ireland ffs (but I forgot they don't count as part of the UK in they eyes of Westminster).

Whatever your thoughts on the content of the GRR bill, the fact remains that the Scottish government followed the democratic process and had full parliamentary and public support for the bill. (You can argue as to whether or not there was true public support but, both consultations returned majorities in favour of the changes. If you disagree then you should have participated in the consultations and encouraged others to do so as that's how our democracy works.)

Westminster on the other hand ignored public opinion and rode roughshod over democratic process. If anyone has blindness in these areas it's those who refuse to engage with governments to ensure their views are legitimately heard and those who will happily ignore attacks on the democratic process because they have strong feelings on a subject.

Back to the topic of the thread. I feel it's a shame to loose an experienced, committed and passionate politician but as she alluded to herself it's better to go out willingly than being torn to shreds by your own party.

Show quote history

"Westminster also undertook a consultation on the matter in 2018 but, despite the majority of respondents being in favour of removing most of the barriers to obtaining a GRC, chose not to act on it."

Because they recognised that there was a spamming attempt to skew the results. Not a true consultation result.

And I don't believe that opposing feminist groups were invited, even after repeated offers, to give evidence to the Scottish committee. How is not allowing opposing feminist groups to voice their evidence 'democratic process'.

And yes. I participated in both consultations. As a real live person, giving real and unique points of discussion. Not just a 'bot exercise' as the Westminster consultation was reported to be. Again, spamming a consultation with the same templated answers and maybe even from outside the UK is not a democratic process I would suggest.

Waitwhat23 · 15/02/2023 15:28

There was so little consultation with women or women's groups (particularly with those who are not majority funded by the Scottish Government itself) that an emergency evidence session of the EHRCJ had to be added the night before discussions began. The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, Reem Alsalem, was invited to give evidence for the first time in the process -
forwomen.scot/18/12/2022/emergency-evidence-session-by-ehrcj-committee/

StatisticallyChallenged · 15/02/2023 15:31

Well that's been a long time coming, and yet a fairly short sharp end when it comes down to it.

BashirWithTheGoodBeard · 15/02/2023 15:38

Helleofabore · 15/02/2023 15:14

"Westminster also undertook a consultation on the matter in 2018 but, despite the majority of respondents being in favour of removing most of the barriers to obtaining a GRC, chose not to act on it."

Because they recognised that there was a spamming attempt to skew the results. Not a true consultation result.

And I don't believe that opposing feminist groups were invited, even after repeated offers, to give evidence to the Scottish committee. How is not allowing opposing feminist groups to voice their evidence 'democratic process'.

And yes. I participated in both consultations. As a real live person, giving real and unique points of discussion. Not just a 'bot exercise' as the Westminster consultation was reported to be. Again, spamming a consultation with the same templated answers and maybe even from outside the UK is not a democratic process I would suggest.

Show quote history

Yes, the idea that those consultations were part of the democratic process is laughable.

SlouchingTowardsBethlehemAgain · 15/02/2023 16:01

Mumsnet loves to hate a powerful woman.

Johnnysgirl · 15/02/2023 16:03

SlouchingTowardsBethlehemAgain · 15/02/2023 16:01

Mumsnet loves to hate a powerful woman.

She wasn't powerful enough to get this shit past us, thank Christ...

BashirWithTheGoodBeard · 15/02/2023 16:13

SlouchingTowardsBethlehemAgain · 15/02/2023 16:01

Mumsnet loves to hate a powerful woman.

Yep, we're awful to JK Rowling on here. Oh no, wait...

WiIson · 15/02/2023 16:27

SlouchingTowardsBethlehemAgain · 15/02/2023 16:01

Mumsnet loves to hate a powerful woman.

I think the real reason is that she's drunk the cool aid and people can see just how incompetent she really is now. She had to go.

ReedRite · 15/02/2023 16:30

SlouchingTowardsBethlehemAgain · 15/02/2023 16:01

Mumsnet loves to hate a powerful woman.

🤣🤣🤣

stonebrambleboy · 15/02/2023 17:13

Userg1234 · 15/02/2023 12:43

Please and sorry for being a dense man, but why would a politician leading a country face discrimination by having gone through/started the menopause? I am not being goady but looking for education

I haven't a clue. And I'm a post menopausal woman.

howmanybicycles · 15/02/2023 17:15

BashirWithTheGoodBeard · 15/02/2023 16:13

Yep, we're awful to JK Rowling on here. Oh no, wait...

Show quote history

Yeah but no but that's different because yeah not it just is and you're a bigot

hryllilegur · 15/02/2023 17:19

SlouchingTowardsBethlehemAgain · 15/02/2023 16:01

Mumsnet loves to hate a powerful woman.

Couldn’t possibly be anything Sturgeon did, could it?

We’re all just jealous… or something. 🙄

I really resent it when people try to use feminism or female solidarity to prevent people criticising a senior politician’s record in office.

Being a woman doesn’t make Sturgeon beyond criticism.

Funnily enough, you don’t hear the same arguments being made on mn about thatcher.

tigger1001 · 15/02/2023 17:24

"There was literally no way to oppose this bill though, that's why it was called in rather than going to the Supreme Court.
The only way to mitigate to increase safeguarding would be through case law, hanging it on Nicola was very convenient.
@tigger1001 as for covid don't pollute this thread with any of those tin hat views and backtracking, the rules were really popular and had a high level of compliance, hindsight is a fine thing and it was her absolutely strongest time.
I think it's odd so many women step back from politics compared to men, and I don't think attributing it to menopause would be wrong."

No backtracking or tin foil hat wearing here. The rules in the early days were popular, but not so much as time went on. They were nuts and most thought so at the time. Police called to a golf course as the manager (within the rules) travelled through different levels for work, but wasn't allowed to play golf with the people he had been working with all day as he didn't live in that level. Yes actually happened. Or being told, again, ok to travel to a different level for work, but then had to drive past the supermarket in that level and travel 20 miles out of your way home to go to the supermarket in the level you lived in.

Or not allowed stay and watch your child play football but perfectly ok to go shopping recreationally.

I could go on. But looking back I am surprised she got away with these rules for as long as she did. People fell into three camps. These who felt the rules were good, these who followed them but questioned them, and these who questioned them and didn't follow them. And what I have personally found interesting, the people who I know who fell into group one are now looking back questioning why.

And as others have said the care home disaster in allowing untested people back into the care homes.

Scotland didn't do great in covid terms. The numbers of covid cases were much higher here than in England at the time where there were much tighter rules here than a time where englands rules were much more relaxed than here.