S35 decision tomorrow

[InThePottingShed]

Herald article

It has played into independence narrative

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

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

The ridiculous DRS being a case in point.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

Yes @Chersfrozenface you've got to love that headline though 😂

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?

Quite and the fact that women have to raise this kind of money just to uphold our rights in law, because politicians are too cowardly or captured to listen is infuriating

The BBC are so shit on pro women stuff

Not out and out TRA as The Guardian but more insidious because they are not meant to be pro men

The only two Labour MSP's to defy the party whip over the GRR bill were - Claire Baker and Carol Mochan.

Two brave women in a party of craven cowards.

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?

Spot on.

Thank you, I couldn't remember who they were. Am I remembering right that one lost a role because of it?

Ah. Both stepped down.

'Claire Baker stood down as Labour’s spokesperson for drugs after voting against the Bill which will make it easier for transgender people to legally change their gender.

Carol Mochan. Labour’s spokesperson for mental health also resigned her portfolio after voting against.'

https://www.fifetoday.co.uk/news/politics/fife-msp-quits-party-post-after-gender-bill-opposition-vote-3968039

They both resigned from front bench positions as a result (Spokesperson for Drugs - Claire and Spokesperson for Mental Health - Carol).

Claire said 'she accepted there would be consequences when she went against the party’s whip'.

I think it is deeply problematic that the courts are increasingly being used to try to control of dictate government policy. It’s really a sign that something is fundamentally broken in the system.

This court case is not the same - it’s an intra-governmental argument using the constitutional means set out around devolution.

But it isn’t a good thing if well funded organisations or internationally and social media enabled crowd funded groups are using the courts to more or less subvert the democratic processes in the UK.

Obviously the government should either abide by the existing law or properly make changes to it (with all the process that involves!) to deliver their manifesto promises. But I’m not convinced this is the nice David and Goliath story of holding the nasty government to account we might hope it is.

Not least because I’m not convinced that this is all grassroots stuff. A lot if it is just another lobbying avenue for already well funded and powerful groups (like bloody stonewall who can probably generate a lot of funding from North America to influence British policy and law).

I think it’s quite troubling. But also that it’s a symptom of deeper problems at the core of our political system.

Just to check the crowd funding part I assume they mean other policies not this case?

Yes, because the article is about the Scottish Government's history of losing cases in courts, not just the case whose result was announced yesterday.

One of the main problems at the core of our political system has been the ability of trans extremist groups to access the corridors of power and get their preferred policies implemented instantly. No democratic accountability yet women's rights to sport, single sex spaces, child safeguarding etc disappear on demand with politicians parroting foolish cliches and looking fools.

Not least because I’m not convinced that this is all grassroots stuff. A lot if it is just another lobbying avenue for already well funded and powerful groups (like bloody stonewall who can probably generate a lot of funding from North America to influence British policy and law).

Stonewall already influences policy in the UK, very heavily.

Lobbying is a different matter from court cases.

Successful crowdfunded cases ensure that the law is upheld, they don't change it.

I’m not sure it’s as nice or simple as this.

I think that encouraging a system where those with the deepest pockets (and the most affluent patrons - globally) tie governments up in as much litigation as possible is a bad thing for democracy.

Yes there are genuine grassroots campaigns. But there will also be lots of tying up in obscure and pedantic stuff to prevent policy making. And ministers acting in anticipation of this - rather than thinking about the electorate.

This sort of thing catches on and breeds problems.

and it IS a symptom of a fundamentally broken system.

GRR is an example of a policy that people in Scotland don’t want - driven by ministers no one voted to be in power. I’d rather we fixed the actual problem rather than celebrating the courts being the venue for working out political issues.

If a government cannot pass legislation that is in line with the law then of course bad legislation should be struck down. That it takes court cases to do this is the problem, not the cases themselves.

Governments should follow the law. If the law is bad then change it. If the law is good then they should be held to account.

We have an independent judiciary for this reason; and in a uni-cameral system it's becoming increasingly clear how important this is.

Yes.

The system is broken. It’s dreadful.

it’s broken in so many ways.

I’m still not celebrating what is quickly becoming a groups with the deepest pockets - crowd funded and otherwise - being the ones that pick the issues on which the government should be held to account.

That is a problem.

Re the Scottish gvt, a woman was told to take off her For Women Scotland XX badge before going into the Scottish parliament building.

Which took me to this page:

forwomen.scot/badges/

Completely unrelated, stocking fillers are always useful.