Gender Reform laws provoke biggest ever SNP revolt

[JanieAllen]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gender-reform-laws-provoke-biggest-ever-snp-revolt-0sspzfbzg

9 unwhipable MSPs could be a massive headache for Nicola.

I just cannot fathom how anyone thought this was a good idea? Thank goodness some of them are standing up for a change.

Good for them, finally politicians who can think for themselves.

This is so undemocratic. The article suggests promotions were offered in exchange for the vote. The 9 in addition to Ash are listed here. I will be sending adult human female postcards to say thank you to each one of them for sticking to their principles.
A transwoman in the article sums it up only individuals can decide on their identity, if that's the case aren't we legislating for personality? If so that is quite ridiculous.

Interesting that there are actually some intelligent people in Scotland

'Ash Regan achieved a remarkable distinction when she quit her post as community safety minister (Mike Wade and Kieran Andrews write).

She is the first nationalist politician to leave her government position on a matter of principle in 15 years of SNP rule, and only the third minister in either the Scottish government or its predecessor, the Scottish executive, to do so this century.' - from the Times

Interesting that there are actually some intelligent people in Scotland.

The SNP leadership won't care. It will take a much bigger rebellion to defeat this.

4 of these MSPs are in their 60s and so are unlikely to seek re-election in 2026 anyway.

The SNP are hardly short of uppity councillors and MP/MSP staffers who will put themselves forward to run in these seats instead of the 9.

It is unlikely to result in the SNP losing any of these seats come 2026.

The fact is that the EA and the GRA do overlap and confuse each other. That's a situation that has been uneasy and unclear for too long - maybe this is a good opportunity to really clarify once and for all the single sex exemptions, how they work, that they have primacy over 'gender', and how they are to be enforced and overseen.

Yes, I'm really hoping that this may actually turn out to be a good thing as it will mean that the sex and gender reassignment sections of the EA come under full scrutiny, and maybe the single sex exemptions will actually be strengthened and used more widely.

And then we have the rebellion in the SNP wide open for all the see, which is also interesting.

I think Nicola thought that this bill would gracefully glide through Parliament, showing everyone how wonderful Scotland is and what a compassionate leader she is, as it went. And that then at the end, everyone would clap as they dabbed the tears from their eyes

I'm so grateful to everyone who has drawn attention to this and continues to do so.

I thought Mishal’s expression was perfectly phrased.

Respect to those SNP MSPs who voted against. Should never have been whipped, only the Tories were not - a pity some abstained.

I've seen someone suggest Labour will aim for plausible deniability by attempting amendments that won't get through. I think we should try to get them to expand on these amendments, and press all MSPs to support them.

I propose we consider what exactly it would take to get the 'primacy' of sex encoded in law, to ensure single sex exemptions are upheld and that males are kept out of women's single sex spaces.

This could actually lead to improved outcomes for women.

People can have as many GRCs as they wish, change gender every fortnight, so long as the single sex exemptions are given primacy, actually recognised as necessary, important, and rigorously upheld.

Transcript:

www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/search-what-was-said-in-parliament/meeting-of-parliament-27-10-2022?meeting=13942&iob=126396

Interesting. Perhaps that is Starmer's strategy for England as well. Keeping his head down and not entering the debate, by agreeing to self-ID but talking about the primacy of the EA.

Devil is in the detail, really.

Most TRAs don't seem to trust Starmer, and I suspect they think the same. Do they think their preferred candidates are going to win a general election? Rayner? A lot still lamenting the fall of Corbyn.

Jackie Baillie:

'I turn to some of the issues that I would like to see addressed. I start with the point that a number of members raised about the Equality Act 2010. As I understand it, the Scottish Government will argue in court in relation to the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 that a GRC changes someone’s sex under the 2010 act. If that is the case, the argument that is made is that the practical impact will be that things such as single-sex provision will in effect not exist. I understand that people want clarity on that point, and it would be helpful if the cabinet secretary could address that, even if she does not do so today.

Women have specifically expressed concerns about the need to protect women-only services and spaces. I think that we recognise that women’s rights have been hard fought for and hard won. As Pam Duncan-Glancy said, all rights have been hard fought for and hard won. However, Scottish Labour understands the strength of feeling on the issue and the desire to ensure that women’s rights are protected. We will therefore seek to amend the bill at stage 2 to respect the primacy of the Equality Act 2010 and to have that placed on the face of the bill.'

Shona Robison:

'. I give a categorical assurance that, as we move to stage 2, I will absolutely work on constructive amendments with members from across the chamber. I will give them all a fair hearing and will seek to build consensus where possible. I ask that amendments be constructive and in line with the principles of the bill. They must, of course, be legally competent, but I think that we can get there.

I will refer to two particular areas. The first is the Equality Act 2010. I have said since the beginning of this process that the bill has no impact on the Equality Act 2010. It cannot have, because that act deals with a reserved matter. Perception is also important, and I recognise the concerns about that. I have said that the single-sex exemptions under the Equality Act 2010 will remain, regardless of this bill. However, I understand that putting that into the bill will help to leave that in no doubt whatsoever and will recognise the importance of that, so I am willing to work with Pam Duncan-Glancy and others to achieve that.'

It will be good to get attention drawn to the single sex exemptions in the EA and hopefully more places will feel emboldened to actually use them.

The problem is, in the EA it says that exemptions can be used 'where there is a legitimate aim'. Surely this also needs further clarification, as 'legitimate aim' is subjective isn't it?

Worth also mentioning, that Stonewall have been campaigning to remove single sex exemptions from the EA.

That’s interesting.

there are some smart ways to play this. It does help to remember the utility of keeping the golden bridge open so that people have a way back from views they may have changed their minds on, or to frame the debate to allow nuance (from the pro self ID side I mean - the GC “side” has always had nuance, IMO). Subtle dissent and using the system may yet win the day.

I may be super optimistic in thinking that the Death To The T*rfs brigade can do nuance, but I really do think they are a tiny, batshit minority in a larger pool of people who really haven’t expended their full brain power on what this all means in practice, and absent people yelling BIGOT in their faces, might be persuaded to think of women and girls more.

Yes, this is what I am hoping. I'm going to go optimistic and say this could actually be a good thing for women. Let's get the EA under scrutiny and firm it up for women.

That’s a bit hurtful. I live in Scotland and I’m intelligent. Most of my friends are intelligent. We have universities and everything.

It beggars belief that the SNP are expending so much time and energy on this when it affects a tiny, tiny minority of people (and 50% of the rest of the population, obviously).

They're courting the youth vote with a view to independence, forgetting, I think, that young people grow up, and with experience often become less gung ho about such issues, recognising nuance, that there are wider impacts, and people with differing views are not necessarily dinosaurs who dooooon't understaaaaand, but sensible, intelligent types, with life experience.

The whip issue is at odds with the way the SNP like to be seen. I hope it bites them on the arse

There's 22 Labour MSPs.

Mind you, it wouldn't hurt to contact ALL MSPs to ask them to clarify the definitions, single sex exemptions, etc.

I'm aware of Labour in England previously saying that they support single sex exemptions but at the same time claiming that gender was exactly equivalent to sex - thereby rendering them meaningless.

We have to have clear definitions based in biological reality.

There are plenty of intelligent people in Scotland, just not many of them in the SNP or indeed, politics in general (though I am not sure that is limited to Scotland).

I'm actually naively hopeful that some of the people who voted for were voting to "be kind", but when it comes to the next stage the bill could potentially get completely derailed by amendments. Should I dare to believe that enough MSPs will have the intelligence to realise the issues? (I know I shouldn't)

Expect the worst, hope for the best, ItsAll. I'm going to put some thought into writing to them all.