Scottish Government hiding GRA Consultation results

[MiladyBerserko]

The Scottish Government conducted a Consultation which finished in March 2020, where they asked for responses to proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act. They said these responses would be published. Now it seems, they are refusing to publish them and also, refuse to respond to FOI requests about it.

See this tweet which shows that the responses to another Consultation re. women's representation on public boards were largely concerned about the redefinition of the word 'women' and its impact on the legal rights of women and girls. This also appears not to have been published, although I need confirmation on this.

mobile.twitter.com/painteyhands/status/1413219892652875780

Questions:
Why is the Scottish Government backtracking on its promise to publish the GRA consultation?

How much did it cost to conduct a Consultation which they are now choosing to ignore?

Why are they permitted to ignore the results of a public consultation?

Am I naive to think they should be held to account?

Women and Girls in Scotland appear to be taking this forward. Good luck to them and I will be supporting them.

@Waitwhat23

Someone has mentioned that Joanna Cherry is already on the case. I'm not sure about the Baroness' authority here and presumably this is a devolved matter.

I'm going to tag @glinner in this anyway

Emma Nicholson is a member of the House of Lords. The Lords has no remit over legislation made by Holyrood. Neither does Westminster unless Westminster sought to challenge it on the basis it was ultra vires of the Scotland Acts.

Put it on the site. Hope it helps! Absolutely outrageous
grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-fix-is-in

Thank you very much @Glinner!

@KimikosNightmare thank you for clarifying that - I didn't think it was the case but wasn't definite.

[quote Glinner]Put it on the site. Hope it helps! Absolutely outrageous
grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-fix-is-in[/quote]

Just when I think my gob couldn't be smacked anymore, shit like this happens.

I despair. I have never voted SNP but it's irrelevant now who did or didn't. I know many SNP voters who are blissfully ignorant about this sort of thing.

We need to make everyone aware.

@Glinner Are you able to highlight this with our dear Baroness? I know she will have no jurisdiction in Scotland but perhaps if it were on her radar a repeat might be prevented in England/the rest of the UK.

I know that Wings Over Scotland are controversial but I'm wondering whether they might be able to get the word out.

I'll send to both. Speaking of which, Wings told me that the order to ban both of us from Twitter came from the London offices. I really want more people to know that.

I've sent it to both of them along with this comment from someone on my blog. It may be useful to all of you when writing to your MSPs too.

"Langcleg post -interesting information from Mumsnet: What the hell is the point of consultation if you have already made your policy

It's not acceptable for a consultation to be a fait accompli, that is set out in the Gunning Principles:

www.bangthetable.com/blog/gunning-principles/

Just in case you didn’t already know, in the UK, public bodies can’t just go ahead and make unfair or irrational decisions without possible comeback. Rather, they can be taken to court by the public and their representatives and held to account by the Judiciary. The Gunning Principles are the founding legal principles applicable to public consultation in the UK. They were first laid down in 1985 by Mr Stephen Sedley QCC^ and have stood the test of time in successive court judgements, making them applicable to all public consultations that take place in the UK.

They consist of four principles, which if followed, are designed to make consultation fair and lawful:

Gunning 1 – Consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage

Gunning 2 – Sufficient reasons must be put forward for any proposal to permit “intelligent consideration” and response

Gunning 3 – Adequate time is given for consideration and response

Gunning 4 – The product of consultation is conscientiously taken into account by the decision maker(s)

Put simply, these criteria are a “prescription for fairness” and mean that a public body must: consult before they have made up their mind (albeit that an open mind is not an empty mind); provide people with the right kind of information for them to be able to take part in the consultation; give people enough time to participate and respond; and, give consultation responses conscientious consideration."

Doh! I see now the post was originally from Mumsnet. sorry but not sorry because it's really useful.

This statement is mindblowing. I can't believe this ideological coup is happening right in front of our eyes.

@Glinner

This statement is mindblowing. I can't believe this ideological coup is happening right in front of our eyes.

I know! It's as if they're taking Origins of Totalitiarianism as an implementation manual.

Fab, thanks @glinner for passing that over to Wings.

I'm just flabbergasted by that statement - they're just determined to ignore the majority of respondents to a consultation. Why even go through the pretence of consulting?

@Glinner

I'll send to both. Speaking of which, Wings told me that the order to ban both of us from Twitter came from the London offices. I really want more people to know that.

Interesting eh?

I'm writing to my chocolate teapot MSP again, I haven't written since he told me there were more than two sexes as I just lost the will utterly.

Thanks for spreading the word G

Utterly shameful. We won't wheesht. Hope it is spelt right, not fluent in Scottish. Wholly with you, though

This is unbelievable. I mean I believe it; but it's unbelievable.

No worries. xxx

How is it legal to refuse FOI requests?

There are grounds for authorities to refuse FOI's www.itspublicknowledge.info/YourRights/WhatMightINotSee.aspx

@Waitwhat23

I know that Wings Over Scotland are controversial but I'm wondering whether they might be able to get the word out.

Wings is currently taking a break until November.

However, if they said that they would publish the results of a consultation (and this was a stated aim in the consultation) and they are now refusing to, this could constitute a misrepresention of their intentions and possibly a misuse of the funds used to do the consultation.

@MaMelon

Trenchant lassie? Patronising, much.

Pro independence women (and men) who voted for the SNP are responsible for this - it’s not up to the rest of us to feel any level of nose cutting sympathy towards them. They are adults, they knew what they were voting for, they must now accept that their vote may very well bring about harm and disadvantage to other women.

Ironically the Nicola's SNP will NEVER bring in independence, they are fully aware it would be the end of them if they did.

Many women, including me, contributed personal accounts of abuse, sexual assault and the impact of self ID would have on our lives to the GRA Consultation and we did it in the full knowledge and consent that our responses would be published if we selected that option.

It's scandalous that these accounts should not be published when the women have consented that they should be, because they don't align with the prevailing narrative of so called progressives; that these accounts of abuse are not important enough to be considered and are to be swept under the carpet.

Wasn't there a report about stonewall recently that said with some things they published they just ignored all the things they didn't agree with?

When it's the govt though it's a very bad look...