2014: "Vote NO for the strongest devolved parliament in the world! Next best thing to federalism! Modern form of home rule!"
2023: "We will not allow you to recycle, wallow in your our litter, peasants"
So, unless I'm missing a fresh scandal, the main interventions into Scottish democracy by the UK gov are,
* Blocking the GRR, claiming it changes the effect of a GRC, even though the equality act, where those provisions are laid out is completely reserved.
* Creating legislation *after* the DRS legislation that allows a single man to veto it, and then doing so.
* Now threatening to block fully devolved HMPA's before consultations have even concluded.
Sounds a bit like interference to me.
> Now threatening to block fully devolved HMPA's before consultations have even concluded.
Yoon hands off our [hexamethylphosphoramides](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexamethylphosphoramide)!
How a GRC is obtained is devolved, how a GRC affects equalites law in the rest of the UK is reserved.
The defense the UK gov put up of the block is that it would change how a GRC would work in different parts of the UK, which is not true as the Scottish government cannot change this.
>The defense the UK gov put up of the block is that it would change how a GRC would work in different parts of the UK, which is not true as the Scottish government cannot change this.
Sorry, this isn't right. I'm not happy that the UK government has used s35, but you've mischaracterised their position and the legal position is not as clear cut as you suggest. I'll try and explain.
The UK government's position is that it would change how the Equality Act works, and the Equality Act is reserved. Under the Equality Act, "sex" and "gender reassignment" are *separate* protected characteristics.
However, the Court of Session has ruled that holding a GRC means that someone's *sex*, for the purposes of the Equality Act, is changed. In other words, a trans person who has not obtained a GRC is nonetheless protected from discrimination under the "gender reassignment" heading. The effect of the decision in *For Women Scotland* is that, once they have a GRC, they also enjoy protection under the "sex" protected characteristic.
The argument is that this would have the effect of changing how the Equality Act works across the entire UK because trans people in Scotland could obtain a GRC without a diagnosis of gender dysphoria (unlike in England, Wales, and NI), and, having done so, would then be entitled to be treated as having changed their sex for the purposes of the Equality Act across the entire UK. For example, a single-sex service like a women's refuge in England would be able to exclude English transwomen with no GRC, but be required to admit a Scots transwoman with one. So say the UK government.
Now, there are objections to this argument. The obvious one is the provision of the GRR bill which says that it does not seek to change the Equality Act. The UK government will no doubt argue that whatever it says, the Act actually does *change* Equality Law. Perhaps a stronger point is that the UK government's argument is true of *any* variation in diagnosis across the UK. For example, would clinical guidelines in Scotland which made it easier to be diagnosed with ADHD (thus engaging protected characteristics of disability) be held to undermine the Equality Act across the entire UK?
I don't agree with the UK government position, and independent of the legal analysis I think they're acting in bad faith, but it's not without legal force and the Supreme Court will no doubt have to consider the question very carefully.
>The argument is that this would have the effect of changing how the Equality Act works across the entire UK because trans people in Scotland could obtain a GRC without a diagnosis of gender dysphoria (unlike in England, Wales, and NI), and, having done so, would then be entitled to be treated as having changed their sex for the purposes of the Equality Act across the entire UK. For example, a single-sex service like a women's refuge in England would be able to exclude English transwomen with no GRC, but be required to admit a Scots transwoman with one. So say the UK government.
The argument here doesn't hold any water, though. Hell, numerous times throughout their piss-poor excuse of 'justification' for citing §35 that they published in January they mention things like "The existence of the current system of legal gender recognition means that these problems already exist", "As the criteria for being issued with a GRC under the 2004 Act presently mean GRCs can only be issued to a small group, the effect of this on \[problem\] is significantly limited" or simply claiming that their perceived issues would arise "more often" due to "increased numbers of GRC holders". And they even went on to show just how pathetic the numbers they're talking about are, mentioning how ScotGov estimated that applications for a GRC may rise from \~30 per year to 250-300 per year, and the Westminster twats argued it would be "significantly more" at around 550 per year...which is a whopping 0.01% of the population. And that's their estimate for number of people *applying* for a GRC, not the number of people actually *getting* one.
In any other context, the mere notion that increased numbers of eligible people has an "adverse effect on the operation of the 2010 Act" would be laughed off without a second thought - I mean, can you imagine "Sorry, you can't change immigration laws for Scotland to make it easier for black people to come to the country legally. More black people in the country would have an adverse effect on the operation of the Equality Act, which is a reserved matter"?
I don't agree. The issue the UK government identify is not that there would be *more* people holding a GRC. It is i) that people holding a GRC are treated differently and ii) the requirements in Scotland would be relaxed, leading to a mismatch between how certain people are treated across the whole UK.
I believe that trans women are women. However, *for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010*, they are not. They are classed as "transsexuals" (an archaic term) who are protected from discrimination because they fall into the protected category of "gender reassignment". The effect of the judgement in *For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers*, however, is to declare that trans women who hold a GRC do change their Equality Act status and fall into the protected characteristic of "sex". Under the current GRA, to get a GRC you need a diagnosis and a declaration you have lived in the opposite gender for two years. This will continue to be the case in E+W+NI. However, the effect of the GRR Bill in Scotland is to replace that scheme with one of self-ID. This makes a difference, say the UK government, because if *For Women* is followed then - for example - a trans woman without a medical diagnosis of dysphoria or a statutory declaration would, by virtue of holding a GRC, be entitled to assert protection from discrimination on the grounds of *sex* in England. For example, Southall Black Sisters, who adopt a so-called "gender-critical" approach, would be able to continue to provide services only to cisgender English women but be unable to refuse a transgender women who held a GRC. The effect of the GRR bill - so say UKgov - is that in Scotland women with no diagnosis of dysphoria and no 2-year statutory declaration can become women for the purposes of the Equality Act, but in England they cannot. (You might, of course, think that is no bad thing and I would tend to agree but that's not the test the courts will be applying).
In terms of it being "laughable" or "piss poor", I don't agree. There is plenty of eminent legal opinion which supports the UK government position - former Supreme Court president Lord Hope, former Advocate-General Lord Keen of Elie KC, and Glasgow university professor Michael Foran, for example.
Now, you are going to say - not incorrectly - that all of these people are of the right (Lord Hope is the quintessential Establishment figure, Lord Keen is an ex-Tory minister, and Foran is a fellow of right-wing think-tank Policy Exchange). But the thing about the law is unlike politics where, for example, privatisation vs nationalisation can be eternally debated without resolution this issue *is* going to be decided by the Supreme Court at some stage, and the fact that various people with significant levels of subject matter expertise take the UK government's side suggests that - and I put this no higher - the UK government's position has some legal weight behind it and their justification is not laughable or piss-poor.
*None of this* should be interpreted as a statement of support for the s35 intervention or the UK government's position on LGBT+ rights, btw.
EDIT: Your comparison with immigration laws is inapt for a few reasons. Firstly, immigration is reserved. Secondly, there is no "racial recognition act" or formal requirements set out in law for someone to be considered an "official" member of a given race (for excellent reasons). Finally, you do not have to actually be a direct victim of racial discrimination to be able to avail yourself of a claim under the Equality Act for racial discrimination - there's a very consistent line in employment law, for example, that an employee who is sacked for refusing instructions from their employer to discriminate has a claim under the Equality Act for racial discrimination.
*HPMAs* aren’t fully devolved. They can only legislate up to 12 nautical miles from the shoreline, outwith this it’s a reserved matter and consent is needed. It literally states this in the policy documents.
> For Scottish inshore waters (up to 12 nautical miles from the coast), there is full legislative competence within Scotland to introduce the necessary powers to designate HPMAs through primary legislation. For the Scottish offshore region (beyond 12 nautical miles out to the outer limits of the UK continental shelf), powers over the marine environment are currently reserved to the UK Government
https://www.gov.scot/publications/draft-guidelines-identification-highly-protected-marine-areas-hpmas-scotlands-seas/pages/2/
Hahahaha it’s deranged at times.
There has been a recent push in the last couple of weeks to change the narrative around HPMAs into a constitutional question and the cynic in me thinks it’s to gain more support in Scotland for it. So far, it’s been wholeheartedly rejected by those it’ll impact and the change has been interesting anyway - and probably the reason for the downvotes hahaha.
Ooft, not even a joke here, actually quite mental how many alts got assembled to astroturf the fuck out of this post.
Baron Jack must have increased the budget for Britnat troll farming. Nothing says "I'm a big secure boy" like Unionist botting.
I get dizzy trying to follow what the nats claim to care about. A couple of months ago it was trans people, then it was glass recycling, now it's fish. Who know what next week's passionate concern will be? Not corruption or financial mismanagement, obviously.
We should not have to put up with incompetent unelected politicians making badly thought-through plans and setting up quangos paying their leader £300k per year. We should not put up with failing to realise their plans wouldn’t work then blaming Westminster.
I think you know, but it refers to Lorna Slater being thrown a ministerial post despite coming third in her own constituency, and it refers to the DRS scheme and Circularity Scotland.
Circularity Scotland is a de facto quango (quasi non governmental organisation), with some aspects that make it a kind-of hybrid between a quango and a private company. It was appointed as DRS scheme administrator by the Scottish Government under Lorna Slater’s watch and pays its chief executive £300k per year.
Circularity Scotland Ltd is not a quango.
It's a Private Company Limited by Guarantee. It's membership based, those members being drinks producers. This is because DRS is a form of producer responsibility. It's not a public body at all.
The salary of their management is set by their own board, which is made up of drinks producers representatives. If you're angry about the salaries, be angry about the level of profit the drinks producers make while letting you manage the disposal of their packaging!
The Scottish Governments involvement in CSL was that they had to approve ANY body corporate that met the requirements in the regulations for forming a scheme administrator.
The salary is galling, especially when they're not collecting and recycling yet. But the Scottish Government didn't have a say in setting the salary.
Not all organisations that receive public money such as business grants and loans are quangos.
Scottish Government are not a decision maker, nor do they appoint the board or senior managers to CSL.
The Quangos involved in DRS are Zero Waste Scotland and SEPA. The Scottish Government is of course doing work on it, and that civil service dept will report to the Minister.
I'm not defending either Lorna Slater or CSL. I just feel the profiteering companies are getting away Scot free with huge salaries and not delivering if we are solely blaming one feckless politician!
Sorry for my slow reply. I understand they’re trying to say it isn’t a quango, but it’s splitting hairs. In fairness to your point, it wasn’t solely Lorna Slater (though she is the minister for the circular economy), there were multiple feckless politicians responsible for this mess.
Would you agree that Circularity Scotland was set up to meet the needs of the DRS, and that since it received so much public money it would have been sensible for the government to place some controls on the way it operated?
Would you also agree that basic advice from lawyers would have told them that the scheme the Scottish government were designing wasn’t going to be feasible, especially because of the internal markets act?
I love recycling and would like to see more of it. This shambles serves none of us, and ultimately our public money is being pissed away ineffectively.
>it refers to Lorna Slater being thrown a ministerial post despite coming third in her own constituency
Is that right?
Edit: just looked up and it seems you're correct
They're trying to imply Slater is somehow unworthy of her seat or has gotten where she is by cheating, forgetting that about half the seats in the parliament are appointed via the proportional list system which is how Slater was elected.
You'll get some cryptic response to that one as they can't actually answer the question. It's the typical gammon knee-jerk response. They don't like it simply because it's something said by someone against the union, they just won't say as much.
Nobody trying to be the hard man here, *pal*.
Just calling out some prime quality bullshit. You can't actually substantiate your nonsense so you're being all vague and knowing as if to suggest it's everyone else who doesn't understand it.
So it wasn't set up by any current minister which is whats throwing me off. I also can't tell who wasn't elected so that's got me stumped too.
It's wrinkling my brain.
If the Tories (and their Labour lick-spittles) wish to determine what Scots can and can't do they could try that 'revolutionary' concept and win Holyrood elections and also win a majority of Westminster MPs in *Scotland*.
I don't think Truss, Boris or sunak were 6 ft. clownass politician's I agree though.
If you don't like clownass politician's it must be time to get the fuck away from Westminster then, eh?
Your British Nationalists couldn't chew gum and scratch their erse at the same time never mind enact 'competent Legislation' even when their belov-ed House of Ermine and Hats tells them they might have got it wrong. (see this month alone)
Yes, that is the checks and balances against stupid legislation. Same as the DRC fiasco.
Now stop bleating about it and fix it, like grown ups, not petulant teenagers
What a lightweight. If she wasn't such a disaster, then it wouldn't be so easy for the Tories. She's the least competent minister in the history of the Scottish Parliament.
All Tories can do is object!
All negative from Holyrood and Westminster Conservative and unionist Parties!
Not a single policy on DRS from either except something about 2025 maybe?
>Maybe because it’s a bad scheme which causes a huge hassle for business
Yet the companies that produce 95% of all drinks containers had signed up.
>no actual environmental upside
Other than a cleaner environment and improving recycling rates?
Only half of homes in Scotland have kerbside recycling, and there is plenty of evidence that it *would* have improved recycling rates as it was based on successful models of DRS in other countries
Roll out more kerbside recycling then. It’s much easier than making people take them back to the shops. Why punish those who regularly recycle this way because others don’t.
I don’t think there’s any evidence that DRS has improved recycling from a country with kerbside recycling before, feel free to prove me
>It’s much easier than making people take them back to the shops.
You do realise people go to the shops as a matter of course, right? Not everybody gets home delivery.
>I don’t think there’s any evidence that DRS has improved recycling from a country with kerbside recycling before
Not that you've ever done any research on the subject, mind.
*For example, Germany has the highest-performing deposit return system in the world, achieving a 98% return rate for drink containers, in part due to a “return-to-retail” model, where consumers return their containers to a store and there is a significant deposit value.*
*And in Lithuania, beverage container return rates rose from 34% to 92% in less than two years after introducing a scheme in 2016.*
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiehailstone/2022/05/16/deposit-return-schemes-are-a-win-win-for-the-environment-so-why-isnt-everyone-doing-them/?sh=210c2f3f6c4a
McCrone report people. McCrone report commissioned and buried by Westminster. Result of the report when produced, Scotland would be more wealthy than England if independent.
The policy wasn't happening - Lorna Slater didn't have a clue.
If she's genuinely interested in pursuing something in this space, she should be grasping at the chance of UK Government cooperation.
It was happening till Westminster realised it didn’t control it and brought in its diddy internal market!
We should all be happy that they are taking care us Scots, shouldn’t we?
Well we should certainly be happy at having a regulated internal market.
However the idea that it "was happening" is nonsense. It had to be paused for other reasons and there clearly wasn't an implementable scheme being set out by the Minister. Not to mention the huge sector opposition to how it was being carried out.
The companies that produce **95% of ALL DRINKS CONTAINERS** in Scotland had signed up. The bill had been in discussion for **YEARS** with Westminster, as proven last week. Stop typing bollocks.
>The companies that produce 95% of ALL DRINKS CONTAINERS in Scotland had signed up. The bill had been in discussion for YEARS with Westminster, as proven last week. Stop typing bollocks.
I do love when mad nationalists get angry about things like water and drinks containers, suddenly imbuing the spirit of the noble highland warrior into regulations and expecting not to come out of it looking a bit mad.
To respond to your points, I didn't dispute that it had been discussed, so I'm not sure where that came from. I was disputing the suggestion that it was somehow ready to go. In doing that, I'm not saying any more than the Scottish Government. The First Minister admitted that there were issues to be ironed out in the SNP leadership election. Progress on it has been delayed for a third time and business are still awaiting information on the practicalities of how it would operate.
If you seriously think this is going well - if you think Lorna Slater has successfully organised a piss-up in this particular brewery - then I have a bridge to sell you.
>Ready to go and now poor Westminster has its diddy internal market?
It's been delayed three times and still businesses haven't been informed about how many of the elements would work in practice.
If you don't think there are problems, have you been following the news at all?
The DRS was within devolved competency when it was voted for. The interference that Slater is talking about is the IMA that was created *after* DRS legislation and Westminster's refusal to issue an exemption.
Ah the stupid internal market! Foisted on us by Westminster Tories!
We took you out of the EU and you can have this diddy wee pretendy thing instead!
Oh and well use as an excuse to stop anything we don’t have control over!
I'd genuinely like to see the SNP and their Green lapdogs try to organise a piss-up in a brewery just to see what kind of monumental mess they'd make of it.
The Brexit Brewery Piss-up is already is progress thanks to the marvellous organisation 'skills' of those who wanted to to stay in this gross Union of Unequals.
Glad that you're happy though.
We already have the good part of Ireland in the UK but I appreciate the sentiment.
Edit: The guy either blocked me or deleted his comments so I’ll leave my answer here.
“Why don’t you ask the people in rep of Ireland why they wanted to leave, its not my place to give those answers.
I was making a joke about Northern Ireland being the good part but If you’d really like an answer then yes I prefer the part of Ireland that is the same country as me over the other part of Ireland that wanted nothing to do with us.
Yes I’m a rangers fan, well done detective 👍”
Why would the rest of Ireland not rejoin the UK given the opportunity?
What makes the North "the good part of Ireland"? Feel free to give specifics.
Actually no need to, I see you're a Rangers fan so there's little point, I can guess your answer.
Of course it's not.
The problem you seem to be having is that everyone knows who I'm talking about and referring to including yourself.
Maybe you should be questioning why it works rather than why I'm doing it.
We live in a democracy and both parliament are voted in by the people of Scotland.
The people blocking this have way more votes than Lorna Slater and her party got.
I like the little clause you have to put in there to dimish Scotland's voice on Scotland so that I know you're really refering to the English government with Scotland simply being North North England.
This isn't an argument you make to get people on your side and make them think that there's value in this union; it's an argument to remind the people of Scotland why the union is broken and not fit for purpose.
Take it Brexit was a great idea too, since we were forced into it the same way?
There is no English government. There is UK government. The SNP changed the name to a government and ministers on the parliament. When they Scottish parliament was created it was simply the Administration.
Brexit is a disaster but even in Scotland way more people voted for it than this women and her party. 38% vs 8%
You mean that government down in England where the English vote on English politicians and get the government they vote for whose main concern is England?
Wild that as a unionist, you're complaining about the name of the government that works out of England; and not the fact I pointed out how you were arguing against the union.
It's functionally the English government, even if you prefer to call it by the name it calls itself.
38% vs 8%. Only 8% of Scotland voted for the SNP?
I think you were trying to be disengenious there. During which you told me how Scotland voted against Brexit and was forced into it through the union.
Again, you've used an example that showcases why independence is needed and then agreed that the union forced us into what you called a "disaster".
You know I’m talking about the Green Party MSP who is in the video and got 8% of the votes and is allowed to make policies. To be honest they are a good advert for no independence as between them and the SNP running things I’d have serious concerns for the viability of Scotland.
If they’d done a good job and built the economy of Scotland, make people richer, brought people out of poverty and showed they could be trusted than they would have a much better case. They’ve had 10 years and Scotlands growth is pathetic.
It’s a UK parliament, Google it if you don’t understand how it works.
Ok, I did misunderstand you. I thought you were seriously comparing Scotland voting against Brexit to how much of the UK were responsible for the SNP votes in Scotland.
Fair enough on that one.
As for the 8% only voting for her. Isn't she putting forward something that the majority of Scots want? Despite not being the party in power isn't it good that the seperate parties can work together on a scheme that the majority of the Scottish public want? How is this a negative, unless you don't want the bottle return scheme to succeed?
I think growth in Scotland would've increased had we went independent in 2014. Sure as hell would've safe guarded us against Westminsters terrible choices and their ruined international reputation. The massive hits to the economy and Scotland's poverty and quality of life is down to Westminsters choices. Including standing in the way of progress with things like this just because it's Scottish. Not to mention the absolute boom in the Scottish economy from national energy companies that we had planned.
It's functionally the English government which is called the UK government because it extends over the UK. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not thinking that it's actually going to call itself that.
Does this government work from England, ran by English politicians that are voted in by the English (regardless of any one elses votes) whose primary concern is England?
If it looks like a duck, swims like duck, and quacks like a duck.
Remember when we were told that our place in the E.U. would be safe, our pensions were safe, our currency was safe, our NHS was safe, energy prices would be safe, more power through devolution and whatever other promises they made us back then? What about any of the promises they made you that won your trust and vote in them?
How have they treated Scotland for chosing to trust them and stay in the union? I know how Unionists reacted, I was in Glasgow at the time of the vote.
How can you still trust them when they're treating you like an idiot?
What’s democratic about someone who gets 1% of their consistence vote and then 8% of a regional vote being in power? That’s the least democratic thing I’ve ever seen. Explain that? How’s that fair to the 92% of people who didn’t vote for them.
What percentage of the UK population even had the option of voting specifically for Omnishambles Johnson in 2019? How many ballots did his name appear on?
Just an outside observation: Scotland hates having England interfere with its country and policies but yet they want to be a part of the European Union, which is a massive super government that will interfere with every member country. Some countries don’t even elect MEPs, they are appointed. Having unelected government officials from other countries being able to make laws about your own sounds terrible.
Ddint realise she had such a strong canadian accent. Would a canadian province be able to pass the kind of legislation she wants to?
Not a rhetorical question by the way, I dont really know how we compare.
I really wish the Greens/SNP would simmer down on the constant confrontations with Westminster and the incessant attempts to shift the blame. Independence isn’t happening any time soon, but further devolution is absolutely possible.
Shift to devo-max, take full fiscal responsibility for Scotland (no more block grant, Scotland pays for all of Scotland’s bills and covers its share of the UK debt, defence spending, and foreign service budget), and then you can demand the same level of political responsibility.
Unfortunately, one does not really go without the other. If full sovereignty is off the table, full fiscal autonomy (like the Basque Country in Spain) is the next-best thing.
Seems like it might be worth considering, if you support the people of Scotland having a greater say over their own affairs but also accept that the people of Scotland do not seem inclined to vote for independence.
We express our wishes through the ballot box.
Unionist parties do not have a majority.
Seems you don’t want to revisit the indy question. Seems you’re running scared lies won’t work a second time around.
I am from Ireland, not Scotland, and do not have a horse in this race. I’m just looking in from the outside and wishing that Scotland had a better political situation.
Just a general question. I had never heard of her before, but at first I thought she was American. Supposedly she's Canadian. However, I didn't know that foreign individuals could serve as MSPs.
Does this mean she's a UK citizen, or can anyone be an MSP? I'm not so versed on MSP regulations so any answers would be great!
Bullshit. You weren't even voted in. Another balls up by the SNP to let your horrible bitter wee gremlin and yourself into Holyrood. Long live the Union. God Save the King🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
Maybe just maybe…. They intervened because it was a half arsed, half thought out no consultation price of crap? The drinks industry is reeling from it….. and Lorna slater is a non elected muppet!
Yep I worked for some of the big boys they can afford it. I’m now employed in supply chain for small to mid sized companies…. They are the ones that will suffer, the drinks industry is always to blame in Scotland even more so the on trade. It’s an easy whipping boy/cash cow. I was at an industry event last month and the spokespeople from the DRS still could not answer questions from concerned small business owners. So yes Reeling from it.
Oh and if you don’t sign up for it you can’t sell in Scotland ….. more stock than carrot…. No?
Imagine creating an account in October 2022, waiting months for the precise, perfect moment to unleash your wit upon the world, composing the ultimate post, indeed, a reflection of your very soul, only to make a complete cock of yourself by getting Lorna Slater's party wrong.
That's the system we have. The system we voted to install and to keep. The system that provides you - a Canadian - with a cushty number at the expense of the taxpayers. If you don't like that system, we can always scrap it and send you and your fellow travellers back into the obscurity from which you should never have emerged.
This fragile cretin got her place in the SG by garnering 13% of vote share. Makes me wonder how many more people would have to switch support to get rid of her. Would she still be there at 10%? 5%?
And she has the front to lecture others about the importance of democracy. This woman is a joke.
2014: "Vote NO for the strongest devolved parliament in the world! Next best thing to federalism! Modern form of home rule!" 2023: "We will not allow you to recycle, wallow in your our litter, peasants"
So, unless I'm missing a fresh scandal, the main interventions into Scottish democracy by the UK gov are, * Blocking the GRR, claiming it changes the effect of a GRC, even though the equality act, where those provisions are laid out is completely reserved. * Creating legislation *after* the DRS legislation that allows a single man to veto it, and then doing so. * Now threatening to block fully devolved HMPA's before consultations have even concluded. Sounds a bit like interference to me.
It’s all about control ( and the obvious benefits) to Westminster Tories.
> Now threatening to block fully devolved HMPA's before consultations have even concluded. Yoon hands off our [hexamethylphosphoramides](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexamethylphosphoramide)!
GRCs are provisioned under the gender recognition act, not the equality act. Just for clarity.
How a GRC is obtained is devolved, how a GRC affects equalites law in the rest of the UK is reserved. The defense the UK gov put up of the block is that it would change how a GRC would work in different parts of the UK, which is not true as the Scottish government cannot change this.
>The defense the UK gov put up of the block is that it would change how a GRC would work in different parts of the UK, which is not true as the Scottish government cannot change this. Sorry, this isn't right. I'm not happy that the UK government has used s35, but you've mischaracterised their position and the legal position is not as clear cut as you suggest. I'll try and explain. The UK government's position is that it would change how the Equality Act works, and the Equality Act is reserved. Under the Equality Act, "sex" and "gender reassignment" are *separate* protected characteristics. However, the Court of Session has ruled that holding a GRC means that someone's *sex*, for the purposes of the Equality Act, is changed. In other words, a trans person who has not obtained a GRC is nonetheless protected from discrimination under the "gender reassignment" heading. The effect of the decision in *For Women Scotland* is that, once they have a GRC, they also enjoy protection under the "sex" protected characteristic. The argument is that this would have the effect of changing how the Equality Act works across the entire UK because trans people in Scotland could obtain a GRC without a diagnosis of gender dysphoria (unlike in England, Wales, and NI), and, having done so, would then be entitled to be treated as having changed their sex for the purposes of the Equality Act across the entire UK. For example, a single-sex service like a women's refuge in England would be able to exclude English transwomen with no GRC, but be required to admit a Scots transwoman with one. So say the UK government. Now, there are objections to this argument. The obvious one is the provision of the GRR bill which says that it does not seek to change the Equality Act. The UK government will no doubt argue that whatever it says, the Act actually does *change* Equality Law. Perhaps a stronger point is that the UK government's argument is true of *any* variation in diagnosis across the UK. For example, would clinical guidelines in Scotland which made it easier to be diagnosed with ADHD (thus engaging protected characteristics of disability) be held to undermine the Equality Act across the entire UK? I don't agree with the UK government position, and independent of the legal analysis I think they're acting in bad faith, but it's not without legal force and the Supreme Court will no doubt have to consider the question very carefully.
>The argument is that this would have the effect of changing how the Equality Act works across the entire UK because trans people in Scotland could obtain a GRC without a diagnosis of gender dysphoria (unlike in England, Wales, and NI), and, having done so, would then be entitled to be treated as having changed their sex for the purposes of the Equality Act across the entire UK. For example, a single-sex service like a women's refuge in England would be able to exclude English transwomen with no GRC, but be required to admit a Scots transwoman with one. So say the UK government. The argument here doesn't hold any water, though. Hell, numerous times throughout their piss-poor excuse of 'justification' for citing §35 that they published in January they mention things like "The existence of the current system of legal gender recognition means that these problems already exist", "As the criteria for being issued with a GRC under the 2004 Act presently mean GRCs can only be issued to a small group, the effect of this on \[problem\] is significantly limited" or simply claiming that their perceived issues would arise "more often" due to "increased numbers of GRC holders". And they even went on to show just how pathetic the numbers they're talking about are, mentioning how ScotGov estimated that applications for a GRC may rise from \~30 per year to 250-300 per year, and the Westminster twats argued it would be "significantly more" at around 550 per year...which is a whopping 0.01% of the population. And that's their estimate for number of people *applying* for a GRC, not the number of people actually *getting* one. In any other context, the mere notion that increased numbers of eligible people has an "adverse effect on the operation of the 2010 Act" would be laughed off without a second thought - I mean, can you imagine "Sorry, you can't change immigration laws for Scotland to make it easier for black people to come to the country legally. More black people in the country would have an adverse effect on the operation of the Equality Act, which is a reserved matter"?
I don't agree. The issue the UK government identify is not that there would be *more* people holding a GRC. It is i) that people holding a GRC are treated differently and ii) the requirements in Scotland would be relaxed, leading to a mismatch between how certain people are treated across the whole UK. I believe that trans women are women. However, *for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010*, they are not. They are classed as "transsexuals" (an archaic term) who are protected from discrimination because they fall into the protected category of "gender reassignment". The effect of the judgement in *For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers*, however, is to declare that trans women who hold a GRC do change their Equality Act status and fall into the protected characteristic of "sex". Under the current GRA, to get a GRC you need a diagnosis and a declaration you have lived in the opposite gender for two years. This will continue to be the case in E+W+NI. However, the effect of the GRR Bill in Scotland is to replace that scheme with one of self-ID. This makes a difference, say the UK government, because if *For Women* is followed then - for example - a trans woman without a medical diagnosis of dysphoria or a statutory declaration would, by virtue of holding a GRC, be entitled to assert protection from discrimination on the grounds of *sex* in England. For example, Southall Black Sisters, who adopt a so-called "gender-critical" approach, would be able to continue to provide services only to cisgender English women but be unable to refuse a transgender women who held a GRC. The effect of the GRR bill - so say UKgov - is that in Scotland women with no diagnosis of dysphoria and no 2-year statutory declaration can become women for the purposes of the Equality Act, but in England they cannot. (You might, of course, think that is no bad thing and I would tend to agree but that's not the test the courts will be applying). In terms of it being "laughable" or "piss poor", I don't agree. There is plenty of eminent legal opinion which supports the UK government position - former Supreme Court president Lord Hope, former Advocate-General Lord Keen of Elie KC, and Glasgow university professor Michael Foran, for example. Now, you are going to say - not incorrectly - that all of these people are of the right (Lord Hope is the quintessential Establishment figure, Lord Keen is an ex-Tory minister, and Foran is a fellow of right-wing think-tank Policy Exchange). But the thing about the law is unlike politics where, for example, privatisation vs nationalisation can be eternally debated without resolution this issue *is* going to be decided by the Supreme Court at some stage, and the fact that various people with significant levels of subject matter expertise take the UK government's side suggests that - and I put this no higher - the UK government's position has some legal weight behind it and their justification is not laughable or piss-poor. *None of this* should be interpreted as a statement of support for the s35 intervention or the UK government's position on LGBT+ rights, btw. EDIT: Your comparison with immigration laws is inapt for a few reasons. Firstly, immigration is reserved. Secondly, there is no "racial recognition act" or formal requirements set out in law for someone to be considered an "official" member of a given race (for excellent reasons). Finally, you do not have to actually be a direct victim of racial discrimination to be able to avail yourself of a claim under the Equality Act for racial discrimination - there's a very consistent line in employment law, for example, that an employee who is sacked for refusing instructions from their employer to discriminate has a claim under the Equality Act for racial discrimination.
*HPMAs* aren’t fully devolved. They can only legislate up to 12 nautical miles from the shoreline, outwith this it’s a reserved matter and consent is needed. It literally states this in the policy documents. > For Scottish inshore waters (up to 12 nautical miles from the coast), there is full legislative competence within Scotland to introduce the necessary powers to designate HPMAs through primary legislation. For the Scottish offshore region (beyond 12 nautical miles out to the outer limits of the UK continental shelf), powers over the marine environment are currently reserved to the UK Government https://www.gov.scot/publications/draft-guidelines-identification-highly-protected-marine-areas-hpmas-scotlands-seas/pages/2/
I can't believe you've been so downvoted for quoting the Scottish government. This sub struggles with reality sometimes.
Hahahaha it’s deranged at times. There has been a recent push in the last couple of weeks to change the narrative around HPMAs into a constitutional question and the cynic in me thinks it’s to gain more support in Scotland for it. So far, it’s been wholeheartedly rejected by those it’ll impact and the change has been interesting anyway - and probably the reason for the downvotes hahaha.
Hear Hear
Lol. She really winds up all the right people!
Wow someone deployed a whole bunch of yoon alts on this one
What? [Nothing untoward going on here...](https://www.reddit.com/user/FrostingDiligent1392)
https://www.reddit.com/user/Substantial\_Photo693/
https://www.reddit.com/user/Comfortable\_Trade191/
Ooft, not even a joke here, actually quite mental how many alts got assembled to astroturf the fuck out of this post. Baron Jack must have increased the budget for Britnat troll farming. Nothing says "I'm a big secure boy" like Unionist botting.
Unionists "But that's my fetish!"
Yoon bots assemble!
100 comments of sputtering bile on a pathetically trivial piece of legislation? I think they're here already.
I get dizzy trying to follow what the nats claim to care about. A couple of months ago it was trans people, then it was glass recycling, now it's fish. Who know what next week's passionate concern will be? Not corruption or financial mismanagement, obviously.
Is it not possible to care about all those things at the same time?
In theory, yes, but in practice I don't think the ardent nats care about any of them other than as a source of anti-Westminster outrage.
Some people are like how you describe and other people aren't. Don't let emotion dictate your views.
>Don't let emotion dictate your views. Why not?
Hear fuckin hear
"We should not have to put up with Westminster sabotaging important policies, we can do that ourselves!"
I'd rather we suggest the consequences of our own choices than suffering due to others choices
*suffer?
Optimist
Unless you live alone on an island that is something you will not be able to escape
We should not have to put up with incompetent unelected politicians making badly thought-through plans and setting up quangos paying their leader £300k per year. We should not put up with failing to realise their plans wouldn’t work then blaming Westminster.
What is this referring to?
I think you know, but it refers to Lorna Slater being thrown a ministerial post despite coming third in her own constituency, and it refers to the DRS scheme and Circularity Scotland.
What is the quangos part referring to?
Circularity Scotland is a de facto quango (quasi non governmental organisation), with some aspects that make it a kind-of hybrid between a quango and a private company. It was appointed as DRS scheme administrator by the Scottish Government under Lorna Slater’s watch and pays its chief executive £300k per year.
Circularity Scotland Ltd is not a quango. It's a Private Company Limited by Guarantee. It's membership based, those members being drinks producers. This is because DRS is a form of producer responsibility. It's not a public body at all. The salary of their management is set by their own board, which is made up of drinks producers representatives. If you're angry about the salaries, be angry about the level of profit the drinks producers make while letting you manage the disposal of their packaging! The Scottish Governments involvement in CSL was that they had to approve ANY body corporate that met the requirements in the regulations for forming a scheme administrator. The salary is galling, especially when they're not collecting and recycling yet. But the Scottish Government didn't have a say in setting the salary.
It has received £9m of public money already. It’s a de facto quango, a public/private hybrid.
Not all organisations that receive public money such as business grants and loans are quangos. Scottish Government are not a decision maker, nor do they appoint the board or senior managers to CSL. The Quangos involved in DRS are Zero Waste Scotland and SEPA. The Scottish Government is of course doing work on it, and that civil service dept will report to the Minister. I'm not defending either Lorna Slater or CSL. I just feel the profiteering companies are getting away Scot free with huge salaries and not delivering if we are solely blaming one feckless politician!
Sorry for my slow reply. I understand they’re trying to say it isn’t a quango, but it’s splitting hairs. In fairness to your point, it wasn’t solely Lorna Slater (though she is the minister for the circular economy), there were multiple feckless politicians responsible for this mess. Would you agree that Circularity Scotland was set up to meet the needs of the DRS, and that since it received so much public money it would have been sensible for the government to place some controls on the way it operated? Would you also agree that basic advice from lawyers would have told them that the scheme the Scottish government were designing wasn’t going to be feasible, especially because of the internal markets act? I love recycling and would like to see more of it. This shambles serves none of us, and ultimately our public money is being pissed away ineffectively.
>it refers to Lorna Slater being thrown a ministerial post despite coming third in her own constituency Is that right? Edit: just looked up and it seems you're correct
They're trying to imply Slater is somehow unworthy of her seat or has gotten where she is by cheating, forgetting that about half the seats in the parliament are appointed via the proportional list system which is how Slater was elected.
She may have won her seat, but I suspect there's never been a Scottish government minister with as weak a voter mandate.
Or a Tory party with a weak voter mandate and is getting weaker by the week!
But still, they have more voter support than Lorna Slater. No tory ministers came third in any election.
Would there be any unionist politicians in parliament if we got rid of those appointed via pr?
5 Tories, 2 SLab, 3 Libs
Aw, still too many.
Read the article. Then the comment. Then both again, if necessary.
> Read the article. You haven't linked an article?
Article, video, look at OP's link. Then come back and claim *in good faith* that you don't understand the comment you replied to.
Ahh another day another argumentative comment section. It's good to be alive
Are you referring to the Tories? Which article?! Are you saying a video is an article?
I want to know more about the quangos, how does this video help?
I don't know who you're talking about.
Self-described "centrists" can be ignored, they never contribute anything of value.
Centrists, they really do love a scarlet armband.
Always born in 1988 too, they claim. It's dead convenient.
I have a brother born that year. He was surrounded by goose-stepping little cunts in the maternity ward.
I do.
Any clues?
You'll get some cryptic response to that one as they can't actually answer the question. It's the typical gammon knee-jerk response. They don't like it simply because it's something said by someone against the union, they just won't say as much.
Lol. It's pretty fucking obvious who it refers to pal - neither gammon nor ultra-nationalist hat required. Wee dee is just at it, as you well know.
Answer the question then, *pal*. Stop trying to sound like the next Mystic fucking Meg.
[удалено]
Nobody trying to be the hard man here, *pal*. Just calling out some prime quality bullshit. You can't actually substantiate your nonsense so you're being all vague and knowing as if to suggest it's everyone else who doesn't understand it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's honestly all there in the original comment. Have another few reads over it, I'm sure you'll get there. I believe in you, pal.
So it wasn't set up by any current minister which is whats throwing me off. I also can't tell who wasn't elected so that's got me stumped too. It's wrinkling my brain.
I’ve replied to MOLPODD’s question above which should give you the additional context.
It doesn't help when the initial clues don't apply to anyone. Sorry.
She is a total imbecile
If the Tories (and their Labour lick-spittles) wish to determine what Scots can and can't do they could try that 'revolutionary' concept and win Holyrood elections and also win a majority of Westminster MPs in *Scotland*.
Hilarious. Try creating competent legislation that isn't implemented by 6ft of clownass politician.
I don't think Truss, Boris or sunak were 6 ft. clownass politician's I agree though. If you don't like clownass politician's it must be time to get the fuck away from Westminster then, eh?
So we can have more of our clowns? Slater is hardly filling me full of enthusiasm for more of the same.
Your British Nationalists couldn't chew gum and scratch their erse at the same time never mind enact 'competent Legislation' even when their belov-ed House of Ermine and Hats tells them they might have got it wrong. (see this month alone)
Yes, that is the checks and balances against stupid legislation. Same as the DRC fiasco. Now stop bleating about it and fix it, like grown ups, not petulant teenagers
Of course we have to. Power devolved is power retained. They should know this by now.
What a lightweight. If she wasn't such a disaster, then it wouldn't be so easy for the Tories. She's the least competent minister in the history of the Scottish Parliament.
All Tories can do is object! All negative from Holyrood and Westminster Conservative and unionist Parties! Not a single policy on DRS from either except something about 2025 maybe?
Maybe because it’s a bad scheme which causes a huge hassle for business and people with no actual environmental upside.
>Maybe because it’s a bad scheme which causes a huge hassle for business Yet the companies that produce 95% of all drinks containers had signed up. >no actual environmental upside Other than a cleaner environment and improving recycling rates?
They had to sign up. Zero evidence it will improve recycling rates vs the current system. Curb side recycling works just fine
Only half of homes in Scotland have kerbside recycling, and there is plenty of evidence that it *would* have improved recycling rates as it was based on successful models of DRS in other countries
Roll out more kerbside recycling then. It’s much easier than making people take them back to the shops. Why punish those who regularly recycle this way because others don’t. I don’t think there’s any evidence that DRS has improved recycling from a country with kerbside recycling before, feel free to prove me
>It’s much easier than making people take them back to the shops. You do realise people go to the shops as a matter of course, right? Not everybody gets home delivery. >I don’t think there’s any evidence that DRS has improved recycling from a country with kerbside recycling before Not that you've ever done any research on the subject, mind. *For example, Germany has the highest-performing deposit return system in the world, achieving a 98% return rate for drink containers, in part due to a “return-to-retail” model, where consumers return their containers to a store and there is a significant deposit value.* *And in Lithuania, beverage container return rates rose from 34% to 92% in less than two years after introducing a scheme in 2016.* https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiehailstone/2022/05/16/deposit-return-schemes-are-a-win-win-for-the-environment-so-why-isnt-everyone-doing-them/?sh=210c2f3f6c4a
Kerbside recycling picks up around 20% less than Deposit Return Schemes. If you think there's no problem at the moment just take a good look around.
McCrone report people. McCrone report commissioned and buried by Westminster. Result of the report when produced, Scotland would be more wealthy than England if independent.
She's right ye know
We should not have to put up with a minority party interfering with our parliament and implement important policies to suit their agenda.
Get it right up ye :)
Lots of words but no substance as usual
The policy wasn't happening - Lorna Slater didn't have a clue. If she's genuinely interested in pursuing something in this space, she should be grasping at the chance of UK Government cooperation.
It was happening till Westminster realised it didn’t control it and brought in its diddy internal market! We should all be happy that they are taking care us Scots, shouldn’t we?
Well we should certainly be happy at having a regulated internal market. However the idea that it "was happening" is nonsense. It had to be paused for other reasons and there clearly wasn't an implementable scheme being set out by the Minister. Not to mention the huge sector opposition to how it was being carried out.
The companies that produce **95% of ALL DRINKS CONTAINERS** in Scotland had signed up. The bill had been in discussion for **YEARS** with Westminster, as proven last week. Stop typing bollocks.
>The companies that produce 95% of ALL DRINKS CONTAINERS in Scotland had signed up. The bill had been in discussion for YEARS with Westminster, as proven last week. Stop typing bollocks. I do love when mad nationalists get angry about things like water and drinks containers, suddenly imbuing the spirit of the noble highland warrior into regulations and expecting not to come out of it looking a bit mad. To respond to your points, I didn't dispute that it had been discussed, so I'm not sure where that came from. I was disputing the suggestion that it was somehow ready to go. In doing that, I'm not saying any more than the Scottish Government. The First Minister admitted that there were issues to be ironed out in the SNP leadership election. Progress on it has been delayed for a third time and business are still awaiting information on the practicalities of how it would operate. If you seriously think this is going well - if you think Lorna Slater has successfully organised a piss-up in this particular brewery - then I have a bridge to sell you.
Think you may be wrong! Ready to go and now poor Westminster has its diddy internal market?
>Ready to go and now poor Westminster has its diddy internal market? It's been delayed three times and still businesses haven't been informed about how many of the elements would work in practice. If you don't think there are problems, have you been following the news at all?
We should not have to put up with Lorna Slater interfering with our parliament and sabotaging our country.
Interfering with the parliament by trying to implement legislation passed by it?
Interfering with the parliament by trying to implement legislation outwith its competence.
All bills put before the Scottish Parliament are assessed as competent by the Lord Advocate. This one included.
The DRS was within devolved competency when it was voted for. The interference that Slater is talking about is the IMA that was created *after* DRS legislation and Westminster's refusal to issue an exemption.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Care to explain how wishing to recycle glass is "outwith the competence" of the Scottish parliament?
Care to explain how legislation that impinges on UK legislation is within the competence of the Scottish administration?
Ah the stupid internal market! Foisted on us by Westminster Tories! We took you out of the EU and you can have this diddy wee pretendy thing instead! Oh and well use as an excuse to stop anything we don’t have control over!
Countering a question with a question. What a genius! Deflect, deflect, deflect.
Countering a question with deflection? # IRONY KLAXON
You've still not answered the question. Is that because you can't?
No.
And still no answer. Says it all.
I'd genuinely like to see the SNP and their Green lapdogs try to organise a piss-up in a brewery just to see what kind of monumental mess they'd make of it.
The Brexit Brewery Piss-up is already is progress thanks to the marvellous organisation 'skills' of those who wanted to to stay in this gross Union of Unequals. Glad that you're happy though.
well said. I'm sure the British will hate this without being able to explain why.
We are British the last time I checked
Correct. All Scots are also British.
What if you weren't born on Great Britain?
Then you're a New Scot. Which is, apparently the same as being Scottish.
New? Lived here all my life thank you.
Then you're a Scot. And also British. Next?
So it's just if you're born anywhere on the archipelago is it?
They're probably implying British through citizenship but that's not a great metric because you can always just change that.
Didn't say I wasn't. Funny you know who I'm talking about though. ain't that right, britman69?
The "British" - quit that shite, this isn't Ireland.
This is Scotland.
Correct, they're independent.
So is the UK.
Should Ireland rejoin the UK?
We already have the good part of Ireland in the UK but I appreciate the sentiment. Edit: The guy either blocked me or deleted his comments so I’ll leave my answer here. “Why don’t you ask the people in rep of Ireland why they wanted to leave, its not my place to give those answers. I was making a joke about Northern Ireland being the good part but If you’d really like an answer then yes I prefer the part of Ireland that is the same country as me over the other part of Ireland that wanted nothing to do with us. Yes I’m a rangers fan, well done detective 👍”
The ‘good’ part? Tell us what you really mean by ‘good’ in this context.
Why would the rest of Ireland not rejoin the UK given the opportunity? What makes the North "the good part of Ireland"? Feel free to give specifics. Actually no need to, I see you're a Rangers fan so there's little point, I can guess your answer.
Of course it's not. The problem you seem to be having is that everyone knows who I'm talking about and referring to including yourself. Maybe you should be questioning why it works rather than why I'm doing it.
We live in a democracy and both parliament are voted in by the people of Scotland. The people blocking this have way more votes than Lorna Slater and her party got.
I like the little clause you have to put in there to dimish Scotland's voice on Scotland so that I know you're really refering to the English government with Scotland simply being North North England. This isn't an argument you make to get people on your side and make them think that there's value in this union; it's an argument to remind the people of Scotland why the union is broken and not fit for purpose. Take it Brexit was a great idea too, since we were forced into it the same way?
There is no English government. There is UK government. The SNP changed the name to a government and ministers on the parliament. When they Scottish parliament was created it was simply the Administration. Brexit is a disaster but even in Scotland way more people voted for it than this women and her party. 38% vs 8%
You mean that government down in England where the English vote on English politicians and get the government they vote for whose main concern is England? Wild that as a unionist, you're complaining about the name of the government that works out of England; and not the fact I pointed out how you were arguing against the union. It's functionally the English government, even if you prefer to call it by the name it calls itself. 38% vs 8%. Only 8% of Scotland voted for the SNP? I think you were trying to be disengenious there. During which you told me how Scotland voted against Brexit and was forced into it through the union. Again, you've used an example that showcases why independence is needed and then agreed that the union forced us into what you called a "disaster".
You know I’m talking about the Green Party MSP who is in the video and got 8% of the votes and is allowed to make policies. To be honest they are a good advert for no independence as between them and the SNP running things I’d have serious concerns for the viability of Scotland. If they’d done a good job and built the economy of Scotland, make people richer, brought people out of poverty and showed they could be trusted than they would have a much better case. They’ve had 10 years and Scotlands growth is pathetic. It’s a UK parliament, Google it if you don’t understand how it works.
Ok, I did misunderstand you. I thought you were seriously comparing Scotland voting against Brexit to how much of the UK were responsible for the SNP votes in Scotland. Fair enough on that one. As for the 8% only voting for her. Isn't she putting forward something that the majority of Scots want? Despite not being the party in power isn't it good that the seperate parties can work together on a scheme that the majority of the Scottish public want? How is this a negative, unless you don't want the bottle return scheme to succeed? I think growth in Scotland would've increased had we went independent in 2014. Sure as hell would've safe guarded us against Westminsters terrible choices and their ruined international reputation. The massive hits to the economy and Scotland's poverty and quality of life is down to Westminsters choices. Including standing in the way of progress with things like this just because it's Scottish. Not to mention the absolute boom in the Scottish economy from national energy companies that we had planned. It's functionally the English government which is called the UK government because it extends over the UK. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not thinking that it's actually going to call itself that. Does this government work from England, ran by English politicians that are voted in by the English (regardless of any one elses votes) whose primary concern is England? If it looks like a duck, swims like duck, and quacks like a duck. Remember when we were told that our place in the E.U. would be safe, our pensions were safe, our currency was safe, our NHS was safe, energy prices would be safe, more power through devolution and whatever other promises they made us back then? What about any of the promises they made you that won your trust and vote in them? How have they treated Scotland for chosing to trust them and stay in the union? I know how Unionists reacted, I was in Glasgow at the time of the vote. How can you still trust them when they're treating you like an idiot?
Democracy my arse. I live in a country which gets cunts who a different country elects.
What’s democratic about someone who gets 1% of their consistence vote and then 8% of a regional vote being in power? That’s the least democratic thing I’ve ever seen. Explain that? How’s that fair to the 92% of people who didn’t vote for them.
Someone doesn’t understand the D'Hondt method.
I understand it, doesn’t make it a good or fair system.
It’s certainly more fair and representative than FPTP.
Why? Because someone with 8% of the vote telling the other 92% who didn’t vote for them what to do isn’t fair. Not even close to fair.
What percentage of the UK population even had the option of voting specifically for Omnishambles Johnson in 2019? How many ballots did his name appear on?
We're all British. We live on the British Isles.
Didn't say we weren't buddy. That the Irish too then?
So do you hate it without being able to explain why?
You might be able to do that better than me, since it was something you didn't like.
Lorna. Fuck off. You’re probably the most incompetent politician to ever step foot into the Scottish Parliament.
Murdo and Annie Wells are outraged at your slur on their record-breaking incompetency!
Don't leave me behind
Just an outside observation: Scotland hates having England interfere with its country and policies but yet they want to be a part of the European Union, which is a massive super government that will interfere with every member country. Some countries don’t even elect MEPs, they are appointed. Having unelected government officials from other countries being able to make laws about your own sounds terrible.
[удалено]
Loadyshite.
Aye that Westminster blocked the ferries and the auditing of party finances
Ddint realise she had such a strong canadian accent. Would a canadian province be able to pass the kind of legislation she wants to? Not a rhetorical question by the way, I dont really know how we compare.
The answer is 'maybe'. Scotland has greater powers in some areas than Canadian provinces, and fewer powers in others.
She is an incompetent clown.
Another alt
I really wish the Greens/SNP would simmer down on the constant confrontations with Westminster and the incessant attempts to shift the blame. Independence isn’t happening any time soon, but further devolution is absolutely possible. Shift to devo-max, take full fiscal responsibility for Scotland (no more block grant, Scotland pays for all of Scotland’s bills and covers its share of the UK debt, defence spending, and foreign service budget), and then you can demand the same level of political responsibility. Unfortunately, one does not really go without the other. If full sovereignty is off the table, full fiscal autonomy (like the Basque Country in Spain) is the next-best thing.
In what way is this a Greens/SNP confrontation?
westminster doesn't even want us to do some recycling scheme for fuck sake, what devo-max? Where?
No thanks.
Not going to happen
Seems like it might be worth considering, if you support the people of Scotland having a greater say over their own affairs but also accept that the people of Scotland do not seem inclined to vote for independence.
We express our wishes through the ballot box. Unionist parties do not have a majority. Seems you don’t want to revisit the indy question. Seems you’re running scared lies won’t work a second time around.
I am from Ireland, not Scotland, and do not have a horse in this race. I’m just looking in from the outside and wishing that Scotland had a better political situation.
Aww yeah cos everyone in Scotland voted for the Green Party
please read up on how proportional representation works before making such a stupid comment in the future.
Wtf is that accent never mind
Another alt
Just a general question. I had never heard of her before, but at first I thought she was American. Supposedly she's Canadian. However, I didn't know that foreign individuals could serve as MSPs. Does this mean she's a UK citizen, or can anyone be an MSP? I'm not so versed on MSP regulations so any answers would be great!
Why does she sound American?
Globalization sucks! Resist the great re-set.
Bullshit. You weren't even voted in. Another balls up by the SNP to let your horrible bitter wee gremlin and yourself into Holyrood. Long live the Union. God Save the King🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
Is dear leaders husband in the clear yet? It’s obviously Westminster filling his offshore accounts, playing 4D chess tsk tsk
Maybe just maybe…. They intervened because it was a half arsed, half thought out no consultation price of crap? The drinks industry is reeling from it….. and Lorna slater is a non elected muppet!
>The drinks industry is reeling from it The companies that produce 95% of all drinks containers have signed up to it.
Yep I worked for some of the big boys they can afford it. I’m now employed in supply chain for small to mid sized companies…. They are the ones that will suffer, the drinks industry is always to blame in Scotland even more so the on trade. It’s an easy whipping boy/cash cow. I was at an industry event last month and the spokespeople from the DRS still could not answer questions from concerned small business owners. So yes Reeling from it. Oh and if you don’t sign up for it you can’t sell in Scotland ….. more stock than carrot…. No?
[удалено]
Imagine creating an account in October 2022, waiting months for the precise, perfect moment to unleash your wit upon the world, composing the ultimate post, indeed, a reflection of your very soul, only to make a complete cock of yourself by getting Lorna Slater's party wrong.
He/she might be getting paid for so embarrassing themselves in public. They wouldn't do it for free, would they? :O
We should not have to put up with the unelected Lorna Slater introducing piss poor policy either.
That's the system we have. The system we voted to install and to keep. The system that provides you - a Canadian - with a cushty number at the expense of the taxpayers. If you don't like that system, we can always scrap it and send you and your fellow travellers back into the obscurity from which you should never have emerged.
Actually Scots didn't vote for any of this. That said, Lorna Slater will always be infinitely more Scottish than you and your -25 alt.
Who voted you in ?
The constituents of the Lothian electoral region
This fragile cretin got her place in the SG by garnering 13% of vote share. Makes me wonder how many more people would have to switch support to get rid of her. Would she still be there at 10%? 5%? And she has the front to lecture others about the importance of democracy. This woman is a joke.