FREEDOM!!!! [4]

For me the most important aspect are the rights of children and their protection. When I was a kid I wanted to be a mermaid, I identified as being a mermaid really badly. What if they had chopped me in half and made me half Haddock? I would be in the shit now.

Well, there is a controversial children's book about a walrus that attempts to cover that....

I identified as being a mermaid really badly. What if they had chopped me in half and made me half Haddock? I would be in the shit now. - Figg

{{ Not if global warming leads to a flooded earth- you'd be well prepared for it!

As it stands right now a trans person in Scotland goes through the existing UK levelling process of being legally recognised in their new gender. Currently they have to be 18 or older.
The SNP proposal is that would be 16- on the basis at 16 in Scotland you can legally vote, get married, have sex (though cause of weird UK laws whilst you can have sex at 16 its illegal to see anyone else do it till your 18!) and join the army, so its more about putting it in line with when we give the majority of 'adult' choices to people. If the law assumes youre responsible enough to take all those other decisions for yourself why not this one?

As the polling shows though, lowering the age has not got public support for it, and will probably be one of the more hotly debated points and may well get ditched or amended in the Parliament process.}}

Adults can do as they like, but I would put it at 18 just to make sure.

{{ Oddly enough, though Im totally in favour of the current SNP legislation in terms of giving folk easier means than the current UK level means of getting your gender change recognised, I'd consider higher at 21 however when it comes to medical treatments and the like which will have lifelong consequences or are irreversible, pending more information.

I base this on the notion that what everyone who wants everyone to be treated equally, but have concerns about how this is being done really thinks, especially those of us old enough to have had time and experience of life to reflect on it, that basically, as a person, individually, we were all really weird people in puberty. Everyone is.

It's an odd time, for all sorts of reasons. And one of the things young people are open to is being captured by ideas - for me those tended to be focused on a few things, shamanism for one and Tolkien being another, sex goes without saying, for others it's a band, or a religion, or ideology or a political view, and usually with the young taken to its more extreme end of passionately supporting. And all of it is tied up in finding our own identity.

Point being we all know puberty is confusing and weird, and you change a lot as you settle into learning who you are at the end of it over the subsequent years.

And I think thats the crux of a lot of folks concerns about lowering the age from 18. Adults know puberty is a process and time in your life unique to itself, you'll most likely never quite have that mix of newness, first experiences, excitement, passion- and above all the energy- to quite achieve those heights of involvement and engagement with new ideas as then.

But it's also a period you are uniquely susceptible. From knowing your first girlfriend/boyfriend will be the one forever more and you cant imagine life without them and would rather die, to defending some idea or standpoint you believe is indisputably, provably true and everyone else is stupid for not seeing it, these at the time seeming forever parts of you more often than not will turn out to be in fact but fleeting parts. Even if at the time you could not have been more committed to them.

Puberty is a bad time for asking someone to make lifelong decisions in (I've often thought everyone should if they wish be allowed to retake all their school exams again for free anytime from 25 upwards, as asking children to make long term life choices about the direction of their life is I believe a big ask).

I don't think everyone is out of the woods of their puberty even by 18. And therefore for such a lifelong transformative choice 21, though 21 might be erring overly on the side of caution, but maybe we should start with caution and see how that goes first. }}

People change dramatically during puberty, and they don't have the maturity to know what's going on with their bodies. There have been distressing tales of parents who are anti-gay pushing their kids into a sex change because its easier to have a trans daughter than a gay son. I guess that applies to a lot of conservative people. So the kid grows up thinking being gay is wrong but being a trans suddenly makes everything ok. For girls its dramatic if they change their mind, top surgery leaves them mutilated and puberty blockers leave them with deep voices and hairloss, it seems there is less pressure for boys to be castrated. its all yucky and a bit sick, and for what seems like pressure from society to make it seem easy.

For girls its dramatic if they change their mind, top surgery leaves them mutilated and puberty blockers leave them with deep voices and hairloss- Figg

{{ The important bit I dont know from that is what percentage of those who go through the full surgery is it that change their minds later?
If its 1 in 10,000 or something then I dont think it could be used as a reason to prevent all the others from the chance to have that change if they wish it as an adult choice. People die driving or horse riding all the time, but its such a small percentage of all those who drive or horse ride we don't ban everyone from driving to prevent it.
If its a statistically notable figure then yes that puts a question mark on the circumstances under which such a procedure should be performed. But if its a small amount statistically, then the same general principles as for driving, or horse riding or any other stats based law should apply.}}

I am pretty sure that puberty blockers is a coming scandal. As bad as the contaminated blood scandal or worse. That's my prediction, but it wont come for years, and then only piecemeal because dissention and questioning will have been shut down by then. There will be a rainbow ban on questioning this practice until a headline hits the papers and then it will all come out like the grooming scandal with people having kept quiet for years. Like Savile and all the other scandals when its too late. Talking of mermaids, Mermaids UK is truly sinister. mark my words.

{{ There's not been much in the news of late to raise a smile, but this did. In the House during questions to Mogg in his new role as Minister for Brexit, the SNP minister addressed him as "the Minister for Fantasy Island." }}

He really is a tit in a top hat.

{{ Interview from today on sky news with Nicola Sturgeon. Sky is of course a Tory leaning channel so there are a few questions trying to lead Nicola into traps, and some areas where the SNP has indeed fucked up on. But if folk ever wonder how, despite these occasional fuck ups, Scotland still, and probably will again at these local elections, vote for the SNP, its because at least our leader sounds like a grown up. At least she accepts responsibility and where she is dodging questions she at least does it with skill by seeming to answer them. Compared to watching Westminster right now- which for htose who dont know 50 MP's are under investigation for sexual offences, one has resigned after being caught watching porn in the chamber, one has been fired after being caught as a paedophile, and the PM is lying, Tories accused Angela Ryaner of using her women's sexual wiles to put the Pm off by having legs in the Commons, Brexit is helping destroy the economy by making it much more fragile than it need be in the already and increasingly bad global financial climate caused by covid and war in Ukraine, and NI is about explode when Sinn Fein win their and begin a serious push for Irish Unification.
Compared to Westminster the SNP and Sturgeon seems like mana from heaven. }}

Apart from the fact that the SNP are 100% captured by Stonewall and their appalling chemical castration of children, I agree with you, the SNP is in a different league to Westminster.

{{ It's on! Sturgeon fires the indyref 2 starting pistol today. A good speech I thought to, its broadly setting out the stall. But more importantly this plan of the SNP's to publish a series of papers giving all the pros and cons of each argument and what they intend to do on everything from currency to pensions and social issues - all the stuff they were on the back foot responding to the Unionist attacks in the last referendum. By doing it this way it puts the SNP in the more commanding position of saying here's the facts here's our plan- and forcing the Union side to go on the substance of the SNP argument for independence. Hopefully this will provide a more detail focused debate than last time. }}

{{ A rather spot on parody of the BBC's biased unionist reporting in Scotland. }}

good luck Petty!  the sooner Scotland frees itself from the proto-fascist Tories the better. Its quite exciting stuff.
Sometimes I wonder if it is England I am watching not some banana republic. Electronic tagging for refugees? its beyond belief really. But its all red meat for the Brexit/kippers. Patel really is an evil toad.

{ Sturgeon set out her plans for how to hold a 2nd referendum- some was expected, like an advisory referendum, some a little more surprising for the risk it entails- going to the UK Supreme Court over who can call a referendum, and if that fails finally standing for the next Scottish elections on a single policy platform, independence.

This is a typically shrewd political move from Sturgeon from a tricky position.
Her own unshakeable view is that any referendum must be legal, and internationally recognised as being so. Technically this means no referendum without Westminster consenting to having one. We know Boris will say no as he has already indicated he will.
So Sturgeons plan is to hold an advisory referendum, basically aksing the people if they want the Scottish govenrment to pursue independence with Westminister, this may get round the legal question as its not a referendum, just an advisory question and it gives added democratic legimacy to demanding a 2nd vote. Meanwhile the case will go to the Supreme Court who will decide if its legal for the Scottish Government to call a referendum even if Westminister says no.
Its likely they will say the power is reserved to Westminster. At which point all the SNP need point out is that there is then no legal path or mechanism for any part of the Union to leave the Union no matter how much the people might want it- they will play it as Scotland being held hostage, hoping the outrage this would cause will push more into the yes camp.
If the Supreme Court do rule this way as expected the SNP will then more or less try to shame Westminster into action by trying to get relected on just the independence and 2nd referendum question- if they succeed, especially if they got a majority in such an election, it would make arguing against the democratic will very hard for Westminster.

Its quite a smart long term play but with a lot of risks, and in the short term the SNP are publishing and holding debates about why Scotland should be independent and for so long as the Unionst side take their current position of refusing to even engage in a debate there will be no counter argument or argument for the Union.

It also keeps the peace within her own party between those who push hardest for a 2nd referendum no matter what and the moderates. From just a political perspective it will be very interesting to see how this plays out.}}

From polling I have seen recently (we know how accurate that can be sometimes) it seems like support for independence is not that high right now.

I am not sure why Westminster wouldn't jump on an opportunity to write something in to law that allows this referendum but with explicit and law binding text around how often this can happen.

There is nothing to lose on the independence side when you can have a vote as often as you want without really giving up much apart from time. If you are a unionist, if the yes vote wins then that is it... no going back.

{{ I honestly dont think there would be another referendum push at this time if Brexit had not happeneed. It cannot be overstated how much the EU and Scotlands membership of it played into the choice last time to vote NO. The unionist argument that independence would see us taken out of the EU with no guarantee of getting back in, and that only a No vote would keep Scotlands place in the EU was such a central argument in the last debate I'd go as far as to say it was the argument that swung it for the Union. Having voted No and then for the very Union that promised security within the EU to take us out the EU against our will was a step too far fora lot of folk. An utter betrayal.

Polling has flucuated over the last few years, switching betwwen yes and no in the lead but neither very far from the other. However polling for if people think Scotland should have the choice to ask is way higher, usually about 70%.
Also its worth rememberng support for indpendence going into the 1st referendnum was about 30%,it ended up at 48% by the vote, this time the SNP need only move the dial a few percentage points to win and will reckon they have a good chance to.

I question if the timing of a 2nd referendum is right- but I can see the political pressure for it from within her own party, from Salmonds more militant national party, and that it was in the manifesto and we are running out of Parliamentary term.

As to how often you can hold on- well for me that alwayshas to be up to the people. If a party stands on a platform of independence and holding a referendum,and the people vote them into power they have a mandate- just as Boris had a mandate to carry out Brexit as that was the Tory manifesto.
And no one was in any doubt at the last election what a vote for the SNP meant, not even Douglas Ross leader of the Scottish Conservatives who ran on a slogan of a vote for the SNP is a vote for a devisive second referendum, positioing themselves as the only ones who could stop it. Everyone knew what voting SNP meant, Sturgeon made a big deal out of holding another referendum post Brexit.}}

Well, of course the Scottish Conservatives would position it that way. I dont believe that this is what all if the voters voted for though. I would bet many people voted for the SNP because of other policies, their thoughts on competence on delivering them and the quality of the opposition and would not vote yes for independence.

And it can't be on just the will of the people, there have to be other limiters because I bet you whatever you like that this would not happen the other way around. The same as Brexit, we just have to get on with it for the foreseeable future. There won't be a vote to go back in any time soon.

I still also disagree about the EU thing. Everyone knew the vote was coming and everyone knew a politician couldn't guarantee what the outcome of the vote would be. Anyone saying otherwise is being deliberately ignorant.

The good thing is there seems to be a bit of a political shift going on at the moment.... hopefully that continues and we can get rid of this current lot. Regardless of any policy position they hold, I think they have proven themselves untrustworthy to the highest extent and they don't really seem to care.

Everyone knew the vote was coming and everyone knew a politician couldn't guarantee what the outcome of the vote would be. Anyone saying otherwise is being deliberately ignorant.- Lance

{{That is not at all how it played out at the last indie referendum. It was the SNP who were trying to point out the risk that someone like Boris could become PM, or that the Union side could not claim, as they were, that staying in the Union could guarantee staying in the EU- the response in televised debate after televised debate from the Unionist side was, in their own words, that Boris being PM or the UK leaving the EU were 'ridiculous' and SNP 'fear mongering' and 'scare tactics'. The dominant right wing press also took this stand and they all ran strongly with stories claiming the only way to stay in the EU was the Union.
The overwhelming impression given to the public who are not like me a political anorak was Independence- lose your place in the EU, Union- guarantee your place in the EU. And it was one of the main arguments that persuaded some to vote to remain in the Union. I have met many folk who voted No and since regretted it as they felt they were lied to over the matter.

So it is very justified that Brexit changed the political landscape, but it was only a last straw, an act that proved a truth to a lot of people- that when in the last days of the previous referendum we were given 'The Vow' that promised an equal voice at UK level as an 'equal partner' it was a pure lie. Our voice and our votes still did not matter a hill of beans if England wanted different.

When it comes to who votes for SNP and if its for independence or not, thats what a referendum is there to find out. At the last referendum the SNP shifted the view from about 25% wanting independence to 45%, once the debate starts and folk get engaged is when you see the numbers change, one way or another.
What we really need, however the result comes out, is a definitive result, I'd ideally like to see a clear win one way or another of at least 60% which would settle it for some time. The idea that the SNP just call for infinite referendums is a right wing myth, they have been in power for 15 years now, they have stood on holding a referendum twice. The first one in 2014 and at the last election. Rest of their term they've just got on with running things.

I am interested in the Supreme Court ruling, as its a very smart play from Sturgeon as its a win/win for her. If the Court say the Parliament does have power then that takes Westminster out the loop when it comes to when and if Scotland can hold referendum, Westminster wont be able to veto it and if they say no, well the BBC political correspondent put that one well saying the outcome of that is, 'you have to give up the pretence that this is a voluntary union, that Scotland is allowed to leave.'
Even Thatcher agreed we were allowed to leave, its supposed to be a voluntary Union of nations- '"As a nation, [the Scots] have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure."- Thatcher.

I think if the Court officially tells Scotland you can never leave, there is no mechanism for you to ever legally leave, and we are never going to let you decide for yourselves again, well, that wont help the Union side much is my prediction.
So a smart play from Sturgeon. }}

Oh bollocks. You are treating the Scottish electorate like a bunch of idiots. You don't need to be a 'political anorak' to know that a vote could go either way. Anyone that days they are lied to needs to take a look at themselves because it is a stupid excuse.

I also think this 'equals' thing is horseshit. Your vote counts as much as mine does within the political system that we have agreed to.

I voted remain, we left. I voted Lib Dems (because i couldnt vote for that wet fart Corbyn), Tories stayed.

Now, my point still stands that independence voters seem to think they can have a referendum whenever they see fit. If that wouldn't result in the same populist, nationalist crap that has led the UK to where it is now then I dont know what does. Plus I can 100% guarantee you there will not be a vote in 10 years should the SNPs promises fall through and people feel they were lied to, just as there isn't for the rest of us.

If they lose for a second time, how long before IndyRef3 then 4 etc? Does the 2nd prove that the SNP doesn't have a mandate on independence despite being in power?

You cannot drag the country through this every 10 years just because you didn't get your way.

{{ People who voted for Brexit genuinely believed the promises made, believed messages on the  side of a bus for goodness sake- I dont think I am underestimating any electorates. Simple messages that dont give the details or facts work- Get Brexit Done- it works- its meaningless, it tells you nothing, it gives no details, but it works to get folk to vote. Just as telling the Scots electorate vote indie get thrown out Europe worked, stay in the Union stay in the EU also worked.

As to a vote it happens when a party stands on a manifesto promis of holding a referendum then wins a mandate thats always how Uk politics has worked- Boris did Brexit on a far smaller mandate, Cameron held the referendum for it on a far, far smaller mandate. And as I mentioned above this is only the second time in 15 years of government the SNP have stood on a referendum manifesto. You are simply perpetuating the Tory myth that the SNP are always talking about independence- over their 15 year run the opposition Unionist parties never shut up about it, the SNP actually talk about it far, far less as they have to run the country. For Unionist parties it makes sense to bash on about it all the time as in Scottish politics the only votes they get are those who want to stop independence. They have to keep making it an issue to stay slightly relevant.

As to equal votes- I think your are treating Scotland like its just another region of England. Its not its a country in an agreed alliance, and we were promised equal treatment on those terms last time and that has not happened. Equal terms would mean being equally consulted and listened to on things like Brexit. Having equal say. If that were say a UN decision, or NATO or any other partnership of nations then England could not have just told the other nations this is what we want, we voted for it so even though you didnt, you have to get it anyway. Thats not how equal nations work or agree on matters.
In the case of Brexit, first the devolved nations jointly proposed that as well as a simple majority it would require a majority of the UK nations to agree to it- not listened to. Then when Scotland overwhelmingly voted to remain Scottish calls to remain inside the single market in reflection of our vote, alongside NI, and have the border across the UK instead of down the Irish Sea were dismissed out of hand and we were told we were being taken out the single market and just had to lump it. None of this smacks of being treated equally to folk in Scotland. }}

What are you talking about, perpetuating a Tory myth? The last referendum was 8 years ago. And the election to "give a mandate for indyref2" was last year.

And I am pretty sure Sturgeon had made plenty of comments about it in the mean time including talking about Brexit as a potential trigger point back in 2016. So it isn't the 2nd time in 15 years at all.

And yes, 1 persons vote in Scotland having the same weight as 1 persons vote in England or Wales is how being equal works. This isn't an electoral college where a minority holds power over a majority.

There are clearly items that are dealt with by Westminster and others dealt with by Holyrood or the Senedd or NIA. That is how it has been agreed and, for Scotland, was ratified in the last vote.

Again, if people want to read the side of a bus and take it as a guarantee that it will be done then they need to sort their shit out. Another discussion I had with Brexiteers in my own family in 2016.

And lastly, there are plenty of "folk in Scotland" that disagree with you on those points of which I know a few. They are fed up of this being dragged up again and are not thanking you in the slightest.

What are you talking about, perpetuating a Tory myth?- Lance

{{The one you just perpetuated again. The SNP have only ever stood twice on holding a referendum, the first time was when we had the referendum, the 2nd time was at the last election 1 year ago- as it was the first election since Brexit, the material change that warranted a call for a 2nd referendum, as the UK we voted to remain a part of was one inside the EU, the one we have found ourselves in is outside the EU. Its an obvious material change.
But apart from those 2 occasions the SNP have neither stood on a platform of holding a referendum nor legislated for holding one. They've stood on manifestos of doing stuff domestically for the nation.

'This isn't an electoral college'- Lance

No, its not, but the upshot of having no balancing mechanism such as that is that the Union is hopelessly lopsided in England's favour- just as low population rural US states would be as well not voting if there was no electoral college, so Scotland may as well not vote as England gets whatever it wants in terms of votes. In my 50 years of life  living in Scotland about 40 of them have been under a Tory government, that no one in Scotland ever elected. Thats just not democratic.

And of course you can meet and talk to folk who support the Union, half my family does, the country is divided down the middle on it, has been for a long time so you've a 50/50 chance of talking to folk who disagree with me on independence but I believe its the best future socially, politically, democratically and long term financially for my country. }}

That wasn't the myth you said was being perpetuated.

"You are simply perpetuating the Tory myth that the SNP are always talking about independence." Petty

Constantly talking about it and having a vote are two different things. I agree that there has only been 1 referendum and 1 SNP win where independence was part of the manifesto (albeit probably not the reason a lot of people voted for them).

And yes, Brexit was an obvious material change that everyone who votes knew was coming and were fucking idiots if they took someone's word about something they cannot control.

On your second point, it is lopsided in England's favour if you look at the way voting works differently to how it works.

Before the referendum 1 Scottish vote counted the same as 1 Englsih vote in the UK elections. Nobody said that would change. Referendum happened. It didn't change. 1 Scottish vote still counts the same as 1 Englsih vote.

How is that not democratic? You are voting as part of the UK, not as a Scottish person. That was settled in the referendum. You don't like it... the yes voters did and they won. That is democracy!!!