Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Thread gallery
12
GrouchyKiwi · 09/12/2023 12:24

Also: the SNP passes a lot of legislation where definitions are to be added later, which is highly concerning. You could completely change the meaning of legislation by a carefully-worded definition.

Recently they've had to shelve some land reform legislation they passed about 10 years ago because no one could agree on what a specific term should mean, and the legislation couldn't be enacted until that definition was agreed. (I can't remember specifics; DH was telling me about it as it would have impacted his job so he was relieved they shelved it.)

All legislation should be clear, transparent, and needing as little interpretation as possible. If it's shoddily written there are going to be challenges.

GrouchyKiwi · 09/12/2023 12:25

InefficientProcess · 09/12/2023 12:23

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.

Show quote history

That's fair.

A second chamber to scrutinise all legislation would help with that.

Such dreams.

InefficientProcess · 09/12/2023 12:25

I’d just like a competent government that actually works in line with its democratic mandate. That would solve the problem entirely.

Sadly we are so far off that, I can’t imagine it happening.

Chersfrozenface · 09/12/2023 12:26

GRR is an example of a policy that people in Scotland don’t want...

In this case people in Scotland can tank the Westminster government for the result, rather than a crowdfunding campaign.

..driven by ministers no one voted to be in power.

Eh? All Scottish Government Ministers are MSPs. They were voted in - albeit by a Byzantine electoral system, but peole still had to vite.

I’d rather we fixed the actual problem rather than celebrating the courts being the venue for working out political issues.

Well, that would be marvelous A road map would be a geat help.

InefficientProcess · 09/12/2023 12:29

..driven by ministers no one voted to be in power.

*Eh? All Scottish Government Ministers are MSPs. They were voted in - albeit by a Byzantine electoral system, but peole still had to vite.^

The system is broken.

People in Scotland did not vote for the greens with their list MSPs as ministers to be driving policy and holding the SNP effectively to ransom.

That is ‘ministers no one voted to be in power’.

The system is shit.

Chersfrozenface · 09/12/2023 12:36

People in Scotland did not vote for the greens with their list MSPs as ministers to be driving policy and holding the SNP effectively to ransom.

I wonder why they did vote for the Greens, then?

Ministers are selected from amongst the MSPs. If voters give their vote to a party in large enough numbers, it will have MSPs, who may very well then become Ministers.

InefficientProcess · 09/12/2023 12:41

Chersfrozenface · 09/12/2023 12:36

People in Scotland did not vote for the greens with their list MSPs as ministers to be driving policy and holding the SNP effectively to ransom.

I wonder why they did vote for the Greens, then?

Ministers are selected from amongst the MSPs. If voters give their vote to a party in large enough numbers, it will have MSPs, who may very well then become Ministers.

You are being totally disingenuous in this.

The list MPs system that the greens scrape through on is in no way a mandate for the greens dictating policy.

Their policies are deeply unpopular. They managed 8% of the regional vote - and only 1% of the constituency vote.

just because the stupid system enables the greens to get into ministerial positions in no way means that the Scottish electorate wanted that. The results very clearly show that the majority of Scot’s absolutely did not want that.

The system is broken. Thats why we end up with this shit.

InefficientProcess · 09/12/2023 12:43

the green ministers are not there because the party got a large enough share if the vote. They got just enough to be what the SNP needed so they could form a coalition - and as part of that insist on policies the people of Scotland do not want, but Green Party activists do.

Chersfrozenface · 09/12/2023 12:57

InefficientProcess · 09/12/2023 12:43

the green ministers are not there because the party got a large enough share if the vote. They got just enough to be what the SNP needed so they could form a coalition - and as part of that insist on policies the people of Scotland do not want, but Green Party activists do.

It's mot just the Greens, though.

The SNP are determined to perform difference from the Westminster government and "progessiveness". Most if them are wedded to gender ideology.

When the SNP needed a coalition partner, of course they chose another supposedly progressive partner

The system was designed to encourage coalition government by avoiding large majorities. That:s not worked out so well.

Anyway, as I see it, if the people of Scotland don't agree with the policies of the SNP and the Greens, they need to stop voting for them.

And if the electoral system is a bad one, they need to vote in a party with a manifesto pledge to change it.

Voting Labour won't help with women's rights, of course.

EasternStandard · 09/12/2023 13:10

Chersfrozenface · 09/12/2023 12:57

It's mot just the Greens, though.

The SNP are determined to perform difference from the Westminster government and "progessiveness". Most if them are wedded to gender ideology.

When the SNP needed a coalition partner, of course they chose another supposedly progressive partner

The system was designed to encourage coalition government by avoiding large majorities. That:s not worked out so well.

Anyway, as I see it, if the people of Scotland don't agree with the policies of the SNP and the Greens, they need to stop voting for them.

And if the electoral system is a bad one, they need to vote in a party with a manifesto pledge to change it.

Voting Labour won't help with women's rights, of course.

Show quote history

This is a fair post and I also see arguments that the Greens are pretty small

I’m not sure what would change the outcome bar a huge swing in votes away from those policies, which is highly unlikely

lechiffre55 · 09/12/2023 14:02

How it started for the voters of Scotland :

We want independence from the UK.
( a smaller we ) We want enviromentally friendly green policies.

How it's going :
Men can be women. Male rapists in prison should be put in with the female prison population so they can rape some more. Women and girls who don't want to undress in the presence of penises are bigots. Free campervans. A corrupt trial against the ex-leader that we will try and hide from the voters. A new thought crime law.

It is surreal how much reality has deviated from the issues the voters gave their votes to support. One bears not the slightest relation to the other.

Waitwhat23 · 09/12/2023 14:32

Just for a wee laugh -

(A Very Nationalist Christmas)
RedToothBrush · 09/12/2023 15:51

Let's talk about human rights and the law.

Generally human rights laws were about making it possible for individuals or small minority groups to take government or large organisation to court for abused of power against them. It's about holding power to account.

What is fascinating with the trans rights movement is it's the corporations, the large charities and government working against the interests of women - notable more vulnerable women.

Then when this is pointed out, and the system used to defend the existing rights of women against government over stepping the limits of their power or Stonewall misrepresenting and misleading with 'Stonewall law' which goes beyond the scope of the actual law in an abuse of power, it's framed as anti-trans and going against human rights.

It's utterly fascinating (and equally disgusting) to see the bias the BBC are cracking out on reporting it all.

They should be lazer focused on where there is over reach by power. The fact they aren't says a lot.

ArthurbellaScott · 09/12/2023 17:05

GrouchyKiwi · 09/12/2023 12:18

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.

Speaking of independent judiciary ... of course, Scotland does not have this. The Lord Advocate is appointed by the First Minister.

But Joanna Cherry has been trying to change that recently.

'JOANNA Cherry has launched a bid to give Holyrood the power to radically alter the role of Scotland’s top lawyer.
The SNP MP is seeking to give MSPs a say in the role of the Lord Advocate, who as well as being the Scottish Government’s top law officer is also in charge of prosecutions.
There are concerns about both roles being filled by one person and the Scottish Government has commissioned Malcolm McMillan, a former chief executive of the Scottish Law Commission, to conduct research into splitting up the position.

But Holyrood lacks the power to split the functions of the Lord Advocate.
The SNP MP has been given permission to introduce a bill in the Commons to make the change.'

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23976138.joanna-cherry-bid-radically-change-role-scotlands-top-lawyer/

Joanna Cherry in bid to radically change role of Scotland's top lawyer

JOANNA Cherry has launched a bid to give Holyrood the power to radically alter the role of Scotland’s top lawyer.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23976138.joanna-cherry-bid-radically-change-role-scotlands-top-lawyer

Melroses · 09/12/2023 17:38

Waitwhat23 · 09/12/2023 14:32

Just for a wee laugh -

(A Very Nationalist Christmas)

Thank you :)

ArthurbellaScott · 09/12/2023 18:06

Chersfrozenface · 09/12/2023 12:36

People in Scotland did not vote for the greens with their list MSPs as ministers to be driving policy and holding the SNP effectively to ransom.

I wonder why they did vote for the Greens, then?

Ministers are selected from amongst the MSPs. If voters give their vote to a party in large enough numbers, it will have MSPs, who may very well then become Ministers.

People vote Green because they want to see environmental policies in government.

Unfortunately, what they then get is ... the Scottish Green Party. Who are next to useless on green issues, and hot as fuck on batshit identity politics.

UtopiaPlanitia · 09/12/2023 18:45

Waitwhat23 · 09/12/2023 14:32

Just for a wee laugh -

(A Very Nationalist Christmas)

Superb! Love a wee bit of Shauny 👍😂

IwantToRetire · 09/12/2023 22:08

Surely it sets in legal terms a strongly worded precedent that making self ID easier is not risk free and it would be right to question this?

Lady Haldance like any other judge isn't making rulings based on personal feelings. Her role is to look clinically at if there is an conflict in concept between the UK wide law and specifically Scottish one.

So she wasn't siding with anyone. She was just saying there is a a clash.

That's why I said when Labour gets into power and changes the UK wide law to allow self id, there will no longer be a clash, and then Scotland as well as NI and Wales wont need to bring in their own self id laws, because if Westminster makes a law it applies to all parts of the UK.

Lady Haldane isn't on our side. She is just saying are the laws compatible. Just as you looked at the wording of the law re biological women and trans women.

IwantToRetire · 09/12/2023 22:16

Typo I couldn't edit (??)

Just as you looked at the wording of the law re biological women and trans women.

Just as she looked at the wording of the law re biological women and trans women.

IwantToRetire · 09/12/2023 22:30

On the question of whether campaign groups, or corporations with deep pockets can use the courts to change laws, its a two edged sword.

The courts have been used to hold MPs to account, eg Boris proroguing Parliament.

But if the courts are the only way to get MPs to listen, why shouldn't voters do that? (Still cant get over a petition in Scotland being closed / dismissed)

  1. People often vote for a party who promises something fairly main stream, but have no idea that within that party there maybe people who have their very own hobby horse, eg get a law passed to say your can change sex
  2. A lot of laws are written so badly that in fact what the court cases are giving is a definitive interpretation of the law as written, ie this may not have been the intent, but the words used in a law mean such and such. ie MPs aren't very good, or aren't well enough trained, to do the job of writing laws.
  3. Some laws are written because Governments cant get their way through the supposed democratic process of debate then votes. eg Rwanda is found legally not to be a safe country, so the tories pass a bill (or was it an ammendment?) saying that Rwanda is a safe country.

I agree that incredible amounts of money has been spent on court cases, but in some ways it is no different than paying for a high profile advertising campaign. The benefit of a court case is that it gets press coverage (an ad campaign wouldn't) and there is just possible you win the court case - and it then sets a precedent.

vivariumvivariumsvivaria · 10/12/2023 10:57

How did we get to the point that women on a parenting forum are talking about taking a government to court becuase that is the most sensible way of dealing with legislative incompetence?

I keep thinking "the world has gone mad". I'm in denial that it went mad some time ago.

EasternStandard · 10/12/2023 10:59

IwantToRetire · 09/12/2023 22:08

Surely it sets in legal terms a strongly worded precedent that making self ID easier is not risk free and it would be right to question this?

Lady Haldance like any other judge isn't making rulings based on personal feelings. Her role is to look clinically at if there is an conflict in concept between the UK wide law and specifically Scottish one.

So she wasn't siding with anyone. She was just saying there is a a clash.

That's why I said when Labour gets into power and changes the UK wide law to allow self id, there will no longer be a clash, and then Scotland as well as NI and Wales wont need to bring in their own self id laws, because if Westminster makes a law it applies to all parts of the UK.

Lady Haldane isn't on our side. She is just saying are the laws compatible. Just as you looked at the wording of the law re biological women and trans women.

Yes to this

guinnessguzzler · 10/12/2023 14:27

That's a brilliant piece. So clear. What a bunch of absolute fuckwits we have supposedly running the show.

Swipe left for the next trending thread