Boo Khaki Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 (edited) Fair play to Christine Jardine for stressing that this is Tories v Scottish Parliament, not Scottish Government or SNP. To the surprise of absolutely nobody, BBC Scotland appear to be oblivious to this fact. Edited January 17, 2023 by Boo Khaki 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 Miriam Cates rabbiting on and on and on about total strawmen that have no relevance to the GRC reform bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 Fletcher spending his 4 minutes talking about issues that are, yet again, f**k all to do with GRC reform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 The published "reasons" make it clear that the only amendments acceptable to the UK Government would make it identical to English law, ie. dropping the bill entirely. Much of the paper is senseless and I'd expect Scotgov to have a decent chance of winning in court, eg. It wouldn't be fair to a woman claiming equal pay if a man whose salary the claim was based on self identified as a woman during the process. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statement-of-reasons-related-to-the-use-of-section-35-of-the-scotland-act-1998/html-version 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leith Green Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 Craig Hoy earlier on R Scotland trotted out what - in a day littered with utter dogshit - may be the most ludicrous rationale for blocking this bill. When asked for a practical example, he posed this question "what if a Scottish 16 year old boy (or girl) obtained a GRC and then moved to a single sex school in England?" 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 1 minute ago, Leith Green said: Craig Hoy earlier on R Scotland trotted out what - in a day littered with utter dogshit - may be the most ludicrous rationale for blocking this bill. When asked for a practical example, he posed this question "what if a Scottish 16 year old boy (or girl) obtained a GRC and then moved to a single sex school in England?" I mean, with my family history of prostate trouble there’s a high chance I’ll start pishing myself in old age but that’s not a reason to walk around with Magic Trees hanging off my belt loops at this juncture. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leith Green Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 3 minutes ago, welshbairn said: The published "reasons" make it clear that the only amendments acceptable to the UK Government would make it identical to English law, ie. dropping the bill entirely. Much of the paper is senseless and I'd expect Scotgov to have a decent chance of winning in court, eg. It wouldn't be fair to a woman claiming equal pay if a man whose salary the claim was based on self identified as a woman during the process. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statement-of-reasons-related-to-the-use-of-section-35-of-the-scotland-act-1998/html-version I read that, and its for the most part utter pish..............I mean, single sex clubs????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 1 minute ago, welshbairn said: The published "reasons" make it clear that the only amendments acceptable to the UK Government would make it identical to English law, ie. dropping the bill entirely. Much of the paper is senseless and I'd expect Scotgov to have a decent chance of winning in court, eg. It wouldn't be fair to a woman claiming equal pay if a man whose salary the claim was based on self identified as a woman during the process. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statement-of-reasons-related-to-the-use-of-section-35-of-the-scotland-act-1998/html-version Westminster currently recognises GRC's issued by countries outside the UK, and not once have they ever so much as hinted that there is any conflict with the UK EA2010, yet suddenly Scotland wants to reform it's current GRC legislation along the lines of those same countries legislation, not introduce GRC's for the first time, and suddenly it's an insurmountable problem? It's complete and utter horseshit. The objections stem purely from the fact it's at odds with the culture war posturing and anti-trans rhetoric of Braverman, Badenoch and co, therefore out of sheer desperation they've attempted to cobble together a pile of spurious but plausible-sounding reasons why they need to s35 the Scots bill. The 'reasons' I've seen so far are every bit as irrelevant as all the 'but bathrooms' pish that has been put forward in the chamber this afternoon for grounds for blocking this, but they are there in print so will have to form the basis of the Govt's argument when this ends up in court. I expect the court not just to find in the SG's favour, but dismiss the Westminster points out of hand because of that simple fact that they don't even have any relevance to the consequences of GRC reform Kirsty Blackman dished out a 'telt' right at the end of the debate clarifying just how spurious and irrelevant these 'arguments' are, just a pity that it will be totally ignored and we'll continue to see folk invited to repeat these outright lies dressed up as 'legitimate concerns' over and over in supposedly impartial places like BBC news and current affairs programming. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 8 minutes ago, Leith Green said: I read that, and its for the most part utter pish..............I mean, single sex clubs????? HMRC don't have the IT functionality to cope, apparently. I'm sure even the most strident of trans rights activists will concede that is overwhelming grounds for beginning an immediate detransition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 2 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said: HMRC don't have the IT functionality to cope, apparently. I'm sure even the most strident of trans rights activists will concede that is overwhelming grounds for beginning an immediate detransition. Total pish. When same sex marriage bans started falling in individual states in the US, the IRS were the first agency to come out and say ‘if you’re married, you’re married, you get the same tax treatment regardless’ and that’ll have been magnitudes more people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 1 minute ago, carpetmonster said: Total pish. When same sex marriage bans started falling in individual states in the US, the IRS were the first agency to come out and say ‘if you’re married, you’re married, you get the same tax treatment regardless’ and that’ll have been magnitudes more people. Of course it's total pish. If they don't have the functionality to cope with sorting the tax affairs of someone with a GRC then that's inarguably the case right now. How on earth they can contend that a current failing of a reserved department is grounds for preventing a tiny number of further Scots people attaining a GRC themselves is risible They're willing to immolate the Union over this, and yet that is the sort of utterly banal pish they are putting forward as justification for doing so, and they are going to presumably turn up to a court and claim that is grounds for vetoing a bill that is entirely about a devolved matter? You really have to ask yourself who exactly they got this legal advice from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 5 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said: Of course it's total pish. If they don't have the functionality to cope with sorting the tax affairs of someone with a GRC then that's inarguably the case right now. How on earth they can contend that a current failing of a reserved department is grounds for preventing a tiny number of further Scots people attaining a GRC themselves is risible They're willing to immolate the Union over this, and yet that is the sort of utterly banal pish they are putting forward as justification for doing so, and they are going to presumably turn up to a court and claim that is grounds for vetoing a bill that is entirely about a devolved matter? You really have to ask yourself who exactly they got this legal advice from. Lynton Crosby? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 (edited) 5 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: Lynton Crosby? Paul Baxendale-Walker ETA - BRALT for this pish Edited January 17, 2023 by carpetmonster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 On the point of “genuine concern” versus “concern” I suppose it will be a genuine concern for the English Tories that if they have to report one of the men who only transitioned so that they could perv in changing rooms, they might have to report it to a Met polis who sexually assaulted them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razamanaz Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 2 hours ago, Boo Khaki said: Totally disagree. Night and day an improvement over Blackford. He's clear, concise, articulate, and with none of the wind or bluster Blackford is prone to. Not a very high bar then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 Caught a wee snippet on Good Evening Ulster last night, and some Conservatives were dubious about invoking this article 35 (the first time it has been implemented since devolution was established) as it might be a "trap" set by the SNP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 (edited) Also, the next time one of these arseholes contends that this bill is about nothing other than the 'SNP angling for a constitutional punch-up, using trans people as a political football', it would be nice if they were challenged to explain how that can possibly be the case ,when this bill has it's origins back in 2016, and at that point in time the Conservative party was itself one of the main driving forces behind, and biggest advocates for this exact sort of reform. The facts are, it's the post Theresa May uber-right Tory party that has changed it's stance on this, not the SNP, not the Scottish Greens, not any version of the Labour Party (hi Keir), not the Lib Dems, so that total pish really needs thrown straight back at them and the question asked regards why the sudden change of heart? According to the Tories' line on this Nicola Sturgeon is such a shrewd political operator she can actually foretell the future, including reading the minds of random future Conservative ministers. Edited January 17, 2023 by Boo Khaki 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 1 minute ago, razamanaz said: Not a very high bar then? No. I've never claimed otherwise. Blackford is, and always has been a terrible public speaker. Far too prone to descending into what sounds like plain old ranting. Flynn might not be particularly charismatic, but he stays on point and delivers his thoughts in a calm, coherent manner, which is enough in itself to be a huge improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 10 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said: Also, the next time one of these arseholes contends that this bill is about nothing other than the 'SNP angling for a constitutional punch-up, using trans people as a political football', it would be nice if they were challenged to explain how that can possibly be the case ,when this bill has it's origins back in 2016, and at that point in time the Conservative party was itself one of the main driving forces behind, and biggest advocates for this exact sort of reform. The facts are, it's the post Theresa May uber-right Tory party that has changed it's stance on this, not the SNP, not the Scottish Greens, not any version of the Labour Party (hi Keir), not the Lib Dems, so that total pish really needs thrown straight back at them and the question asked regards why the sudden change of heart? According to the Tories' line on this Nicola Sturgeon is such a shrewd political operator she can actually foretell the future, including reading the minds of random future Conservative ministers. You’re giving the Tories too much credit. They will have focus groups showing that this plays well with their supporters so they will crack ahead without any regards for the facts or with any real attempt at justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: You’re giving the Tories too much credit. They will have focus groups showing that this plays well with their supporters so they will crack ahead without any regards for the facts or with any real attempt at justification. This is, in fact, exactly why they totally changed tack. I think it was Esther McVey (might be wrong on this, was deffo a Tory female MP) making a bit of a fuss behind the scenes about a lack of progress on GRC in the early days of BoJo's government, so they did a quick bit of polling among their own core support, unsurprisingly discovered it wasn't very popular with socially conservative geriatrics, and so began all the 'legitimate concerns/they're all secretly pedos' pish they are still churning out now. Edited January 17, 2023 by Boo Khaki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts