BBC: UK govt may not recognise a proposed new system in Scotland to allow people to legally change their gender, and hasn't ruled out a legal challenge

[ResisterRex]

From the BBC's political correspondent

twitter.com/bbcdavidwl/status/1600898263330144258?s=46&t=rzUbh4c1nyeBtlrZx733bg

"EXC: UK govt may not recognise a proposed new system in Scotland to allow people to legally change their gender. They're also not ruling out a legal challenge.

This could could hugely complicate matters for anyone changing gender in Scotland and then moving elsewhere in UK (1/5)

New process in Scotland will make easier to obtain a gender recognition certificate. UK Gov source said "absolutely" possible rest of UK won't recognise Scot certificates

Source said it's "test case scenario" of how Holyrood bill could "undermine Westminster competencies". 2/5

Same source told me that Scottish ministers wanted to paint Scotland as a "haven of inclusivity" in comparison to a "nasty Westminster".

Kemi Badenoch (equalities minister) has written to Scot Gov expressing concerns about bill 3/5

Scot Gov spokes said Ms Badenoch was responding to letter sent by Scot Gov in Oct "setting out relevant policy considerations for the UK Government, undertaking to work constructively on cross-border issues, and offering to meet."

Scot Gov say happy to meet Ms Badenoch 4/5

This legislation looks set to be passed by MSPs this month.

It's been controversial in Scotland, and looks like some of that controversy could shortly spill over into cross-border issues. 5/5"

'MSPs of all parties need a free, open forum to hear from all sides of this debate and express their sincerely held views.'

If only that could actually happen. The 'six words' debate on the Forensic Medical Services Bill showed exactly what happens when this issue is let loose in the debate chamber.

It's absurd that the Bill has been waved through on the votes of seven people - in several instances, with a difference of one or two votes meaning it was passed.

This is not democracy.

Neither is ignoring any views that don't accord with those of the government.

What bothers me is that even when the gov does hold a 'consultation', it disregards the majority views, chooses not to bother publishing them, or dismisses them.

Arabella on the consultation...I posted this on the other thread but seems relevant here...

Do you remember that the Scottish consultation said:

"The Committee will not, as part of its scrutiny, address or explore issues which are outwith the scope of the Bill as outlined above. Submissions which contain offensive language, do not comply with GDPR requirements or are not relevant to the Committee’s scrutiny will not be published."

Does anyone remember this? I do because I commented on it specifically. I think it means that they closed their minds and that as no definition of "offensive" was given, that lack of definition PLUS the bizarre insertion of GDPR, might well mean that anyone who tried to give public, documented examples of male prison rapists in female prisons, would've had their answer struck out.

Thus the Scottish government couldn't have considered the impacts in full, when you think of all the things that strange stipulation could apply to.

I'll also say that to my mind, this Bill threatens public safety and minors. If the Scottish government doesn't care then the UK government must. And they must act to protect public safety and to protect children

Those are very good points, ResisterRex. I don't remember it, but it doesn't surprise me.

The Scotgov seems to be making this 'consultation' approach over various areas. It's a 'consultation' in name only - remember Sturgeon said she hoped to convince people of the rightness of her view with the consultation?

I thought it would be a neat way of removing "problematic" (ie fact-based) responses based on publicly available information

Yes, although they're not above flat out lies, either!