FREEDOM!!!! [4]

{{ Halfy- thats very true, it was a decision taken among the nobs, Dukes and Lords and such. The people responded to the news by rioting country wide, so its probably safe to hazard a guess that it did not have popular public consent at the time!

Lance- indeed we have to look to more recent events and legislation to decide if a 2nd referendum is justified.

For me there has to be a few things in play at once- there has to be a sizeable chunk of the public want it- polling shows it hovers either side of the 50% mark, that for me justifies the subject being in public debate, but not a referendum on its own, for me that figure woud have to be consistently above 60%

Secondly have the circumstances altered dramatically since the last vote was taken, and in especial has the deal that was offered in that referndum been carried through on? Ill come back to that in more detail.

Thirdly has the legal framework that was created been carried through on?

And fourth is there a democrtic mandate for it?

I'll take points 2 and 3 together as they are connected.
At the last referendum the polling all showed in the last few weeks a consitent YES vote, sitting between 52-60% depending on polling company. This panicked the Union side and led to what was known as The Vow.

Now The Vow was underhanded from the very start, the referendum had entered the purdah period, which comes into place in the last weeks leading up to the vote and prevents either side from making any new last minute promises. But that was just what the Vow was, they got round the purduh laws by having it annouced by ex-Labour MP and ex-PM Gordon Brown, who depsite having fallen from grace in English eyes had remained a respected politician in Scotland and whose voice carried significant weight, but best from the unionist side Brown was not officially affliated with either campaign so the Vow was not officially from the No side, but all the no leaders, Cameron, Miliband, Clegg et all all publicly endorsed it in the press and said they would hold to it.

The Vow itself promised much more devolved powers and bordered on somehting akin to full federalisation of the UK.

The legal outcome of the Vow following the No vote and to remain in the Union was the Smith Commission, it claimed to deliver on the promises of the Vow but by most measures it was considered to have fallen well short of what was promised by Brown, the usual suspects like the SNP you would expect to complain about the lack of devolved powers but it wasnt just them-  Iain Macwhirter, writing in The Herald, argued that the lack of devolution of taxes other than income tax would "lock Scotland in economic decline". This view was widely expressed by former ministers too- 'Former First Minister Jack McConnell (Labour) described Smith as a "shambles" and called on Cameron to lead a new constitutional convention. Malcolm Rifkind, a former Secretary of State for Scotland (Tory), also expressed support for the idea of some sort of new commission. In response, Cameron said he would "look at" any proposals for further powers for Scotland'- no further powers were looked at and no further proposals were made. But the sentiment that the Smith Commission was coming up short was strongest among the people - 'Polling in November 2014 indicated that a majority of Scots wanted greater devolution than that recommended by the Smith Commission.'

Nonetheless the Smith Commission went through Westminster and was finally passed as the Scotland Act 2016.

I think it is safe to say that the promises made in the Vow and backed by all Unionist leaders have failed to materialise in their fullness in the intervening time. But there is worse than just broken promises as another piece of legisaltion dealing with how the two parliaments, Scottish and Westminster interact (and indeed the other devolved administrations in Wales and NI too). This is covered by the Sewel Convention. Under this rule the Westminister governement will not pass legislation that alters the law in a devolved adminsitration without also getting it passed in the devolved administrations parliament.

This has proven to be not worth the paper it was written on. Post Brexit Westminster decided to have a unified internal UK market, so for exmaple if Westminster did a trade deal with the US that involved imported chlorine washed chikcen, despite it being illegal to sell in Scotland we would have to sell it without consent or a vote as part of the internal market. This would seem to blatantly contradict Sewel and the rights of the devolved adminsitrations.
But during Brexit itself Westminster overode and ignored Sewel many times.

'four bills relating to Brexit were passed without the consent of at least one of the devolved legislatures.  The EU Withdrawal Act 2018 was the first piece of Brexit legislation recognised by the UK government to fall within the scope of the Sewel convention.
The bill was opposed in its original form by both the Scottish and Welsh governments. Following concessions by the UK government, consent was given by the Senedd. However, the Scottish parliament voted to withhold consent. The legislation was enacted anyway, making this the first time Westminster had legislated without Scottish consent after having recognised that consent should be sought.
The UK government also accepted that the Sewel convention applied to the European Union Withdrawal Agreement Bill. In January 2020, all three devolved legislatures denied consent to the bill, but the UK parliament passed the legislation regardless.
In the new parliament formed after the 2019 election, a number of other Brexit-related bills were introduced that have fallen within the scope of the Sewel convention. Consent has been given for most of these bills. However, both the Scottish parliament (on 7 October 2020), and the Senedd (on 8 December 2020) voted to withhold consent for the UK Internal Market Bill. In addition, the Scottish parliament withheld consent for the European Union (Future Relationship) Bill on 30 December 2020- institute for government.org

But even worse when the devolved adminstrations challenged the legality of this the Supreme Court found that the Sewel Convention was merely a political agreement that had no legal impact on Westminsters ability to legislate for all parts without seeking any consent to do so.

I would argue therefore that the promises and legal protection promised during the referendum campaign from the Unionist side were made in bad faith, and have demonstrably not been adhered to in letter or in spirit that many peole who voted to remain in the Union did so on very false premises that have since proven to be false. And this justifies a second vote.

The other elephant in the room when it comes to referendum promises was one of the main lines of attack from the Unionist side against independence- that if we left the Uk we would have to leave the EU and reapply, and there was no guarantee we would get back in. The only way to ensure Scotlands place safely within the EU was to vote to remain in the Union.

Well we all know how that worked out. Scotland voted to remain in the EU at Brexit, and a large number voted to remain in the Union for the exact same reason. But we left anyway, against our will, against all our votes, against referendum promises and against  all democratic principles. It is a clear and fundemental change in our country and as it also breaks one of the major campaign promises made at the referendum so  it justifies the question being asked again in the new circumstances.

And lastly there has to be a democratic mandate for a referendum. The last Scottish elections were clearly fought around the subject of holding a second referndum. No one in Scotland was in any doubt of that, including the Scottish Tories who based their entire compaign around the claim that the only way to stop a 2nd referendum was to vote Tory. They argued in every newpaper and newsstudio in the country that a vote for the SNP was a vote for what they called a 'chaotic second referendum'. So despite what Unionists like to say now it was absolutely clear what was being voted for at the last Scottish elections.

That election returned the SNP as a minority government, falling just 2 seats short of an overall majority (remember its a list vote system, part pr that was designed and self declared by Labour to specifically stop the SNP being able to get a majority) but also got in enough Green Party members who are also pro-indepndence to form a coalition majority of pro independence members, able therefore to legislate on their manifesto promises of a 2nd referendum. Only it turns out they arent allowed to.

The recent legal decision- that the Scottish parliament has no powers to call a referendum without Westminister consent, which they wont give, highlights the democratic issue. No matter how many Scots vote for proindependence parties, no matter how many times they elect one to power, it will not matter a jot. There is now no legal or democratic means out of the Union, unless England gives permission to leave. And therein lies the problem, one which will have to be resolved, one way or another.

So for me there is more than enough justifications for another referendum- the material circumstances have changed thanks to Brexit, the legal and other promises given to the Scottish poeple if they voted for the Union have failed to materialise or worse been shown not to be worth the paper they are written on. And there is an obvious democratic issue in needing to seek permission from Westminster and a party that Scotland has not voted for in over half a century now. }}

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/11/scotland-in-chains/

{ An interesitng piece Blue, but I dont entirely agree. Not at this point in time anyhow. Since the Court decision effectively putting Scotland in English chains there have been four major polls conducted, all showing an increase in support for independence (between 52 and 56%) this is good ground to work from, however in my view it is not enough to abandon all law and just declare independence, for that Id like to see at the least consistent polling between 65 and 70% as in my view anything else risks mass civil unrest if the SNP take unilateral action without majority public support for it.


Figg- youll be glad to know the Tories are promising to come to the rescue to stop the Scottish govenrment legislating to change the gender recognistion act-

'Downing Street has not ruled out mounting a court challenge...The Westminster government is also considering refusing to recognise certificates issued under the new Scottish system..The source described the Scottish legislation as a "test case scenario" of how a bill passed by the Scottish Parliament could "undermine Westminster competencies" - BBC

However my favourite part of this is Tory reasoning- "They claimed Scottish ministers wanted to paint Scotland as a "haven of inclusivity" in comparison to a "nasty Westminster".

Reminds me of the time the Tories tries to claim the SNP supporting benifits for the poorest Westminster was cutting was just done to make Westminster look bad!

Im of the general opinion you can tell if youre on the right or wrong side by looking at who supports your side of the argument, and as a general rule anything Tories are in favoiur of is usually worth opposing. This included.

On the same subject JK set up a womens only refuge in Edinburgh that wont allow trans, claiming it filled an 'unmet need' even though the reason she can do that is because the laws she says prevents her doing so actually lets her do so! But what really made me grin was the congratulations message she got from Rape Crisis Scotland which has 17 safe centres across scotland saying it welcomed any service which supported victims of sexual abuse before adding - "All rape crisis services in Scotland offer support to trans women and have done so for 15 years. There has not been a single incident of anyone abusing this.
We continue to see the paths to equality for women and trans people are being deeply interconnected and dependent on shared efforts to dismantle systems of discrimination." }}

{{ Well after 3 days of debating the amendments the gender recognition bill has finally been passed with 86 to 39 votes in favour and cross party support, at least in Scotland that is.

Westminster has immediately responded saying-  "We will look closely at that, and also the ramifications for the 2010 Equality Act and other UK wide legislation, in the coming weeks - up to and including a Section 35 order stopping the Bill going for Royal Assent if necessary."

So it may all come to nothing yet again as Scottish democracy gets trampled on by England once more. But for now we join several other nations including Ireland and Denmark and over 350 million folk worldwide who live where similar legislation exists. }}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{
Figg- youll be glad to know the Tories are promising to come to the rescue to stop the Scottish govenrment legislating to change the gender recognistion act-
}}

I hope the government puts a stop to the predators charter. Its funny as you say to look who does or doesn't support this. Because it is people with skin in the game who don't support it, for example the majority of women and lesbians. This has nothing to do with party politics, left or right, its about safeguarding girls and women.

{{ Thats not supported by the polling which shows about 70% in Scotland in favour. And occording to the polling by far the biggest concern people had was over the change of age from 18 to 16, not fears of attack by trans women or concerns over simplifiying the process. If all women opposed it that would be far lower. Its also supported by many womens support groups such as Rape Crisis Scotland and other charity organisations.

'This has nothing to do with party politics, left or right, its about safeguarding girls and women.'- Figg

Thats the problem, no it isnt. This bill has nothing to do with that.
This bill is about making the process for legal recognition of a change of gender simpler and less intrusive to those going through it. Its an administrative bill.
It has no effect whatsoever, nor does it supercede in any fashion the existing rights of women under the 2010 Equality Act, or their access to safe spaces, or the right of such spaces to reject trans women. JK just set up a womens refuge in Edinburgh which does just that.
This bill has nothing to do with those things. That the two keep being, in my view deliberetly,  conflated by the right as one and the same is very damaging for no good reason to everyone, unnecessarily alarming women of a risk less likely than being struck by lightning and unnecesarily further victimising trans women.  }}

https://forwomen.scot/04/10/2022/public-opinion-polls/

51% thinks law poses risk to women
27% says it doesnt

99% thinks that sex offenders not be allowed to get a GRC
1% says they should

{{ Thats more recent poll, and the shift it shows in some areas is exactly what I mean about conflating the issues.

51% think a law which makes no changes to the rights of women or their rights to safe spaces weve had for last 12 years makes changes to women safe spaces.
Its untrue, its not a relevant question. The bill has nothing to do with those rights, nor does it change any of them.

99% say sex offenders shouldnt be allowed to get one, which is why any sex offender who attempts to get one has to be asessed if they are deemed a safety risk and they can be refused- this is same as happens in ireland and denmark, in both countries since theyve had the laws neither country has ever had a sex offender try to get a certificate. So again the question and answer are irrelevant as the bill already has provisions for it happening. It does not allow sex offenders to just get a certificate (or anyone else with a criminal record in fact).

That poll also shows the most concerning issue is still around the change of age, with it polling highest still and is in fact the only question which is relevant to the bill in question. And is the one I personally am most conflicted on so it doesnt suprise me others are too without it meaning they oppose the principle.}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ Thats more recent poll, and the shift it shows in some areas is exactly what I mean about conflating the issues.

51% think a law which makes no changes to the rights of women or their rights to safe spaces weve had for last 12 years makes changes to women safe spaces.
Its untrue, its not a relevant question. The bill has nothing to do with those rights, nor does it change any of them.}}

If you see Gary Glitter up there getting a GRC, say hi from me.

{{ He wouldnt get approved. The SNP accepted a labour amendment and it got voted through with cross party support.
If you only read certain press however you may only be aware that they voted down an amendment to block sex offenders from getting a certificate put forward by the Tories, which is true they did. They did because it was legally incompetent and would have breached the European Human Rights laws and not stood up in court, which is why the SNP backed the labour version which was competent.

'My GRR amendments allowing Police Scotland to stop sex offenders gaining a GRC on the basis of RISK have just PASSED. They are competent, in line with EHRC, supported cross party, and will prevent harm. GRCs are for trans people, NOT predatory men. At the moment we have gender recognition panels, they have to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and have to have proof of a person living in a gender for two years, but they do not do a risk assessment, they cannot deny a person a GRC on the basis of risk. They do not even look into the fact that a person might be on the sex offenders register.
What we did is, for the first time, effectively made it possible for a GRC to be denied to a person on the basis of risk, and that is stronger than the current system that we have.” - Gillian Martin (@GillianMSP)

So the law has that safety feature built in you'll no doubt be pleased to know and its stronger than the law was as is. }}

"Sex offenders will be permitted to change their sex during legal proceedings and after conviction.

It comes as MSPs were voting on amendments to Nicola Sturgeon's controversial GRA bill. The Scottish Conservatives Russell Findlay pushed for the total exclusion of anyone with a conviction of rape, child sexual abuse or other sexual offences from being allowed to use the new proposed system of obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRA).

SNP MSP Michelle Thomson tabled her own amendment that would stop an alleged sex offender from changing their legal sex during court proceedings, thus stopping the potential eventuality where a raped woman was forced to give female pronouns to her attackers."

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/disbelief-sex-offenders-permitted-change-28783804

"VITRIOL greeted the Scottish Parliament’s voting down of an amendment to the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, proposed by Tory MSP Russell Findlay, which sought to ban anyone convicted of a sexual offence from changing their gender.

The result of the vote – which saw the amendment defeated by 59 votes to 64 – saw gender critical activists evicted from the chamber after shouting “shame on all of you” from the public gallery."

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23206439.msps-vote-to-allow-sex-criminals-change-gender/

Later, “The Disgraces of Scotland” began trending on Twitter thanks to one controversial blogger who, in a post shared by Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser, labelled the MSPs who had voted against Findlay’s amendment “rape-enabling misogynist scum”.

{{ Thats the Tory one that got voted down because it was not legally competent-

Social Justice Secretary Shona Robison said in the Holyrood chamber: “Russell Findlay would acknowledge that I was very clear with him and others when I thought that amendments were outwith the competence of the Parliament or in breach of the ECHR.”

If the Tory MSP's amendment had passed, the entirety of the GRR bill was at risk of being struck down by the courts. That is, Martin said, the “key difference” between her amendment and his.
“It’s the same effect, but competent,” she told The National. “It’s done in a way that uses existing police powers, existing risk assessment processes, but the difference is that they now trigger the ability to deny a person a GRC."- Gillan Martin

The tory one was incompetent so the other one was adopted- effect is same sex offenders cannot get a certificate without being risk assessed first, which is stronger then the current Uk wide exisiting rules which dont even look to see if the applicant is on the sex offenders register- you should be cheering a strengthening of womens safety laws in Scotland. }}

From reading this and not following closely, I suppose the problem is that someone not yet convicted could change sex legally during a legal process of which they then get convicted but have already legally transitioned.

Am I reading that right?

{{ No that wouldnt be a problem, if the person has already transitioned then breaks the law they still have a criminal record and anything that requires checks, certain job applications, use of certain womens spaces and the like would still have to go through the checks, acquire a Disclosure Scotland form, all that stuff doesnt change. If they were a trans person who committs an act enough for jail they will be risk assessed for which jail under the new system.

There are 9 countries in the EU where these laws already exist including, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Portugal and Switzerland, with Spain in the process of changing their laws too. I have yet to hear of the great european wave of trans women sexually assualting natural born women all across the continent. Scotland isnt being progressive here, we are just catching up, the rest of the Uk is falling behind.

This bill has had 5 years of scrutiny, public and private consulation and full debate in the Parliament, its one of the most thoroughly gone through pieces of legislation in my lifetime, in any UK Parliament. The way the right wing and anti-trans groups are misrepresenting what it actually does is disgraceful in the harm they cause. }}

GRC is a massive Trojan Horse, This is a war between Surgeon and the Tories, and it is women and children who will pay the price. As per usual.

{{ Well the Gender reform Bill has escalated!

Ok context first- the Scottish Parliament spent 7 years on public/legal consultation and Parlamentary debate around the proposed changes.
The law was eventually passed with members of all political parties voting in favour, most had a free vote meaning no party whipping, the Tories only handful voted for, 90% of Labour voted for it, 90% of SNP voted for it and all the Greens and the majority of Lib-Dems. So its a cross party bill.
The law as passed affects how the legal system recognizes a change in gender - ie birth certificates, death certificates, marriage certificates etc. It has no effect on the 2010 Equalities Act passed by Westminister, and the bulk of the legal advice has been around ensuring this is so and was confirmed by the Scottish Parliament Speaker as being 'within the competency of the Chamber'- in other words within the devolved rules on making laws as confirmed by the Scottish Law Lords, the highest legal level in the country.
The bill was voted into law by the Scottish Parliament by 88 votes to 33 against.


Today the Uk Government took the unprecedented step of blocking the law change from coming into effect by denying it Royal Assent, without which it cannot become law. Thus denying the democratic voice of the Scotttish Parliament.

Their reasons for doing so are, in my view, the most disgusting use of a vulnerable group I think I have witnessed in modern British politics. They are claiming, using highly inflammatory language in the Commons, about it making women and children vulnerable to predators and they are justifying the block on the law by saying it impinges on the Equal Rights legislation, which it does not.

So much are their lies that the Speaker of the House has had to give a reminder to MP's about spreading 'misinformation'.

I'll take the Tory position first as its the least complicated, their position is so clear even foreign news is highlighting it in their reporting, for example this from CNN- 'the British Government has leaned into the anti-trans culture wars debate in a bid to appeal to its traditional Conservative base and working-class voters in the north of England.'

That is a pretty good summing up of the Tory poistion. They smell English votes in it. I would add to that they see it as a way to undermine support in Scotland for the SNP, and in particular support for independence which for several months now has been holding constant about 56% for independence.
There are no grounds for this, using this power is something thats supposed to be for extreme cases- such as the Scottish goverment trying to pass a law dealing with foreign affairs, or the military- which would be outside its abilities. It was not meant for this. This is pure political opportunism, and the tories are more than happy to let trans folk burn on the altar of political expediency. Its sickening. But expected form the Tories and the right of politics.

Starmer and Labours position is even worse in many ways, as whilst only a handful of Tories in Scotland voted for the bill the majority of Scottish Labour did and back the proposals. Starmer has taken a weasel position therefore- he like the tories wants to use anything including the trans community to damage the SNP but cant take the same line as so many of his own party are in favour and he himself wishes to appeal to the younger demographic who are more commonly in favour of such changes, so instead he is saying if he were PM he would have the same legislation in England, except without the changes to the age limit from 18 to 16. So he is both trying suport the principle but has homed in on the one area polling shows most people are unsure about, the age change. Its also sickingly cynical politics.
I also dont think it will work for Starmer he has of course many of the Scottish Labour MSP's who voted for it who are not happy about it being blocked by Westminster, and the Welsh Labour leader and First Minster of Wales has come out saying how dangerous a move this is by the Tories for devolution throughout the UK.

Compare this disgusting use of the trans community by the two union parties to how the SNP have approached the subject- they started this not for political reasons, they didnt think it was a vote winner they knew it was contentous from the get go, but Sturgeon genuinely believes in equality for all and in making Scotland as open and safe a nation as it can be so she pushed ahead with it anyway. It has had political cost, they have lost high profile members over it, the right wing UK press has had an open field in attacking them over it with it half truths, outright lies and misinformation. They spent 7 years consulting not just trans groups but womens groups, refuges for women, police, prisons, NHS everyone, they twice had open public consultation where anyone could voice concerns or opinions and they finally won the debate, getting a majority of MSP's of all parties to vote in passing it.

Ive commented in the past on what a good political operator Sturgeon can be, you dont stay in power for over a decade unless you are, but the reason folk trust the SNP and Sturgeon more in poll after poll by a wide margin than any other party or political leader, is that at core they are doing what they genuine believe in, its not for political expediency, its not an opportunity to use a minority as a political football to kick around in the hopes of scoring political goals. And thats the difference- the Unionist parties will use such people callously for their own ends and with no regard for them, and they are proving that in their actions now.


edit add- Starmer is already getting kick back from his own party as predicted-  'Scottish Labour backed the lowering of the minimum age, with the party's MSP Monica Lennon criticising Mr Starmer's concerns as "unhelpful and ill informed", adding: "I don't think Keir Starmer can comment with the same insight as us. He didn't sit in the committee, he didn't sit in our chamber, he didn't have a vote and he didn't follow the evidence like we did." - BBC}}

{{ Heres good comparison- Tory MP speaking in the Commons today-

'Craig Mackinlay of the Conservative party says he finds the idea that people could decide to change their gender at 16 "scarcely believable" under the proposals set out in the Scottish gender recognition reform bill.
Speaking during the emergency debate in the House of Commons, he recalls how as a 16-year-old himself he "rather wanted a tattoo and an earring," but now at the age of 56 he's "damned pleased" he didn't get them.' - BBC

and the mother of a 16 old trans born male-

'"In the eyes of the law, 16 is old enough to make the decision to get married and start a family. Why is it not old enough to know your gender? Young people in this position don't just wake up one morning and say ‘you know what I’m going to put myself in hell’. They’re isolated. Rejected. Beaten up. Misgendered by adults. No one on the planet would choose that. So is it a phase? No. If it was, you’d stop after the first beating."
She adds, "some may be following a trend, and there should be safeguarding to protect people from this, but for most, it is not”. - BBC

I think it shows the sheer scale of the lack of empathy and understanding the Tories have, no being trans is not like deciding to get a tattoo. }}

Not sure why anyone would expect any different from the Tories these days. I dont actually know how many of them genuinely have Conservative values and how many of them just use those things as talking points to win votes and get power.

I have always been very much in the centre, agreeing with many points on both sides and disagreeing with just as many on each. What I dont have any is any kind of trust in Tories as a whole. I dont see a single one of them as having any moral compass or any ability to actually follow through on promises made (probably because they didn't believe them in the first place).

I am liking Starmer less and less recently too. He seems to lack any kind of backbone and so I am not sure he would be able to follow through on anything if he were in power either. I am not sure about his morals and values just yet so at least an improvement on the other lot!!

Sturgeon is taking this to the courts and I hope she wins.

{{ I have to admit to some surprise they actually choose to do this, I am still musing over the possible exact reasons as to why, as I dont see how they can win it in court.

The law only changes the process of how you apply for the certificate, not what the rights you have once you get it are, those are the exact same rights as in the rest of the UK under the 2010 Equalities Act that an english trans person aged 18 with an English certificate has.

On top of that over the 7 years of procedure this has gone through its not only gone through the SNP's own lawyers, but any bill that comes before the Parliament is first gone over by the legal minds to ensure its within the remit of the devolved settlement, and this one has been checked repeatedly to the highest legal levels in Scotland. I will be gobsmacked if Westminsters so far flimsy case will stand up to scrutiny in court.

But if Blue still pops by perhaps they could add to the legal arguement side of things. }}

{{ Seeing as much of the arguement is being centered on the change in age form 18 to 16 I thikk I maybe should explain why its 16.
Simply put its when in Scotland the law recognises you as an adult- yes there are cerrtain things you cannot do at that age- you cant drive a car until your 17, you cant drink alcholol until your 18 (not legally anyway) you cant watch porn until your 18 (always struck me as odd that one, you can have sex with as many folk of any gender you like and even marry someone at 16, but you arent allowed to see anyone else doing it for another two years!) but there is a lot more you can do at 16 than cant.

First you get your National Insurance number, your recognistion of being an adult from officialdom, and with which you are now eligible for things like getting your own doctor, dentist on NHS, receiving benfits, leaving school and entering the work force if you choose to, joining the armed forces, sadly paying taxes, get married (staright or hetrosexual) and start a family.

Lets take that last one as an example of why 16, get married, if your 16 and straight or gay this isnt a problem, you get a marriage certifciate from officaldom, but to get that you need to provide your birth certificate, again no problem for most folks. But what if your trans? Your marriage certificate should reflect that, but you cant get one because your birth certificate says male so you could get married but in the eyes of officaldom only as a hetrosexual marriage, both parties will be male on the marriage certificate.
Allowing the gender change to be recognised at sixteen means that when officaldom recognises you in all these ways it also includes your current gender and that is what will appear on your marriage certficate anmd other offical documents.

It needs to be at sixteen for the very good and simple reason that is when all the other official stuff gets done recognising you as an adult of a particualr gender. It isnt s omuch lowering the age as bringing it in line with everything else that already happens at that age and inparticualr so it happens at the same time for trans fook as it does everyone else. }}

This is fantastic news for the safeguarding of women and children and this is the first time I have agreed with anything the Tories have done in 10 years.
All the political chicanery is pathetic.

{{ Curious Figg- do you consider the gender recognistion form to be inherently in some fashion endangering to women? Are you just opposed to trans people having legal recognition? Do you think the people of say Denmark, Norway or Ireland, having the same laws, makes their women and children less safe? Are these countries full of rampaging predator trans folk using the laws to sexaully assualt women and children on every street corner?
Because the gender certificate a Scottish transperson gets is exactly the same one in terms of rights they have always got in the UK and currently get. It does NOTHING to alter the rights of women and children in any fashion only changes how long it takes to get the certifcate and at what age. If you honestly think it endangers women or changes the rights of women Figg then I dont know what to say- its obvious it doesnt its there in black and white in the legislation, its obvious this is political trouble making by the Unionists to use trans folk as something to beat the SNP with and to cast them aside when done with them and deny them the same rights everyone else has, and you are supporting and helping enable that stoking the very dangerous flames of prejudice Figg. }}

As I said before, I havent read the bill and so cannot comment on specifics but my opinion on the matter in general is:

- by and large, people should be able to live as whoever they want so long as it doesn't impinge on other people's right to live how they want.
- trans people should should have the same legal protections as any other person, so long as it doesn't impinge on the legal protections that others have.
- 16 is too young (in my opinion) to make irreversible, life changing decisions such as gender surgery. I haven't seen the stats on this in a while but I believe there is are a substantial amount of people that have transition regret and suicide rates are just as high which suggests we are missing at least some of the problems and possibly making some worse.
- we need to be very, very clear on what the legal change of gender means to other people, basically my first 2 points. Trans men and women just cannot have the same life experiences as males and females and this needs to be recognised just as much as male and female cannot claim to understand the perspective of someone who does not belive they were born in the right body.
- There are a lot of religious people in this debate. They can honestly shove their doctrines right up their overly puckered starfish. This whole thing needs to be based on thorough research of the biological and psychological sciences (and possibly some others).

Maybe I should read the bill at some point.

Anyone who supports this bill is not only sexist but homophobic, and worse of all  puts children at risk of harm, and all in the name of Sturgeons political agenda that puts a new independence referendum above the safety of Scottish people. Scottish people who do NOT want this bill anyway.


"Removing the medical diagnosis means opening up eligibility from less than 1% of the population who have a medical need, to 100% of Scottish residents aged 16 and over. Anyone can apply, from school children to convicted sex offenders. All checks and balances will be removed and it will have a negative impact on women’s and children’s rights.

The Scottish Government has ignored a 2017 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, which held that requiring a medical diagnosis before issuing a GRC strikes the correct balance between the rights of people who identify as trans and the state’s obligations to the rest of society.

Those obligations include the rights of women to be defined in law with protections and rights as a sex-class, distinct and separate from men – rights that will now be completely undermined.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has warned of consequences relating to the collection and use of data, participation in sport, measures to address barriers facing women, and practices within the criminal justice system, amongst others.

Men who say they are women have already claimed it is their right to:

be treated on female hospital wards,

access women’s refuges,

join women’s sports teams,

have sex-specific crimes such as rape recorded as if committed by a woman,

be housed in female prisons, and

provide intimate care and counselling to women who would prefer female carers.

These already happen in Scotland and are encouraged by the Government, who, contrary to the Equality Act, recently declared that men can self-identify into women’s and girls’ changing rooms and toilets.

Are any safeguarding measures planned to protect 16 and 17-year olds?

No. The Scottish Government’s proposal ignores the advice from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, who warned that this plan conflicts with our modern understanding of the cognitive development of people under 25 – neurological research the Scottish Government otherwise accepts as valid and important, as evident from the recent change in sentencing guidelines for this age group.

There has been a stratospheric increase in child referrals to NHS gender clinics – coinciding with trans organisations pouring materials into schools telling children from nursery age that there is something wrong with their body if they prefer the toys or clothes traditionally associated with the other sex.
(which is homophobic)

Bayswater Support Group warned of potential impacts to gender-distressed children by the Government not recognising a connection between the legal and medical process and not considering that lowering the age may compromise outcomes for 16 and 17 year olds, undermining therapy and parental responsibilities. Evidence shows the majority of children will become comfortable with their body as they mature and providing legal affirmation before this point is irresponsible.

The impact of bringing legislation designed for adults into our schools and the effect it will have on other children has not been considered.

What about detransitioners?

The Government maintain that the self-declaration form signed by applicants represents a lifelong commitment sufficient to deter any fraudulent applications and has therefore decided to ignore the evidence provided by the growing number of detransitioners about being rushed into social and medical transitions without due consideration of their backgrounds and other mental health issues. These brave young men and women requested a pathway to revoking a GRC without having to incriminate themselves but this has been denied.

Won’t this result in a bad law waiting to be abused?

Yes. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill suggests that a person’s legal sex ought to be changed based on unfalsifiable, wholly subjective innermost feelings. Although the proposal mentions punishing a false declaration, there is no mechanism by which we can prove that someone’s self-declaration is false. Removing the medical diagnosis, a gatekeeping and safeguarding measure, and legislating on the grounds of personal preferences for stereotypes associated with the other sex (such as girls who like football or boys who like pink) is an irresponsible, sexist proposal. There is no justification for this, and no explanation why people who have no need to change their sex in law should be allowed to do so.

Since self-identification laws have been abused by predatory males and other criminals and fraudsters in every country that has adopted them to the detriment of women and children, it is astonishing that the Scottish Government continues to claim that there’s no downside to this proposal."

https://forwomen.scot/10/05/2022/gender-recognition-reform-bill/

Anyone can apply, from school children to convicted sex offenders. All checks and balances will be removed and it will have a negative impact on women’s and children’s rights.- Figg

{{ Blatant lie. The certificate, same as it currently does requires a background check for criminality. Such as a Disclosure Scotland form or similar. Thats standard porcedure and will not change- so no sex offenders ect cant get access. It lowers the age to 16 which is when in Scotland you officialy become an adult, so no nor does it allow children to get a certificate. That just all utter nonsense.

The Scottish Government has ignored a 2017 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, which held that requiring a medical diagnosis before issuing a GRC strikes the correct balance between the rights of people who identify as trans and the state’s obligations to the rest of society.- Figg

Because its out of date. The old belief in the medical profession was that trans was a mental health issue, not a gender one like being gay or lesbian. This is not the case these days and the WHO and the UN recommend to governments to remove the requirement for mental health assessment as its cruel and unfair as these people are not mentally ill. Removing the requirement brings th elaw in line with medical thinking and offical advice from the world health organisation.


Men who say they are women have already claimed it is their right to:- Figg

Irerelevant as well as wrong. They can 'claim' all they like, if they really are which I doubt, doesnt change the fact the gender certrification in Scotland has NO more rights, and NO differences than   the current one, or the one you get in England. It grants ZERO additional rights. This bill only alters the hoops you go through to get one, not what it does once you get it- that remains exactly the same as current.


Are any safeguarding measures planned to protect 16 and 17-year olds?- Figg

Yes. Have you even read the bill? It includes consultations with youngsters and the time period for applicatin is twice as long as for over 18's.

Since self-identification laws have been abused by predatory males and other criminals and fraudsters in every country that has adopted them to the detriment of women and children- Figg

I dont see evidence of this being true- but we can ask direct if Amarie pops by as Norway has had self declaration along these lines since I believe 2016- Amarie is Norway overrun with predatory trans folk attacking your women and children at every opportunity?

Your final points and the website it links to I am largely ignoring, as a quick galnce at the site shows it be full of misinformation  and mischaracteristations, I'd be here all day countering why its so wrong. }}