Of course, this suits the Tories as much as it suits Nicola Sturgeon. Starmer will have to give his opinion on the matter.
I will be intrigued to see what he says. It's quite a challenge he's been set here. How can he say 'they are all total fuckwits with no manners cynically misusing rights legislation for their own retarded agendas' without sounding rude?
He'll say he has concerns about the Scottish legislation but that this was not the way to resolve the impasse, without saying how it could have been resolved.
Dad who isn't angry, but disappointed with both of them.
While of course ignoring the annoying wee kid dancing about on the edge of the scrap (SLab) who has inconveniently has taken one side.
There should be a rule on PB that if 10 people disagree with you on a topic without anyone supporting you, you have to accept that you're wrong or be banned for a week.
No as that 10 might well all be left liberals while you are a rightwinger, making it an echo chamber
Some things are opinions depending upon your political views and then there are facts. You seem to struggle to tell the difference.
But to be fair, ten people disagreeing with you is merely ten people expressing their opinion.
One well-expressed dissenting opinion is worth ten badly expressed similar ones.
That's true, but it is also not true that if there is a 10 to 1 ratio that the latter is indeed the better expressed, which is a common presumption when someone is outnumbered.
Fun for Starmer on the gender reform stuff. Does he want to support a Tory government blocking legislation his branch office colleagues voted for, even if he's not that happy about the legislation himself?
Seems like a Kobayashi Maru for him there.
It's easy for him. This is an example of Tory chaos etc etc, not helped by the SNP always framing things as provocatively as possible and so on, I would always seek to be constructive and represent all views yadda yadda.
Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman on @LBC just now said that for the UK Government "even to threaten to act is entirely inappropriate" and they would be "playing roughshod with devolution". #GRRBill
She said she couldn't possibly know what sex she was because she had never had her chromosomes tested..
I think everyone's overlooking the obvious. This isn't about transgender rights. That's not something Sturgeon cares about, as far as can be judged. This is about shoring up her political base on one hand, while daring the UK Parliament to overrule her for exceeding her powers so she can claim to be being victimised.
Meanwhile, precisely because she's acting as though she's President of Scotland, Westminster is looking for an excuse to slap her down and remind her she isn't.
The irony that it's over something as tangential as this is probably more apparent than real. If anyone took this subject especially seriously they would have thrashed it out in advance to ensure this didn't happen.
The current review process of the GRA began in 2017. How much more thrashing out would you consider sufficient?
Is Sturgeon the only solicitor in Scotland who skipped lectures on ultra vires?
Um no. The government isn't arguing this is "ultra vires" and would no doubt argue it was, if it could. Hence its dodgy use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill is constitutionally bullet proof.
Developers are not sitting on land with planning permission in vast quantities. Getting planning permission is an expensive business (lots of fat fee solicitors) and it generally lapses after 3 years.
I’ve asked to do a planning law seat, so that should be fun.
How much land they are or are not sitting on should be a matter of public record, so show us the evidence.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the Scottish Bill it was agreed in parliament there and for Westminster to use a section 35 order to block it is outrageous .
If it impacts on UK-wide equality legislation then there is nothing outrageous about it.
I wonder if it does though. I find the logic a little shaky. Let's see how it plays out.
It is at the least a fairly niche interest to get that far into the detail to assess the claim that it affects UK wide legislation, and whether that justifies this, and 90% of people won't be doing that so will be judging it on much broader terms - eg the law is bad I don't like it/Scotlandddddddd!
That's true. But it's the logic I'm questioning. You can already change your gender. The Scottish reform just makes it easier. So if the EA needs clarifying in this area then it already does, regardless of the reform. The UKG argument looks weak to me. I think they'll lose it.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the Scottish Bill it was agreed in parliament there and for Westminster to use a section 35 order to block it is outrageous .
If it impacts on UK-wide equality legislation then there is nothing outrageous about it.
I wonder if it does though. I find the logic a little shaky. Let's see how it plays out.
It is at the least a fairly niche interest to get that far into the detail to assess the claim that it affects UK wide legislation, and whether that justifies this, and 90% of people won't be doing that so will be judging it on much broader terms - eg the law is bad I don't like it/Scotlandddddddd!
It's the logic I'm questioning. You can already change your gender. The Scottish reform just makes it easier. So if the EA needs clarifying in this area then it already does, regardless of the reform. The UKG argument looks weak to me. I think they'll lose it.
I think they would need a much stronger argument to justify taking such an unusual option. It's arguable, clearly, people have indeed argued it, but it feels secondary.
Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman on @LBC just now said that for the UK Government "even to threaten to act is entirely inappropriate" and they would be "playing roughshod with devolution". #GRRBill
She said she couldn't possibly know what sex she was because she had never had her chromosomes tested..
I think everyone's overlooking the obvious. This isn't about transgender rights. That's not something Sturgeon cares about, as far as can be judged. This is about shoring up her political base on one hand, while daring the UK Parliament to overrule her for exceeding her powers so she can claim to be being victimised.
Meanwhile, precisely because she's acting as though she's President of Scotland, Westminster is looking for an excuse to slap her down and remind her she isn't.
The irony that it's over something as tangential as this is probably more apparent than real. If anyone took this subject especially seriously they would have thrashed it out in advance to ensure this didn't happen.
It's essentially the same reform as in place in several other countries and that Mrs May's government planned to do in 2018. Agree or not, it's not some wild and crazy whim of Nicola Sturgeon’s.
Quite. The UN observer was telling them to get on with the basic reform.
One of us pointed out that the next problem was that sorting out all the consequences required modificastion to equality rights law which remained within Westminster remit, so basically the Scottish Pmt were damned whatever they did if HMG and the Tories wanted to obstruct.
Logically speaking, if the EA needs revision or clarification for a society where people can obtain a GRC differing from their natal sex, doesn't it need that regardless of this reform? Because people can obtain a GRC now, can't they? Just that it's a long and harrowing process.
The purpose of that long and harrowing process is that by the time people have reached the end of it their physical sex is very likely to be in accord with their chosen gender. Which means that they are not a risk or at risk from those of the gender they have chosen. Common sense would suggest that you are right and that there must be ways of reducing the process without losing that protection. Unfortunately, there is little evidence of any attempt at co-operation by either the SG or the UK government in the process to date.
In Scotland itself we have conflicting views in case law. The Inner house, basically the Appeal court, ruled that requiring males who had chosen to be females was incompatible with the EA and undermined the right that women had to form a certain proportion of boards etc. Lady Haldane came to a different view on the basis that biological men who chose to change their gender were in fact women so there was no problem. Personally, I did not find her distinction of the Inner House decision particularly persuasive but that does not necessarily mean that the Inner House decision was right.
If it was right then it is difficult to see how this bill does not exceed the powers of the Scottish Parliament. If Lady Haldane is right then it doesn't because the EA is not affected. I would not be confident about which way this argument would go.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the Scottish Bill it was agreed in parliament there and for Westminster to use a section 35 order to block it is outrageous .
If it impacts on UK-wide equality legislation then there is nothing outrageous about it.
I wonder if it does though. I find the logic a little shaky. Let's see how it plays out.
The UKG has put forward zero rationale as to why the Gender Recognition Reform Bill threatens UK equality regulation and was happily accepting similar recognition from other countries until this bill came along.
What it certainly does is hammer a nail into the coffin of the devolution settlement and drive Scotland towards independence. If you won't recognise other places doing things differently, devolution no longer exists. Given support for the Union is only 50/50 with devolution, that means independence.
Developers are not sitting on land with planning permission in vast quantities. Getting planning permission is an expensive business (lots of fat fee solicitors) and it generally lapses after 3 years.
I’ve asked to do a planning law seat, so that should be fun.
How much land they are or are not sitting on should be a matter of public record, so show us the evidence.
Is Sturgeon the only solicitor in Scotland who skipped lectures on ultra vires?
Um no. The government isn't arguing this is "ultra vires" and would no doubt argue it was, if it could. Hence its dodgy use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill is constitutionally bullet proof.
If this is a dodgy use can you give us a hypothetical example of a legitimate use of S 35?
Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman on @LBC just now said that for the UK Government "even to threaten to act is entirely inappropriate" and they would be "playing roughshod with devolution". #GRRBill
She said she couldn't possibly know what sex she was because she had never had her chromosomes tested..
I think everyone's overlooking the obvious. This isn't about transgender rights. That's not something Sturgeon cares about, as far as can be judged. This is about shoring up her political base on one hand, while daring the UK Parliament to overrule her for exceeding her powers so she can claim to be being victimised.
Meanwhile, precisely because she's acting as though she's President of Scotland, Westminster is looking for an excuse to slap her down and remind her she isn't.
The irony that it's over something as tangential as this is probably more apparent than real. If anyone took this subject especially seriously they would have thrashed it out in advance to ensure this didn't happen.
The current review process of the GRA began in 2017. How much more thrashing out would you consider sufficient?
If it's not within their competence, or even may not be within their competence, you would have thought even a government that contains the towering intellect of John Swinney would have thought to get it checked out in that six year period. And come to an understanding on that basis.
It's not as though there's been a moderate government in Westminster that might have given them more latitude in that time. So they presumably just didn't bother.
There hasn't been 'a' government of any consistent stripe in Westminster in that time with which to come to an understanding, just a series of increasingly obstructive goons lurching all over the place on this and other issues. Perhaps the Scottish government assumed (naively) that HMG would be influenced by its own consultative process.
'In 2018, a public consultation was held across the UK which gathered over 100,000 responses. It found that 64% of people who contributed believed the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria should be removed, 80% supported the removal of the requirement for a medical report detailing all treatment, and 79% called for the removal of the requirement for individuals to provide evidence of having lived in their ‘acquired gender’ for a period of time. These results were published in September 2020, but the UK government did not decide to change the GRA. Instead, it did commit to some small, administrative improvements to the process of legal recognition, including reducing the fee to apply to a nominal amount of £5 and moving the process online. This was labelled as “a missed opportunity to simplify the law on gender recognition whilst maintaining robust safeguards” by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. In Scotland, however, the Government proposed a draft bill to reform the GRA in December 2019, alongside a public consultation.'
Is Sturgeon the only solicitor in Scotland who skipped lectures on ultra vires?
Um no. The government isn't arguing this is "ultra vires" and would no doubt argue it was, if it could. Hence its dodgy use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill is constitutionally bullet proof.
I respectfully disagree. If the GR(S)A does change the meaning and effect of the EA (by changing what that Act means by a "woman" or a "man" then it seeks to amend a reserved matter and is ultra vires. If the UK government accepts that it doesn't they should not, in my view, be using s35.
Fun for Starmer on the gender reform stuff. Does he want to support a Tory government blocking legislation his branch office colleagues voted for, even if he's not that happy about the legislation himself?
Developers are not sitting on land with planning permission in vast quantities. Getting planning permission is an expensive business (lots of fat fee solicitors) and it generally lapses after 3 years.
I’ve asked to do a planning law seat, so that should be fun.
How much land they are or are not sitting on should be a matter of public record, so show us the evidence.
At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots.
And the three year rule mentioned by Gallowgate is only valid as long as no work of any material nature is undertaken. So developers will often lay a drop kerb at the entrance to the land or clear some hedging or even, these days, just mark out some temporary benchmarks. All that counts as commencement of works and once that is done the 3 year rule no longer applies and there is no requirement to do any further work at all. Planning permission is then permanent.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the Scottish Bill it was agreed in parliament there and for Westminster to use a section 35 order to block it is outrageous .
If it impacts on UK-wide equality legislation then there is nothing outrageous about it.
I wonder if it does though. I find the logic a little shaky. Let's see how it plays out.
The UKG has put forward zero rationale as to why the Gender Recognition Reform Bill threatens UK equality regulation and was happily accepting similar recognition from other countries until this bill came along.
What it certainly does is hammer a nail into the coffin of the devolution settlement and drive Scotland towards independence. If you won't recognise other places doing things differently, devolution no longer exists. Given support for the Union is only 50/50 with devolution, that means independence.
If anything the opposite, given 2/3 of Scots oppose the Gender Recognition Bill and only 55% voted against independence even in 2014
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the Scottish Bill it was agreed in parliament there and for Westminster to use a section 35 order to block it is outrageous .
If it impacts on UK-wide equality legislation then there is nothing outrageous about it.
I wonder if it does though. I find the logic a little shaky. Let's see how it plays out.
The UKG has put forward zero rationale as to why the Gender Recognition Reform Bill threatens UK equality regulation and was happily accepting similar recognition from other countries until this bill came along.
What it certainly does is hammer a nail into the coffin of the devolution settlement and drive Scotland towards independence. If you won't recognise other places doing things differently, devolution no longer exists. Given support for the Union is only 50/50 with devolution, that means independence.
If anything the opposite, given 2/3 of Scots oppose the Gender Recognition Bill and only 55% voted against independence even in 2014
Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman on @LBC just now said that for the UK Government "even to threaten to act is entirely inappropriate" and they would be "playing roughshod with devolution". #GRRBill
She said she couldn't possibly know what sex she was because she had never had her chromosomes tested..
In any case I think her description of the UK gov reaction is a bit misplaced. It hasn't been used before apparently, but the power to do this was it seens built into the Act which set up the devolution arrangements, so it cannot possibly be playing 'roughshod with devolution', it would be an established procedure. Like how if a treaty allows for arbitration over a matter its not violating it to use such a provision.
Saying it is an inappropriate and political use of devolution procedures makes more sense than claiming it rides roughshod with them.
If Holyrood are passing bills they are not competent to pass, then it's only right they be reminded they don't have the power to do that.
That's not riding roughshod over the devolutionary settlement, it's upholding it.
Of course, whether the government does have the power in this case is another question and I assume will end up before the courts (again).
Meanwhile the Scottish health and education services continue to struggle and Glasgow and Dundee continue to be bracketed among the most dangerous cities in Europe to live in outside actual war zones.
There’s no question of their competence to pass the legislation, irrespective of whether the UK government decides (for the first time ever) to use a power to overrule it.
And even if the power to overrule is there, to so decide certainly changes, de facto, the devolutionary settlement, however one chooses to describe that change.
Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman on @LBC just now said that for the UK Government "even to threaten to act is entirely inappropriate" and they would be "playing roughshod with devolution". #GRRBill
She said she couldn't possibly know what sex she was because she had never had her chromosomes tested..
I think everyone's overlooking the obvious. This isn't about transgender rights. That's not something Sturgeon cares about, as far as can be judged. This is about shoring up her political base on one hand, while daring the UK Parliament to overrule her for exceeding her powers so she can claim to be being victimised.
Meanwhile, precisely because she's acting as though she's President of Scotland, Westminster is looking for an excuse to slap her down and remind her she isn't.
The irony that it's over something as tangential as this is probably more apparent than real. If anyone took this subject especially seriously they would have thrashed it out in advance to ensure this didn't happen.
It's essentially the same reform as in place in several other countries and that Mrs May's government planned to do in 2018. Agree or not, it's not some wild and crazy whim of Nicola Sturgeon’s.
Quite. The UN observer was telling them to get on with the basic reform.
One of us pointed out that the next problem was that sorting out all the consequences required modificastion to equality rights law which remained within Westminster remit, so basically the Scottish Pmt were damned whatever they did if HMG and the Tories wanted to obstruct.
Logically speaking, if the EA needs revision or clarification for a society where people can obtain a GRC differing from their natal sex, doesn't it need that regardless of this reform? Because people can obtain a GRC now, can't they? Just that it's a long and harrowing process.
The purpose of that long and harrowing process is that by the time people have reached the end of it their physical sex is very likely to be in accord with their chosen gender. Which means that they are not a risk or at risk from those of the gender they have chosen. Common sense would suggest that you are right and that there must be ways of reducing the process without losing that protection. Unfortunately, there is little evidence of any attempt at co-operation by either the SG or the UK government in the process to date.
In Scotland itself we have conflicting views in case law. The Inner house, basically the Appeal court, ruled that requiring males who had chosen to be females was incompatible with the EA and undermined the right that women had to form a certain proportion of boards etc. Lady Haldane came to a different view on the basis that biological men who chose to change their gender were in fact women so there was no problem. Personally, I did not find her distinction of the Inner House decision particularly persuasive but that does not necessarily mean that the Inner House decision was right.
If it was right then it is difficult to see how this bill does not exceed the powers of the Scottish Parliament. If Lady Haldane is right then it doesn't because the EA is not affected. I would not be confident about which way this argument would go.
But the reform doesn't introduce a new right of gender transition it just makes it easier. So how can the EA need rewording to address this area because of the reform? If it does need rewording, it did anyway. If it didn't, it still doesn't. The logic of coupling this with the reform looks weak to me.
Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman on @LBC just now said that for the UK Government "even to threaten to act is entirely inappropriate" and they would be "playing roughshod with devolution". #GRRBill
She said she couldn't possibly know what sex she was because she had never had her chromosomes tested..
I think everyone's overlooking the obvious. This isn't about transgender rights. That's not something Sturgeon cares about, as far as can be judged. This is about shoring up her political base on one hand, while daring the UK Parliament to overrule her for exceeding her powers so she can claim to be being victimised.
Meanwhile, precisely because she's acting as though she's President of Scotland, Westminster is looking for an excuse to slap her down and remind her she isn't.
The irony that it's over something as tangential as this is probably more apparent than real. If anyone took this subject especially seriously they would have thrashed it out in advance to ensure this didn't happen.
The current review process of the GRA began in 2017. How much more thrashing out would you consider sufficient?
If it's not within their competence, or even may not be within their competence, you would have thought even a government that contains the towering intellect of John Swinney would have thought to get it checked out in that six year period. And come to an understanding on that basis.
It's not as though there's been a moderate government in Westminster that might have given them more latitude in that time. So they presumably just didn't bother.
There hasn't been 'a' government of any consistent stripe in Westminster in that time with which to come to an understanding, just a series of increasingly obstructive goons lurching all over the place on this and other issues. Perhaps the Scottish government assumed (naively) that HMG would be influenced by its own consultative process.
'In 2018, a public consultation was held across the UK which gathered over 100,000 responses. It found that 64% of people who contributed believed the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria should be removed, 80% supported the removal of the requirement for a medical report detailing all treatment, and 79% called for the removal of the requirement for individuals to provide evidence of having lived in their ‘acquired gender’ for a period of time. These results were published in September 2020, but the UK government did not decide to change the GRA. Instead, it did commit to some small, administrative improvements to the process of legal recognition, including reducing the fee to apply to a nominal amount of £5 and moving the process online. This was labelled as “a missed opportunity to simplify the law on gender recognition whilst maintaining robust safeguards” by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. In Scotland, however, the Government proposed a draft bill to reform the GRA in December 2019, alongside a public consultation.'
We're not talking about whether it's right or wrong. We're talking about whether they have the power to do it. Public consultations are irrelevant to that. And it seems that proper processes have not even been initiated.
Again, we come back to Sturgeon seems to genuinely think she is lady of Scotland. She apparently does not see why anyone else should limit her powers merely because the law disagrees.
I worked for a Principal who was like that. Refused to take any orders from above and even threatened a Governor with violence when he objected.
Such people are dangers - to themselves as much as anyone else.
Is Sturgeon the only solicitor in Scotland who skipped lectures on ultra vires?
Um no. The government isn't arguing this is "ultra vires" and would no doubt argue it was, if it could. Hence its dodgy use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill is constitutionally bullet proof.
I respectfully disagree. If the GR(S)A does change the meaning and effect of the EA (by changing what that Act means by a "woman" or a "man" then it seeks to amend a reserved matter and is ultra vires. If the UK government accepts that it doesn't they should not, in my view, be using s35.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the Scottish Bill it was agreed in parliament there and for Westminster to use a section 35 order to block it is outrageous .
If it impacts on UK-wide equality legislation then there is nothing outrageous about it.
I wonder if it does though. I find the logic a little shaky. Let's see how it plays out.
The UKG has put forward zero rationale as to why the Gender Recognition Reform Bill threatens UK equality regulation and was happily accepting similar recognition from other countries until this bill came along.
That’s not true. If someone from another country with similar gender change laws comes to the U.K. they can apply for a U.K. GRC via an express process.
The list was last updated in 2011 and is being belatedly updated - almost certainly removing self-ID countries from the express list.
Is Sturgeon the only solicitor in Scotland who skipped lectures on ultra vires?
Um no. The government isn't arguing this is "ultra vires" and would no doubt argue it was, if it could. Hence its dodgy use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill is constitutionally bullet proof.
If this is a dodgy use can you give us a hypothetical example of a legitimate use of S 35?
The relevant bit of the Scotland Act says:
Power to intervene in certain cases.
(1)If a Bill contains provisions— (a)which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would be incompatible with any international obligations or the interests of defence or national security, or (b)which make modifications of the law as it applies to reserved matters and which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters,he may make an order prohibiting the Presiding Officer from submitting the Bill for Royal Assent.
(2)The order must identify the Bill and the provisions in question and state the reasons for making the order.
The "reasons" given by the Secretary of State for Scotland are: "this legislation would have an adverse impact on the operation of Great Britain-wide equalities legislation." (he repeats the phrase three times without specifying what specific measure is threatened and how).
The bill is within the powers of the Scottish Parliament to enact, otherwise UKG would use section 29 of the Act.
A clear shot across the bows of the devolution settlement IMO.
Edit to answer your question more directly. There aren't easily available examples of a legitimate use of S35, which is why the section has never been used since the Act was brought in 25 years ago.
Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman on @LBC just now said that for the UK Government "even to threaten to act is entirely inappropriate" and they would be "playing roughshod with devolution". #GRRBill
She said she couldn't possibly know what sex she was because she had never had her chromosomes tested..
In any case I think her description of the UK gov reaction is a bit misplaced. It hasn't been used before apparently, but the power to do this was it seens built into the Act which set up the devolution arrangements, so it cannot possibly be playing 'roughshod with devolution', it would be an established procedure. Like how if a treaty allows for arbitration over a matter its not violating it to use such a provision.
Saying it is an inappropriate and political use of devolution procedures makes more sense than claiming it rides roughshod with them.
If Holyrood are passing bills they are not competent to pass, then it's only right they be reminded they don't have the power to do that.
That's not riding roughshod over the devolutionary settlement, it's upholding it.
Of course, whether the government does have the power in this case is another question and I assume will end up before the courts (again).
Meanwhile the Scottish health and education services continue to struggle and Glasgow and Dundee continue to be bracketed among the most dangerous cities in Europe to live in outside actual war zones.
There’s no question of their competence to pass the legislation, irrespective if whether the UK government decides (for the first time ever) to use a power to overrule it.
And even if the power to overrule is there, to so decide certainly changes, de facto, the devolutionary settlement, however one chooses to describe that change.
Again, I respectfully disagree. The UK government has the duty of upholding Equality Legislation throughout the UK, including in Scotland. If they are right that this Act undermines the protections afforded to women by that legislation it has a duty to act. The question is much sharper: does this Act undermine the rights of women as many women, including JK Rowling, believe or does it not? That depends on how the EA itself is construed.
Is Sturgeon the only solicitor in Scotland who skipped lectures on ultra vires?
Um no. The government isn't arguing this is "ultra vires" and would no doubt argue it was, if it could. Hence its dodgy use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill is constitutionally bullet proof.
I respectfully disagree. If the GR(S)A does change the meaning and effect of the EA (by changing what that Act means by a "woman" or a "man" then it seeks to amend a reserved matter and is ultra vires. If the UK government accepts that it doesn't they should not, in my view, be using s35.
But they are, aren’t they ?
If you take their position at face value they are because they believe that this Act undermines the rights afforded by the EA to women throughout the UK, including in Scotland. The Scottish government has refused to accept this, even to the extent of voting down exceptions for registered sex offenders.
I am very concerned about someone abusing the simplified procedures to gain access to safe places for women, such as rape crisis centres, refuges and prisons. I think and hope that some compromise on such protections would allow the passing of legislation that makes life very difficult for those who believe they have a different gender.
I have received a letter from a debt collection firm telling me they are managing my late father's account on behalf of British Gas. They have the correct date of death, account number, contact details for me and the balance of the account.
But - having spoken to British Gas, there is no record of the account being sent to third parties, and they are still managing it themselves.
Which means that this information has been obtained without authorisation and illegally, presumably by being purchased from an individual at BG.
Who do I complain to about this? Because that's far beyond anything I'm willing to let go. Is it a police matter, or is it as gov.uk suggests a matter for the insolvency service?
Shami Chakrabarti offers unexpected backing for Rishi Sunak's plan to block Scottish gender recognition law
While saying she is "sympathetic" to law's aims, "we may have a clash between the position in the UK wide legislation and the position in Scotland" she tells BBC R4 Today
Developers are not sitting on land with planning permission in vast quantities. Getting planning permission is an expensive business (lots of fat fee solicitors) and it generally lapses after 3 years.
I’ve asked to do a planning law seat, so that should be fun.
How much land they are or are not sitting on should be a matter of public record, so show us the evidence.
At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots.
And the three year rule mentioned by Gallowgate is only valid as long as no work of any material nature is undertaken. So developers will often lay a drop kerb at the entrance to the land or clear some hedging or even, these days, just mark out some temporary benchmarks. All that counts as commencement of works and once that is done the 3 year rule no longer applies and there is no requirement to do any further work at all. Planning permission is then permanent.
Yup.
Any demolition work on a building already in place. Digging a trench. Any operation that is construed as laying out or constructing part of a road.
… any of that constitutes a meaningful start under Section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Meaning that planning permission is now locked in and does not expire. It doesn’t matter if it’s transparently and obviously just a token action to lock in the planning permissions. There have been court judgements which established that the section 56 concept of "material operations" applies even if no intention to complete a development can be shown.
I have received a letter from a debt collection firm telling me they are managing my late father's account on behalf of British Gas. They have the correct date of death, account number, contact details for me and the balance of the account.
But - having spoken to British Gas, there is no record of the account being sent to third parties, and they are still managing it themselves.
Which means that this information has been obtained without authorisation and illegally, presumably by being purchased from an individual at BG.
Who do I complain to about this? Because that's far beyond anything I'm willing to let go. Is it a police matter, or is it as gov.uk suggests a matter for the insolvency service?
In Scotland the offence would be uttering of a false document with a view to carrying out a fraud. It is, in my view, clearly a fraud and you should take the letter to the police. British Gas should also be invited to take steps to prevent these people from passing themselves off as British Gas.
Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman on @LBC just now said that for the UK Government "even to threaten to act is entirely inappropriate" and they would be "playing roughshod with devolution". #GRRBill
She said she couldn't possibly know what sex she was because she had never had her chromosomes tested..
In any case I think her description of the UK gov reaction is a bit misplaced. It hasn't been used before apparently, but the power to do this was it seens built into the Act which set up the devolution arrangements, so it cannot possibly be playing 'roughshod with devolution', it would be an established procedure. Like how if a treaty allows for arbitration over a matter its not violating it to use such a provision.
Saying it is an inappropriate and political use of devolution procedures makes more sense than claiming it rides roughshod with them.
If Holyrood are passing bills they are not competent to pass, then it's only right they be reminded they don't have the power to do that.
That's not riding roughshod over the devolutionary settlement, it's upholding it.
Of course, whether the government does have the power in this case is another question and I assume will end up before the courts (again).
Meanwhile the Scottish health and education services continue to struggle and Glasgow and Dundee continue to be bracketed among the most dangerous cities in Europe to live in outside actual war zones.
There’s no question of their competence to pass the legislation, irrespective if whether the UK government decides (for the first time ever) to use a power to overrule it.
And even if the power to overrule is there, to so decide certainly changes, de facto, the devolutionary settlement, however one chooses to describe that change.
There is a world of difference between something changing the devolutionary settlement and changing the de facto devolution settlement.
A government, including Scotland, might choose not to commonly prosecure people under certain laws for example, but that doesn't mean those laws would not exist.
So it simply cannot be the case that activating, even for the first time, the ability to veto, is an actual change. As you point out it might change what people perceived as the de facto position, and their anger will be no less as a result, but facts are still important and it would not be correct to say it made a change. A change in the regular approach? Yes, but not to the settlement.
None of that impacts on the political or moral basis of whether the UK gov should have done this, or if their own reasoning will hold up, which is why there's no need to dispute the point about what the law allows - it would simply distract from the more relevant arguments.
Interesting to see how politics finds its own equilibrium. After the Danish General Election late last year shattered the previous Red-Blue bloc concensus with the formation of a coalition between the Social Democrats, Venstre and the Moderates, the latest Voxmeter poll shows some interesting findings.
The three governing parties are all down slightly from the Folketing election - the Social Democrats are down 1.5%, Venstre are down 1.8% and the Moderates down 0.8% so the total support for the new Government is down from 50.2% to 46.1%.
Who have been the beneficiaries? With the lead parties in the old Red and Blue blocs now together in Government, new parties have emerged to lead the residual Red and Blue sides. On the Red side, the Socialist People's Party is up from 8.3% in the election to 11.7% now making them in fact the second party in Denmark.
On the Blue side, it's not the Conservatives or Denmark Democrats who have gained from the departure of Venstre but the Liberal Alliance which is up from 7.9% in the election to 9.4% now putting them fourth (Venstre third).
It'll be interesting to see how this moves in the next couple of years.
I have received a letter from a debt collection firm telling me they are managing my late father's account on behalf of British Gas. They have the correct date of death, account number, contact details for me and the balance of the account.
But - having spoken to British Gas, there is no record of the account being sent to third parties, and they are still managing it themselves.
Which means that this information has been obtained without authorisation and illegally, presumably by being purchased from an individual at BG.
Who do I complain to about this? Because that's far beyond anything I'm willing to let go. Is it a police matter, or is it as gov.uk suggests a matter for the insolvency service?
In Scotland the offence would be uttering of a false document with a view to carrying out a fraud. It is, in my view, clearly a fraud and you should take the letter to the police. British Gas should also be invited to take steps to prevent these people from passing themselves off as British Gas.
There is another problem for Biden, identity politics and Kamala Harris. Her mother was from India, her father from Jamaica, and she is female -- which makes her that rare politician, a "three-fer", someone who checks three diversity boxes. (Which, no doubt, had much to do with Biden picking her for vice president.)
But, that also makes it difficult to replace her -- as he should, since there aren't that many prominent three-fers around. (Offhand I can think of only one, Ilinois Senator Tammy Duckworth. Since she is also a disabled veteran, I suppose you could even call her a "five-fer".)
I have received a letter from a debt collection firm telling me they are managing my late father's account on behalf of British Gas. They have the correct date of death, account number, contact details for me and the balance of the account.
But - having spoken to British Gas, there is no record of the account being sent to third parties, and they are still managing it themselves.
Which means that this information has been obtained without authorisation and illegally, presumably by being purchased from an individual at BG.
Who do I complain to about this? Because that's far beyond anything I'm willing to let go. Is it a police matter, or is it as gov.uk suggests a matter for the insolvency service?
ICO? As it appears that, by some means, BG have released your late father's data. The catch being that most data protection law lapses on death, so they may not be interested (although if BG have lost this, it's quite possible they've also lost data on living customers).
Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman on @LBC just now said that for the UK Government "even to threaten to act is entirely inappropriate" and they would be "playing roughshod with devolution". #GRRBill
She said she couldn't possibly know what sex she was because she had never had her chromosomes tested..
I think everyone's overlooking the obvious. This isn't about transgender rights. That's not something Sturgeon cares about, as far as can be judged. This is about shoring up her political base on one hand, while daring the UK Parliament to overrule her for exceeding her powers so she can claim to be being victimised.
Meanwhile, precisely because she's acting as though she's President of Scotland, Westminster is looking for an excuse to slap her down and remind her she isn't.
The irony that it's over something as tangential as this is probably more apparent than real. If anyone took this subject especially seriously they would have thrashed it out in advance to ensure this didn't happen.
It's essentially the same reform as in place in several other countries and that Mrs May's government planned to do in 2018. Agree or not, it's not some wild and crazy whim of Nicola Sturgeon’s.
Quite. The UN observer was telling them to get on with the basic reform.
One of us pointed out that the next problem was that sorting out all the consequences required modificastion to equality rights law which remained within Westminster remit, so basically the Scottish Pmt were damned whatever they did if HMG and the Tories wanted to obstruct.
Logically speaking, if the EA needs revision or clarification for a society where people can obtain a GRC differing from their natal sex, doesn't it need that regardless of this reform? Because people can obtain a GRC now, can't they? Just that it's a long and harrowing process.
The purpose of that long and harrowing process is that by the time people have reached the end of it their physical sex is very likely to be in accord with their chosen gender. Which means that they are not a risk or at risk from those of the gender they have chosen. Common sense would suggest that you are right and that there must be ways of reducing the process without losing that protection. Unfortunately, there is little evidence of any attempt at co-operation by either the SG or the UK government in the process to date.
In Scotland itself we have conflicting views in case law. The Inner house, basically the Appeal court, ruled that requiring males who had chosen to be females was incompatible with the EA and undermined the right that women had to form a certain proportion of boards etc. Lady Haldane came to a different view on the basis that biological men who chose to change their gender were in fact women so there was no problem. Personally, I did not find her distinction of the Inner House decision particularly persuasive but that does not necessarily mean that the Inner House decision was right.
If it was right then it is difficult to see how this bill does not exceed the powers of the Scottish Parliament. If Lady Haldane is right then it doesn't because the EA is not affected. I would not be confident about which way this argument would go.
But the reform doesn't introduce a new right of gender transition it just makes it easier. So how can the EA need rewording to address this area because of the reform? If it does need rewording, it did anyway. If it didn't, it still doesn't. The logic of coupling this with the reform looks weak to me.
I have explained this previously on here and don't want to bore people. The UK GRA proceeded on the basis that if it was difficult there was little or no risk so additional safeguards were not required. If it was made easy then safeguards should be in place for the exceptional case. But the Scottish Act contains no safeguards on the basis, apparently, that they are not necessary.
I have received a letter from a debt collection firm telling me they are managing my late father's account on behalf of British Gas. They have the correct date of death, account number, contact details for me and the balance of the account.
But - having spoken to British Gas, there is no record of the account being sent to third parties, and they are still managing it themselves.
Which means that this information has been obtained without authorisation and illegally, presumably by being purchased from an individual at BG.
Who do I complain to about this? Because that's far beyond anything I'm willing to let go. Is it a police matter, or is it as gov.uk suggests a matter for the insolvency service?
ICO? As it appears that, by some means, BG have released your late father's data. The catch being that most data protection law lapses on death, so they may not be interested (although if BG have lost this, it's quite possible they've also lost data on living customers).
They've released mine as well. That might be a way in.
Thing is though, I don't want to get mad at BG. They're currently doing me a series of quite big favours by deferring payment until probate is granted and I can afford to pay them.
I have received a letter from a debt collection firm telling me they are managing my late father's account on behalf of British Gas. They have the correct date of death, account number, contact details for me and the balance of the account.
But - having spoken to British Gas, there is no record of the account being sent to third parties, and they are still managing it themselves.
Which means that this information has been obtained without authorisation and illegally, presumably by being purchased from an individual at BG.
Who do I complain to about this? Because that's far beyond anything I'm willing to let go. Is it a police matter, or is it as gov.uk suggests a matter for the insolvency service?
ICO? As it appears that, by some means, BG have released your late father's data. The catch being that most data protection law lapses on death, so they may not be interested (although if BG have lost this, it's quite possible they've also lost data on living customers).
That's for the BG side. For the co that contacted you, well it's attempted fraud, right? A naive person might therefore suggest the police would be interested. They should be.
Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman on @LBC just now said that for the UK Government "even to threaten to act is entirely inappropriate" and they would be "playing roughshod with devolution". #GRRBill
She said she couldn't possibly know what sex she was because she had never had her chromosomes tested..
In any case I think her description of the UK gov reaction is a bit misplaced. It hasn't been used before apparently, but the power to do this was it seens built into the Act which set up the devolution arrangements, so it cannot possibly be playing 'roughshod with devolution', it would be an established procedure. Like how if a treaty allows for arbitration over a matter its not violating it to use such a provision.
Saying it is an inappropriate and political use of devolution procedures makes more sense than claiming it rides roughshod with them.
If Holyrood are passing bills they are not competent to pass, then it's only right they be reminded they don't have the power to do that.
That's not riding roughshod over the devolutionary settlement, it's upholding it.
Of course, whether the government does have the power in this case is another question and I assume will end up before the courts (again).
Meanwhile the Scottish health and education services continue to struggle and Glasgow and Dundee continue to be bracketed among the most dangerous cities in Europe to live in outside actual war zones.
There’s no question of their competence to pass the legislation, irrespective if whether the UK government decides (for the first time ever) to use a power to overrule it.
And even if the power to overrule is there, to so decide certainly changes, de facto, the devolutionary settlement, however one chooses to describe that change.
Again, I respectfully disagree. The UK government has the duty of upholding Equality Legislation throughout the UK, including in Scotland. If they are right that this Act undermines the protections afforded to women by that legislation it has a duty to act. The question is much sharper: does this Act undermine the rights of women as many women, including JK Rowling, believe or does it not? That depends on how the EA itself is construed.
I’m not arguing the merits of the bill either way.
I’m just noting that the Scottish parliament has passed legislation within its powers, and a UK minister has subsequently exercised powers to prevent the legislation being enacted. That is the legal reality of the two processes.
The argument about whether one side or the other is in the right is a separate argument. The ‘sharper question’ you note is not one that has been litigated. Is it possible for the Scottish government to do so, or is the ministerial decision final ?
I’m not entirely sure that “if we were independent, we’d be able to pass all the badly-drafted laws we wanted” is the BEST argument for Scottish independence.
There is a serious point about Holyrood needing a second chamber. Far too much stuff ending up in court, which is never a good sign for a democracy (see the US).
Much better to legislate that no judge or court can prevent you doing whatever you want.
Is Sturgeon the only solicitor in Scotland who skipped lectures on ultra vires?
Um no. The government isn't arguing this is "ultra vires" and would no doubt argue it was, if it could. Hence its dodgy use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill is constitutionally bullet proof.
I respectfully disagree. If the GR(S)A does change the meaning and effect of the EA (by changing what that Act means by a "woman" or a "man" then it seeks to amend a reserved matter and is ultra vires. If the UK government accepts that it doesn't they should not, in my view, be using s35.
I think you are supporting my point. UKG would certainly use S29 if it could. ie that this is equalities legislation reserved for Westminster and therefore the Bill is incompetent.
By the way, I think it is perfectly OK to think the Bill is wrong in principle or that it is well intentioned but flawed. Not in doubt is that the Bill passed with wide support across all parties in Scotland after lengthy debate. Also it seems, to me at least, within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore legitimate.
Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman on @LBC just now said that for the UK Government "even to threaten to act is entirely inappropriate" and they would be "playing roughshod with devolution". #GRRBill
She said she couldn't possibly know what sex she was because she had never had her chromosomes tested..
I think everyone's overlooking the obvious. This isn't about transgender rights. That's not something Sturgeon cares about, as far as can be judged. This is about shoring up her political base on one hand, while daring the UK Parliament to overrule her for exceeding her powers so she can claim to be being victimised.
Meanwhile, precisely because she's acting as though she's President of Scotland, Westminster is looking for an excuse to slap her down and remind her she isn't.
The irony that it's over something as tangential as this is probably more apparent than real. If anyone took this subject especially seriously they would have thrashed it out in advance to ensure this didn't happen.
The current review process of the GRA began in 2017. How much more thrashing out would you consider sufficient?
I would have liked a White Paper with specific proposals and a chance for proper public debate and consultation.
Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman on @LBC just now said that for the UK Government "even to threaten to act is entirely inappropriate" and they would be "playing roughshod with devolution". #GRRBill
She said she couldn't possibly know what sex she was because she had never had her chromosomes tested..
In any case I think her description of the UK gov reaction is a bit misplaced. It hasn't been used before apparently, but the power to do this was it seens built into the Act which set up the devolution arrangements, so it cannot possibly be playing 'roughshod with devolution', it would be an established procedure. Like how if a treaty allows for arbitration over a matter its not violating it to use such a provision.
Saying it is an inappropriate and political use of devolution procedures makes more sense than claiming it rides roughshod with them.
If Holyrood are passing bills they are not competent to pass, then it's only right they be reminded they don't have the power to do that.
That's not riding roughshod over the devolutionary settlement, it's upholding it.
Of course, whether the government does have the power in this case is another question and I assume will end up before the courts (again).
Meanwhile the Scottish health and education services continue to struggle and Glasgow and Dundee continue to be bracketed among the most dangerous cities in Europe to live in outside actual war zones.
There’s no question of their competence to pass the legislation, irrespective if whether the UK government decides (for the first time ever) to use a power to overrule it.
And even if the power to overrule is there, to so decide certainly changes, de facto, the devolutionary settlement, however one chooses to describe that change.
Again, I respectfully disagree. The UK government has the duty of upholding Equality Legislation throughout the UK, including in Scotland. If they are right that this Act undermines the protections afforded to women by that legislation it has a duty to act. The question is much sharper: does this Act undermine the rights of women as many women, including JK Rowling, believe or does it not? That depends on how the EA itself is construed.
I’m not arguing the merits of the bill either way.
I’m just noting that the Scottish parliament has passed legislation within its powers, and a UK minister has subsequently exercised powers to prevent the legislation being enacted. That is the legal reality of the two processes.
The argument about whether one side or the other is in the right is a separate argument. The ‘sharper question’ you note is not one that has been litigated. Is it possible for the Scottish government to do so, or is the ministerial decision final ?
As I said down thread there have been 2 litigations already in Scotland which have reached different conclusions. What will happen here, I think, is that the Scottish government will challenge the use of s35 and the courts will have to make a ruling as to whether the basis of the s35 order is sound or not.
I have received a letter from a debt collection firm telling me they are managing my late father's account on behalf of British Gas. They have the correct date of death, account number, contact details for me and the balance of the account.
But - having spoken to British Gas, there is no record of the account being sent to third parties, and they are still managing it themselves.
Which means that this information has been obtained without authorisation and illegally, presumably by being purchased from an individual at BG.
Who do I complain to about this? Because that's far beyond anything I'm willing to let go. Is it a police matter, or is it as gov.uk suggests a matter for the insolvency service?
ICO? As it appears that, by some means, BG have released your late father's data. The catch being that most data protection law lapses on death, so they may not be interested (although if BG have lost this, it's quite possible they've also lost data on living customers).
They've released mine as well. That might be a way in.
Thing is though, I don't want to get mad at BG. They're currently doing me a series of quite big favours by deferring payment until probate is granted and I can afford to pay them.
Is it a legitimate debt collection firm used by BG or not? It's possible the person you spoke to was mistaken about it not being referred.
I have received a letter from a debt collection firm telling me they are managing my late father's account on behalf of British Gas. They have the correct date of death, account number, contact details for me and the balance of the account.
But - having spoken to British Gas, there is no record of the account being sent to third parties, and they are still managing it themselves.
Which means that this information has been obtained without authorisation and illegally, presumably by being purchased from an individual at BG.
Who do I complain to about this? Because that's far beyond anything I'm willing to let go. Is it a police matter, or is it as gov.uk suggests a matter for the insolvency service?
ICO? As it appears that, by some means, BG have released your late father's data. The catch being that most data protection law lapses on death, so they may not be interested (although if BG have lost this, it's quite possible they've also lost data on living customers).
They've released mine as well. That might be a way in.
Thing is though, I don't want to get mad at BG. They're currently doing me a series of quite big favours by deferring payment until probate is granted and I can afford to pay them.
Is it a legitimate debt collection firm used by BG or not? It's possible the person you spoke to was mistaken about it not being referred.
She said there had been several calls about them.
Whether it's legitimate or not is unclear. It's using the name of a legitimate firm and some of their contact details, but the website address looks subtly different to me.
In any case, why should they pass the account to a debt collection firm when they have already agreed to defer the debt?
The Urban Democratic Handicap: One thing that will make it harder for Joe Biden (or almost any other Democrat) to win the presidency is the way the Democrats have given up on much of the country.
There is a neat example of that in the current House leadership. https://www.house.gov/leadership The Democratic Leader is Hakeem Jeffries, representing the 8th New York district (Brooklyn). The Democratic Whip is Katherine Clark, representing the 5th Massachusetts district, which covers suburbs north and west of Boston. The Democratic Caucus Chairman is Pete Aguilar, representing California's 33rd district, consisting of cities in San Bernardino County. The Assistant Democratic Leader is James Clyburn, representing the 6th district of South Carolina. Most of the district is in black areas of cities such as Charleston, but it does include predominately black rural areas, as well.
In the US, it is common for parties to have "tickets" that are balanced geographically and, to some extent, ideologically. There is no one in that group from Texas or Florida, or any place in the Midwest. Only Clark represents a suburban district, though a majority of Americans now live in suburbs. All four can fairly be described as urban progressives.
With the exception of Clyburn, there is no one in the leadership who might have much direct contact with rural areas.
Albeit, that is true in reverse also.
The Republicans have been hammered in cities, and (increasingly) in suburbs also.
Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman on @LBC just now said that for the UK Government "even to threaten to act is entirely inappropriate" and they would be "playing roughshod with devolution". #GRRBill
She said she couldn't possibly know what sex she was because she had never had her chromosomes tested..
In any case I think her description of the UK gov reaction is a bit misplaced. It hasn't been used before apparently, but the power to do this was it seens built into the Act which set up the devolution arrangements, so it cannot possibly be playing 'roughshod with devolution', it would be an established procedure. Like how if a treaty allows for arbitration over a matter its not violating it to use such a provision.
Saying it is an inappropriate and political use of devolution procedures makes more sense than claiming it rides roughshod with them.
If Holyrood are passing bills they are not competent to pass, then it's only right they be reminded they don't have the power to do that.
That's not riding roughshod over the devolutionary settlement, it's upholding it.
Of course, whether the government does have the power in this case is another question and I assume will end up before the courts (again).
Meanwhile the Scottish health and education services continue to struggle and Glasgow and Dundee continue to be bracketed among the most dangerous cities in Europe to live in outside actual war zones.
There’s no question of their competence to pass the legislation, irrespective if whether the UK government decides (for the first time ever) to use a power to overrule it.
And even if the power to overrule is there, to so decide certainly changes, de facto, the devolutionary settlement, however one chooses to describe that change.
There is a world of difference between something changing the devolutionary settlement and changing the de facto devolution settlement.
A government, including Scotland, might choose not to commonly prosecure people under certain laws for example, but that doesn't mean those laws would not exist.
So it simply cannot be the case that activating, even for the first time, the ability to veto, is an actual change. As you point out it might change what people perceived as the de facto position, and their anger will be no less as a result, but facts are still important and it would not be correct to say it made a change. A change in the regular approach? Yes, but not to the settlement.
None of that impacts on the political or moral basis of whether the UK gov should have done this, or if their own reasoning will hold up, which is why there's no need to dispute the point about what the law allows - it would simply distract from the more relevant arguments.
In constitutional law - particularly ours - de facto has a pretty large significance. The fact that the power had never been used in a quarter century is a big thing. It doesn’t mean the power didn’t exist, but its use marks a real change.
If nothing else, it is a significant diminution of the perceived extent of devolution. Some will see the UK minister as having no choice; others will see it as the whim of a UK minister taking precedence over a parliament. Most folk won’t have previously realised the minister had such a power.
I have received a letter from a debt collection firm telling me they are managing my late father's account on behalf of British Gas. They have the correct date of death, account number, contact details for me and the balance of the account.
But - having spoken to British Gas, there is no record of the account being sent to third parties, and they are still managing it themselves.
Which means that this information has been obtained without authorisation and illegally, presumably by being purchased from an individual at BG.
Who do I complain to about this? Because that's far beyond anything I'm willing to let go. Is it a police matter, or is it as gov.uk suggests a matter for the insolvency service?
ICO? As it appears that, by some means, BG have released your late father's data. The catch being that most data protection law lapses on death, so they may not be interested (although if BG have lost this, it's quite possible they've also lost data on living customers).
They've released mine as well. That might be a way in.
Thing is though, I don't want to get mad at BG. They're currently doing me a series of quite big favours by deferring payment until probate is granted and I can afford to pay them.
In domestic polling, Deltapoll has matched Opinium with 45-29 but tonight's Redfield & Wilton has the Labour lead "slashed" (oh come on, we all like using over-emphasised verbage) from 22 points to 20. Labour down one, Conservative up one, LD up one so all well within margin of error but whatever...
Some interesting nuggets in the sub samples. 17% of Conservative 2019 voters among the 15% overall Don't Knows - Starmer and Sunak tied at 37% on best PM which some seem to consider of greater relevance.
Crunching the England numbers (including the Don't Knows):
Don't Know plus Reform = 20%. All of them I'm told are going Conservative, every single one, without exception? No, I don't think so either. Boris Johnson won England 47-34 in 2019 and that was where he built the majority winning 345 seats to just 179 for Labour.
I know we're not supposed to but chop out the Don't Knows and it's 48.6 for Labour (+11.6) and 28.1 for the Conservatives (-19.1) which is a 15.4% swing to Labour which takes us down to Devon Central (number 198 on the Conservative defence list). That would still of course leave a Conservative Parliamentary Party close to 1997 levels.
I have received a letter from a debt collection firm telling me they are managing my late father's account on behalf of British Gas. They have the correct date of death, account number, contact details for me and the balance of the account.
But - having spoken to British Gas, there is no record of the account being sent to third parties, and they are still managing it themselves.
Which means that this information has been obtained without authorisation and illegally, presumably by being purchased from an individual at BG.
Who do I complain to about this? Because that's far beyond anything I'm willing to let go. Is it a police matter, or is it as gov.uk suggests a matter for the insolvency service?
ICO? As it appears that, by some means, BG have released your late father's data. The catch being that most data protection law lapses on death, so they may not be interested (although if BG have lost this, it's quite possible they've also lost data on living customers).
They've released mine as well. That might be a way in.
Thing is though, I don't want to get mad at BG. They're currently doing me a series of quite big favours by deferring payment until probate is granted and I can afford to pay them.
Is it a legitimate debt collection firm used by BG or not? It's possible the person you spoke to was mistaken about it not being referred.
She said there had been several calls about them.
Whether it's legitimate or not is unclear. It's using the name of a legitimate firm and some of their contact details, but the website address looks subtly different to me.
In any case, why should they pass the account to a debt collection firm when they have already agreed to defer the debt?
Their systems might not be integrated properly. Occam's razor would suggest a mistake is more likely than a conspiracy.
I have received a letter from a debt collection firm telling me they are managing my late father's account on behalf of British Gas. They have the correct date of death, account number, contact details for me and the balance of the account.
But - having spoken to British Gas, there is no record of the account being sent to third parties, and they are still managing it themselves.
Which means that this information has been obtained without authorisation and illegally, presumably by being purchased from an individual at BG.
Who do I complain to about this? Because that's far beyond anything I'm willing to let go. Is it a police matter, or is it as gov.uk suggests a matter for the insolvency service?
ICO? As it appears that, by some means, BG have released your late father's data. The catch being that most data protection law lapses on death, so they may not be interested (although if BG have lost this, it's quite possible they've also lost data on living customers).
They've released mine as well. That might be a way in.
Thing is though, I don't want to get mad at BG. They're currently doing me a series of quite big favours by deferring payment until probate is granted and I can afford to pay them.
Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman on @LBC just now said that for the UK Government "even to threaten to act is entirely inappropriate" and they would be "playing roughshod with devolution". #GRRBill
She said she couldn't possibly know what sex she was because she had never had her chromosomes tested..
Can she put that on her election leaflet, please, if she stands for re-election.
I am assuming it's OK to call her "she" even though she says she doesn't know what sex she is.
Most of us are in the same position as she is, in that we haven't had our chromosomes tested. She must think we're all a right load of 'nanas for thinking we're male or female, as almost all of us do. She should say that too on her leaflets.
I am considering whether to classify her statement as the most irritatingly idiotic piece of pedantry I have ever heard in my life.
There's got to be some type of vote in Scotland soon on whether voters are for or against obviously insane sh*t.
PS If she did have her chromosomes tested, how would the result be communicated to her? Somebody might have swapped two samples in the laboratory, either by accident or deliberately. Somebody might be lying too. Surely she can't know if she's a woman or a bloke even if she does have her chromosomes tested?
Is Sturgeon the only solicitor in Scotland who skipped lectures on ultra vires?
Um no. The government isn't arguing this is "ultra vires" and would no doubt argue it was, if it could. Hence its dodgy use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill is constitutionally bullet proof.
I respectfully disagree. If the GR(S)A does change the meaning and effect of the EA (by changing what that Act means by a "woman" or a "man" then it seeks to amend a reserved matter and is ultra vires. If the UK government accepts that it doesn't they should not, in my view, be using s35.
I think you are supporting my point. UKG would certainly use S29 if it could. ie that this is equalities legislation reserved for Westminster and therefore the Bill is incompetent.
By the way, I think it is perfectly OK to think the Bill is wrong in principle or that it is well intentioned but flawed. Not in doubt is that the Bill passed with wide support across all parties in Scotland after lengthy debate. Also it seems, to me at least, within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore legitimate.
Indeed, and as you say 'all parties'. Including support from some Scons MSPs, one of whom has broken ranks to warn HMG(London) not to screw up by interfewring in the Scottish Parliament and HMG (S) in the way that has just been done.
MSP for the West Scotland region Jamie Greene broke from his party to back gender reform in Scotland.
'In a letter to the Prime Minister, seen by The Times, he said: “I fear the UK Government’s rumoured moves to block the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill will set us back years. “This move could be a gift to proponents of independence who may accuse us of tearing up the devolution settlement.
“It could be a gift to Labour, as we show to LGBT+ people, their friends and their families, that we are happy to leave the centre ground for others as we fail to live up to our promise to govern with compassion.”'
And [edit] Andrew Tickell, who is usually pretty sensible and neutral and worth reading, has published an article on the matter, remarking for instance of the option of taking the SG to court:
'There is a significant problem with this strategy, however. On the face of it, the Gender Recognition Bill doesn’t relate to reserved matters. It’s true that “equal opportunities” – broadly codified in the Equality Act 2010 – is reserved to Westminster. But the Scotland Act defines equal opportunities as “the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination” based on a range of protected characteristics. GRA reform doesn’t seem to fall within this reservation.
If the UK Government pursues this route, there’s every chance the justices would side with Holyrood and uphold the bill. Delay is inevitable, but not victory.'
Yet the option currently taken is not miuch better.
'[...] as the Secretary of State’s veto is itself subject to judicial review. Using Section 35 to block this bill would be unprecedented, dramatic, and further inflame the tensions which continue to tug at Britain’s territorial constitution – but the UK Government has talked itself into a position where some kind of intervention seems inevitable. [...] Whatever happens, the courtroom calls.'
Is Sturgeon the only solicitor in Scotland who skipped lectures on ultra vires?
Um no. The government isn't arguing this is "ultra vires" and would no doubt argue it was, if it could. Hence its dodgy use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill is constitutionally bullet proof.
I respectfully disagree. If the GR(S)A does change the meaning and effect of the EA (by changing what that Act means by a "woman" or a "man" then it seeks to amend a reserved matter and is ultra vires. If the UK government accepts that it doesn't they should not, in my view, be using s35.
I think you are supporting my point. UKG would certainly use S29 if it could. ie that this is equalities legislation reserved for Westminster and therefore the Bill is incompetent.
By the way, I think it is perfectly OK to think the Bill is wrong in principle or that it is well intentioned but flawed. Not in doubt is that the Bill passed with wide support across all parties in Scotland after lengthy debate. Also it seems, to me at least, within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore legitimate.
Indeed, and as you say 'all parties'. Including support from some Scons MSPs, one of whom has broken ranks to warn HMG(London) not to screw up by interfewring in the Scottish Parliament and HMG (S) in the way that has just been done.
MSP for the West Scotland region Jamie Greene broke from his party to back gender reform in Scotland.
'In a letter to the Prime Minister, seen by The Times, he said: “I fear the UK Government’s rumoured moves to block the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill will set us back years. “This move could be a gift to proponents of independence who may accuse us of tearing up the devolution settlement.
“It could be a gift to Labour, as we show to LGBT+ people, their friends and their families, that we are happy to leave the centre ground for others as we fail to live up to our promise to govern with compassion.”'
And [edit] Andrew Tickell, who is usually pretty sensible and neutral and worth reading, has published an article on the matter, remarking for instance of the option of taking the SG to court:
'There is a significant problem with this strategy, however. On the face of it, the Gender Recognition Bill doesn’t relate to reserved matters. It’s true that “equal opportunities” – broadly codified in the Equality Act 2010 – is reserved to Westminster. But the Scotland Act defines equal opportunities as “the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination” based on a range of protected characteristics. GRA reform doesn’t seem to fall within this reservation.
If the UK Government pursues this route, there’s every chance the justices would side with Holyrood and uphold the bill. Delay is inevitable, but not victory.'
Yet the option currently taken is not miuch better.
'[...] as the Secretary of State’s veto is itself subject to judicial review. Using Section 35 to block this bill would be unprecedented, dramatic, and further inflame the tensions which continue to tug at Britain’s territorial constitution – but the UK Government has talked itself into a position where some kind of intervention seems inevitable. [...] Whatever happens, the courtroom calls.'
Is Sturgeon the only solicitor in Scotland who skipped lectures on ultra vires?
Um no. The government isn't arguing this is "ultra vires" and would no doubt argue it was, if it could. Hence its dodgy use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill is constitutionally bullet proof.
I respectfully disagree. If the GR(S)A does change the meaning and effect of the EA (by changing what that Act means by a "woman" or a "man" then it seeks to amend a reserved matter and is ultra vires. If the UK government accepts that it doesn't they should not, in my view, be using s35.
I think you are supporting my point. UKG would certainly use S29 if it could. ie that this is equalities legislation reserved for Westminster and therefore the Bill is incompetent.
By the way, I think it is perfectly OK to think the Bill is wrong in principle or that it is well intentioned but flawed. Not in doubt is that the Bill passed with wide support across all parties in Scotland after lengthy debate. Also it seems, to me at least, within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore legitimate.
Indeed, and as you say 'all parties'. Including support from some Scons MSPs, one of whom has broken ranks to warn HMG(London) not to screw up by interfewring in the Scottish Parliament and HMG (S) in the way that has just been done.
MSP for the West Scotland region Jamie Greene broke from his party to back gender reform in Scotland.
'In a letter to the Prime Minister, seen by The Times, he said: “I fear the UK Government’s rumoured moves to block the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill will set us back years. “This move could be a gift to proponents of independence who may accuse us of tearing up the devolution settlement.
“It could be a gift to Labour, as we show to LGBT+ people, their friends and their families, that we are happy to leave the centre ground for others as we fail to live up to our promise to govern with compassion.”'
And [edit] Andrew Tickell, who is usually pretty sensible and neutral and worth reading, has published an article on the matter, remarking for instance of the option of taking the SG to court:
'There is a significant problem with this strategy, however. On the face of it, the Gender Recognition Bill doesn’t relate to reserved matters. It’s true that “equal opportunities” – broadly codified in the Equality Act 2010 – is reserved to Westminster. But the Scotland Act defines equal opportunities as “the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination” based on a range of protected characteristics. GRA reform doesn’t seem to fall within this reservation.
If the UK Government pursues this route, there’s every chance the justices would side with Holyrood and uphold the bill. Delay is inevitable, but not victory.'
Yet the option currently taken is not miuch better.
'[...] as the Secretary of State’s veto is itself subject to judicial review. Using Section 35 to block this bill would be unprecedented, dramatic, and further inflame the tensions which continue to tug at Britain’s territorial constitution – but the UK Government has talked itself into a position where some kind of intervention seems inevitable. [...] Whatever happens, the courtroom calls.'
Bear in mind that the Scot Tories allowed a free vote which 3 of their members took advantage of to vote for the proposal. SNP, Lab and Greens applied the whips despite which a number of SNP MSPs rebelled - effectively ending the ministerial career of one member and scotching the careers of the others. The vote would have been closer had all MSPs been free to follow their consciences. However Sturgeon only does divisive.
Developers are not sitting on land with planning permission in vast quantities. Getting planning permission is an expensive business (lots of fat fee solicitors) and it generally lapses after 3 years.
I’ve asked to do a planning law seat, so that should be fun.
How much land they are or are not sitting on should be a matter of public record, so show us the evidence.
At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots.
And the three year rule mentioned by Gallowgate is only valid as long as no work of any material nature is undertaken. So developers will often lay a drop kerb at the entrance to the land or clear some hedging or even, these days, just mark out some temporary benchmarks. All that counts as commencement of works and once that is done the 3 year rule no longer applies and there is no requirement to do any further work at all. Planning permission is then permanent.
It's not as simple as that though. Savvy councils can ensure the most profitable houses are phased last, or that the developer must build infrastructure such as doctors surgeries, schools, roads or social housing before building anything else.
You're right though, it is my understanding that it is not lawful to have a condition that specifies a development must be built by X date.
Developers are not sitting on land with planning permission in vast quantities. Getting planning permission is an expensive business (lots of fat fee solicitors) and it generally lapses after 3 years.
I’ve asked to do a planning law seat, so that should be fun.
How much land they are or are not sitting on should be a matter of public record, so show us the evidence.
At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots.
And the three year rule mentioned by Gallowgate is only valid as long as no work of any material nature is undertaken. So developers will often lay a drop kerb at the entrance to the land or clear some hedging or even, these days, just mark out some temporary benchmarks. All that counts as commencement of works and once that is done the 3 year rule no longer applies and there is no requirement to do any further work at all. Planning permission is then permanent.
It's not as simple as that though. Savvy councils can ensure the most profitable houses are phased last, or that the developer must build infrastructure such as doctors surgeries, schools, roads or social housing before building anything else.
You're right though, it is my understanding that it is not lawful to have a condition that specifies a development must be built by X date.
Be even handier if they had to recruit staff for the surgeries and schools as well.
Is Sturgeon the only solicitor in Scotland who skipped lectures on ultra vires?
Um no. The government isn't arguing this is "ultra vires" and would no doubt argue it was, if it could. Hence its dodgy use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill is constitutionally bullet proof.
I respectfully disagree. If the GR(S)A does change the meaning and effect of the EA (by changing what that Act means by a "woman" or a "man" then it seeks to amend a reserved matter and is ultra vires. If the UK government accepts that it doesn't they should not, in my view, be using s35.
I think you are supporting my point. UKG would certainly use S29 if it could. ie that this is equalities legislation reserved for Westminster and therefore the Bill is incompetent.
By the way, I think it is perfectly OK to think the Bill is wrong in principle or that it is well intentioned but flawed. Not in doubt is that the Bill passed with wide support across all parties in Scotland after lengthy debate. Also it seems, to me at least, within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore legitimate.
Indeed, and as you say 'all parties'. Including support from some Scons MSPs, one of whom has broken ranks to warn HMG(London) not to screw up by interfewring in the Scottish Parliament and HMG (S) in the way that has just been done.
MSP for the West Scotland region Jamie Greene broke from his party to back gender reform in Scotland.
'In a letter to the Prime Minister, seen by The Times, he said: “I fear the UK Government’s rumoured moves to block the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill will set us back years. “This move could be a gift to proponents of independence who may accuse us of tearing up the devolution settlement.
“It could be a gift to Labour, as we show to LGBT+ people, their friends and their families, that we are happy to leave the centre ground for others as we fail to live up to our promise to govern with compassion.”'
And [edit] Andrew Tickell, who is usually pretty sensible and neutral and worth reading, has published an article on the matter, remarking for instance of the option of taking the SG to court:
'There is a significant problem with this strategy, however. On the face of it, the Gender Recognition Bill doesn’t relate to reserved matters. It’s true that “equal opportunities” – broadly codified in the Equality Act 2010 – is reserved to Westminster. But the Scotland Act defines equal opportunities as “the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination” based on a range of protected characteristics. GRA reform doesn’t seem to fall within this reservation.
If the UK Government pursues this route, there’s every chance the justices would side with Holyrood and uphold the bill. Delay is inevitable, but not victory.'
Yet the option currently taken is not miuch better.
'[...] as the Secretary of State’s veto is itself subject to judicial review. Using Section 35 to block this bill would be unprecedented, dramatic, and further inflame the tensions which continue to tug at Britain’s territorial constitution – but the UK Government has talked itself into a position where some kind of intervention seems inevitable. [...] Whatever happens, the courtroom calls.'
Bear in mind that the Scot Tories allowed a free vote which 3 of their members took advantage of to vote for the proposal. SNP, Lab and Greens applied the whips despite which a number of SNP MSPs rebelled - effectively ending the ministerial career of one member and scotching the careers of the others. The vote would have been closer had all MSPs been free to follow their consciences. However Sturgeon only does divisive.
Have you allowed for the possibility that parliamentarians might have engaged in a tricky and controversial topic to come to a considered conclusion, which inevitably some people will reasonably disagree with? At the party level only the Conservatives were opposed and even then four refused to vote that way with two abstentions and two voting for? Scotland isn't proposing anything fundamentally different from legislation already in place or in flight in such countries as Italy, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Switzerland, France
rcs1000 said: "The Republicans have been hammered in cities, and (increasingly) in suburbs also."
Right you are, and this sorting out by politics has been bad for the nation, and is probably part of the reason that both Democrats and Republicans tend to see the other party as more exteme than it actually is.
However, at present, the Republican leadership in the House has far better geographic diversity than the Democratic leadership. Speaker Kevin McCarthy, California 20th Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Louisiana 1st Majority Whip Tom Emmer, Minnesota 6th Republican Conference Chairman Elise Stefanik, New York 21st Republican Policy Committee Chairman Gary Palmer, Alabama 6th
I haven't have many reasons recently to applaud the House Republicans, but I do think that they have done better in choosing leaders that represent the whole nation, than the Democrats.
(When I was growing up, I lived in Tom Foley's district, so I've had a chance to watch that sorting out for many years. Obama and Trump both have made it worse.)
Is Sturgeon the only solicitor in Scotland who skipped lectures on ultra vires?
Um no. The government isn't arguing this is "ultra vires" and would no doubt argue it was, if it could. Hence its dodgy use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill is constitutionally bullet proof.
I respectfully disagree. If the GR(S)A does change the meaning and effect of the EA (by changing what that Act means by a "woman" or a "man" then it seeks to amend a reserved matter and is ultra vires. If the UK government accepts that it doesn't they should not, in my view, be using s35.
I think you are supporting my point. UKG would certainly use S29 if it could. ie that this is equalities legislation reserved for Westminster and therefore the Bill is incompetent.
By the way, I think it is perfectly OK to think the Bill is wrong in principle or that it is well intentioned but flawed. Not in doubt is that the Bill passed with wide support across all parties in Scotland after lengthy debate. Also it seems, to me at least, within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore legitimate.
Indeed, and as you say 'all parties'. Including support from some Scons MSPs, one of whom has broken ranks to warn HMG(London) not to screw up by interfewring in the Scottish Parliament and HMG (S) in the way that has just been done.
MSP for the West Scotland region Jamie Greene broke from his party to back gender reform in Scotland.
'In a letter to the Prime Minister, seen by The Times, he said: “I fear the UK Government’s rumoured moves to block the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill will set us back years. “This move could be a gift to proponents of independence who may accuse us of tearing up the devolution settlement.
“It could be a gift to Labour, as we show to LGBT+ people, their friends and their families, that we are happy to leave the centre ground for others as we fail to live up to our promise to govern with compassion.”'
And [edit] Andrew Tickell, who is usually pretty sensible and neutral and worth reading, has published an article on the matter, remarking for instance of the option of taking the SG to court:
'There is a significant problem with this strategy, however. On the face of it, the Gender Recognition Bill doesn’t relate to reserved matters. It’s true that “equal opportunities” – broadly codified in the Equality Act 2010 – is reserved to Westminster. But the Scotland Act defines equal opportunities as “the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination” based on a range of protected characteristics. GRA reform doesn’t seem to fall within this reservation.
If the UK Government pursues this route, there’s every chance the justices would side with Holyrood and uphold the bill. Delay is inevitable, but not victory.'
Yet the option currently taken is not miuch better.
'[...] as the Secretary of State’s veto is itself subject to judicial review. Using Section 35 to block this bill would be unprecedented, dramatic, and further inflame the tensions which continue to tug at Britain’s territorial constitution – but the UK Government has talked itself into a position where some kind of intervention seems inevitable. [...] Whatever happens, the courtroom calls.'
Bear in mind that the Scot Tories allowed a free vote which 3 of their members took advantage of to vote for the proposal. SNP, Lab and Greens applied the whips despite which a number of SNP MSPs rebelled - effectively ending the ministerial career of one member and scotching the careers of the others. The vote would have been closer had all MSPs been free to follow their consciences. However Sturgeon only does divisive.
No point in whipping (of that kind, at least) if you are a ScoTory, whose entire raison d'etre is to vote against the SNP and for their London-based government. It's actually highly significantt and [edit] startling that some rebelled (almost 10%).
You're completely missing the far more significant issue - that Scottish Labour actually supported a SNP/Green initiative. Almost unheard of.
Not sure it's wise for Sunak to start banging on about niche trans stuff with all these strikes and cost of living difficulties as people's December heating bills start to land.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
Is Sturgeon the only solicitor in Scotland who skipped lectures on ultra vires?
Um no. The government isn't arguing this is "ultra vires" and would no doubt argue it was, if it could. Hence its dodgy use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill is constitutionally bullet proof.
I respectfully disagree. If the GR(S)A does change the meaning and effect of the EA (by changing what that Act means by a "woman" or a "man" then it seeks to amend a reserved matter and is ultra vires. If the UK government accepts that it doesn't they should not, in my view, be using s35.
I think you are supporting my point. UKG would certainly use S29 if it could. ie that this is equalities legislation reserved for Westminster and therefore the Bill is incompetent.
By the way, I think it is perfectly OK to think the Bill is wrong in principle or that it is well intentioned but flawed. Not in doubt is that the Bill passed with wide support across all parties in Scotland after lengthy debate. Also it seems, to me at least, within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore legitimate.
Indeed, and as you say 'all parties'. Including support from some Scons MSPs, one of whom has broken ranks to warn HMG(London) not to screw up by interfewring in the Scottish Parliament and HMG (S) in the way that has just been done.
MSP for the West Scotland region Jamie Greene broke from his party to back gender reform in Scotland.
'In a letter to the Prime Minister, seen by The Times, he said: “I fear the UK Government’s rumoured moves to block the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill will set us back years. “This move could be a gift to proponents of independence who may accuse us of tearing up the devolution settlement.
“It could be a gift to Labour, as we show to LGBT+ people, their friends and their families, that we are happy to leave the centre ground for others as we fail to live up to our promise to govern with compassion.”'
And [edit] Andrew Tickell, who is usually pretty sensible and neutral and worth reading, has published an article on the matter, remarking for instance of the option of taking the SG to court:
'There is a significant problem with this strategy, however. On the face of it, the Gender Recognition Bill doesn’t relate to reserved matters. It’s true that “equal opportunities” – broadly codified in the Equality Act 2010 – is reserved to Westminster. But the Scotland Act defines equal opportunities as “the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination” based on a range of protected characteristics. GRA reform doesn’t seem to fall within this reservation.
If the UK Government pursues this route, there’s every chance the justices would side with Holyrood and uphold the bill. Delay is inevitable, but not victory.'
Yet the option currently taken is not miuch better.
'[...] as the Secretary of State’s veto is itself subject to judicial review. Using Section 35 to block this bill would be unprecedented, dramatic, and further inflame the tensions which continue to tug at Britain’s territorial constitution – but the UK Government has talked itself into a position where some kind of intervention seems inevitable. [...] Whatever happens, the courtroom calls.'
Bear in mind that the Scot Tories allowed a free vote which 3 of their members took advantage of to vote for the proposal. SNP, Lab and Greens applied the whips despite which a number of SNP MSPs rebelled - effectively ending the ministerial career of one member and scotching the careers of the others. The vote would have been closer had all MSPs been free to follow their consciences. However Sturgeon only does divisive.
Have you allowed for the possibility that parliamentarians might have engaged in a tricky and controversial topic to come to a considered conclusion, which inevitably some people will reasonably disagree with? At the party level only the Conservatives were opposed and even then four refused to vote that way with two abstentions and two voting for? Scotland isn't proposing anything fundamentally different from legislation already in place or in flight in such countries as Italy, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Switzerland, France
There is also the point that Mr Sunak has completely screwed up, within a very few days, what was shaping up to be a good start in relations with the SG after the mess his predecessors made of it.
Richard_Tyndall said: "At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots."
Interesting. I am not an economist, so I don't know whether there is statistical support for this, but some years ago I came up with this rule of thumb: You are unlikely to have vigorous competition between companies unless there are at least five serious competitors. You won't always get it even then, but as the number of competitors increases, real competition becomes more likely.
And now, learning that you have six big developers makes me ask this question: Do those six developers tend to much stronger in some parts of the UK, and weaker in others, so that, in most places, there are only two or three actually competing?
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
Nothing to lose but the Union, ultimately. Devolution where a third rate minister can veto properly arrived at legislation of another jurisdiction, on a whim, isn't devolution at all.
Is Sturgeon the only solicitor in Scotland who skipped lectures on ultra vires?
Um no. The government isn't arguing this is "ultra vires" and would no doubt argue it was, if it could. Hence its dodgy use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill is constitutionally bullet proof.
I respectfully disagree. If the GR(S)A does change the meaning and effect of the EA (by changing what that Act means by a "woman" or a "man" then it seeks to amend a reserved matter and is ultra vires. If the UK government accepts that it doesn't they should not, in my view, be using s35.
I think you are supporting my point. UKG would certainly use S29 if it could. ie that this is equalities legislation reserved for Westminster and therefore the Bill is incompetent.
By the way, I think it is perfectly OK to think the Bill is wrong in principle or that it is well intentioned but flawed. Not in doubt is that the Bill passed with wide support across all parties in Scotland after lengthy debate. Also it seems, to me at least, within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore legitimate.
Indeed, and as you say 'all parties'. Including support from some Scons MSPs, one of whom has broken ranks to warn HMG(London) not to screw up by interfewring in the Scottish Parliament and HMG (S) in the way that has just been done.
MSP for the West Scotland region Jamie Greene broke from his party to back gender reform in Scotland.
'In a letter to the Prime Minister, seen by The Times, he said: “I fear the UK Government’s rumoured moves to block the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill will set us back years. “This move could be a gift to proponents of independence who may accuse us of tearing up the devolution settlement.
“It could be a gift to Labour, as we show to LGBT+ people, their friends and their families, that we are happy to leave the centre ground for others as we fail to live up to our promise to govern with compassion.”'
And [edit] Andrew Tickell, who is usually pretty sensible and neutral and worth reading, has published an article on the matter, remarking for instance of the option of taking the SG to court:
'There is a significant problem with this strategy, however. On the face of it, the Gender Recognition Bill doesn’t relate to reserved matters. It’s true that “equal opportunities” – broadly codified in the Equality Act 2010 – is reserved to Westminster. But the Scotland Act defines equal opportunities as “the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination” based on a range of protected characteristics. GRA reform doesn’t seem to fall within this reservation.
If the UK Government pursues this route, there’s every chance the justices would side with Holyrood and uphold the bill. Delay is inevitable, but not victory.'
Yet the option currently taken is not miuch better.
'[...] as the Secretary of State’s veto is itself subject to judicial review. Using Section 35 to block this bill would be unprecedented, dramatic, and further inflame the tensions which continue to tug at Britain’s territorial constitution – but the UK Government has talked itself into a position where some kind of intervention seems inevitable. [...] Whatever happens, the courtroom calls.'
If the bill goes to the Supreme Court, Sturgeon and the YeSNP will want it to be squashed, not upheld.
If the bill goes to the SC it's win-win for the SNP.
Either it's squashed, which furthers the cause of independence because of the constitutional clash, or it gets through (which they want anyway) and it still furthers the cause of independence because it was still a constitutional clash.
Given that the bill is not that popular in Scotland, ultimately the losing position for the SNP was for it to go through without any reaction from HMG.
Probably starting to run out of oppressed regional minorities and the provincial poor. Better to enlist a few foreigners than have to start dipping into the Moscow middle classes.
Not sure it's wise for Sunak to start banging on about niche trans stuff with all these strikes and cost of living difficulties as people's December heating bills start to land.
Good evening
It is certainly very controversial but there is considerable opposition to it not only in RUK but in Scotland itself and it will be fascinating to see how this pans out
Scots Labour seem to be at variance with Starmer over aspects of the legislation, and it has certainly rocketed the subject up the political discourse
I expect it to end up in a legal battle but also will Sunak see a positive in Scotland with support from the likes of J K Rowling
Politics is most definitely not boring, and endless controversial issues seem to be the order of the day, week, month and year
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
Nothing to lose but the Union, ultimately. Devolution where a third rate minister can veto properly arrived at legislation of another jurisdiction, on a whim, isn't devolution at all.
You need a popular cause to base the independence argument on.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
Nothing to lose but the Union, ultimately. Devolution where a third rate minister can veto properly arrived at legislation of another jurisdiction, on a whim, isn't devolution at all.
Indeed. The *whole point* of devolution is to be able to do things differently.
Is Sturgeon the only solicitor in Scotland who skipped lectures on ultra vires?
Um no. The government isn't arguing this is "ultra vires" and would no doubt argue it was, if it could. Hence its dodgy use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill is constitutionally bullet proof.
I respectfully disagree. If the GR(S)A does change the meaning and effect of the EA (by changing what that Act means by a "woman" or a "man" then it seeks to amend a reserved matter and is ultra vires. If the UK government accepts that it doesn't they should not, in my view, be using s35.
I think you are supporting my point. UKG would certainly use S29 if it could. ie that this is equalities legislation reserved for Westminster and therefore the Bill is incompetent.
By the way, I think it is perfectly OK to think the Bill is wrong in principle or that it is well intentioned but flawed. Not in doubt is that the Bill passed with wide support across all parties in Scotland after lengthy debate. Also it seems, to me at least, within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore legitimate.
Indeed, and as you say 'all parties'. Including support from some Scons MSPs, one of whom has broken ranks to warn HMG(London) not to screw up by interfewring in the Scottish Parliament and HMG (S) in the way that has just been done.
MSP for the West Scotland region Jamie Greene broke from his party to back gender reform in Scotland.
'In a letter to the Prime Minister, seen by The Times, he said: “I fear the UK Government’s rumoured moves to block the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill will set us back years. “This move could be a gift to proponents of independence who may accuse us of tearing up the devolution settlement.
“It could be a gift to Labour, as we show to LGBT+ people, their friends and their families, that we are happy to leave the centre ground for others as we fail to live up to our promise to govern with compassion.”'
And [edit] Andrew Tickell, who is usually pretty sensible and neutral and worth reading, has published an article on the matter, remarking for instance of the option of taking the SG to court:
'There is a significant problem with this strategy, however. On the face of it, the Gender Recognition Bill doesn’t relate to reserved matters. It’s true that “equal opportunities” – broadly codified in the Equality Act 2010 – is reserved to Westminster. But the Scotland Act defines equal opportunities as “the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination” based on a range of protected characteristics. GRA reform doesn’t seem to fall within this reservation.
If the UK Government pursues this route, there’s every chance the justices would side with Holyrood and uphold the bill. Delay is inevitable, but not victory.'
Yet the option currently taken is not miuch better.
'[...] as the Secretary of State’s veto is itself subject to judicial review. Using Section 35 to block this bill would be unprecedented, dramatic, and further inflame the tensions which continue to tug at Britain’s territorial constitution – but the UK Government has talked itself into a position where some kind of intervention seems inevitable. [...] Whatever happens, the courtroom calls.'
If the bill goes to the Supreme Court, Sturgeon and the YeSNP will want it to be squashed, not upheld.
If the bill goes to the SC it's win-win for the SNP.
Either it's squashed, which furthers the cause of independence because of the constitutional clash, or it gets through (which they want anyway) and it still furthers the cause of independence because it was still a constitutional clash.
Given that the bill is not that popular in Scotland, ultimately the losing position for the SNP was for it to go through without any reaction from HMG.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
Will people think the Conservatives are being cruel, or being sensible?
Is Sturgeon the only solicitor in Scotland who skipped lectures on ultra vires?
Um no. The government isn't arguing this is "ultra vires" and would no doubt argue it was, if it could. Hence its dodgy use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill is constitutionally bullet proof.
I respectfully disagree. If the GR(S)A does change the meaning and effect of the EA (by changing what that Act means by a "woman" or a "man" then it seeks to amend a reserved matter and is ultra vires. If the UK government accepts that it doesn't they should not, in my view, be using s35.
I think you are supporting my point. UKG would certainly use S29 if it could. ie that this is equalities legislation reserved for Westminster and therefore the Bill is incompetent.
By the way, I think it is perfectly OK to think the Bill is wrong in principle or that it is well intentioned but flawed. Not in doubt is that the Bill passed with wide support across all parties in Scotland after lengthy debate. Also it seems, to me at least, within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore legitimate.
Indeed, and as you say 'all parties'. Including support from some Scons MSPs, one of whom has broken ranks to warn HMG(London) not to screw up by interfewring in the Scottish Parliament and HMG (S) in the way that has just been done.
MSP for the West Scotland region Jamie Greene broke from his party to back gender reform in Scotland.
'In a letter to the Prime Minister, seen by The Times, he said: “I fear the UK Government’s rumoured moves to block the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill will set us back years. “This move could be a gift to proponents of independence who may accuse us of tearing up the devolution settlement.
“It could be a gift to Labour, as we show to LGBT+ people, their friends and their families, that we are happy to leave the centre ground for others as we fail to live up to our promise to govern with compassion.”'
And [edit] Andrew Tickell, who is usually pretty sensible and neutral and worth reading, has published an article on the matter, remarking for instance of the option of taking the SG to court:
'There is a significant problem with this strategy, however. On the face of it, the Gender Recognition Bill doesn’t relate to reserved matters. It’s true that “equal opportunities” – broadly codified in the Equality Act 2010 – is reserved to Westminster. But the Scotland Act defines equal opportunities as “the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination” based on a range of protected characteristics. GRA reform doesn’t seem to fall within this reservation.
If the UK Government pursues this route, there’s every chance the justices would side with Holyrood and uphold the bill. Delay is inevitable, but not victory.'
Yet the option currently taken is not miuch better.
'[...] as the Secretary of State’s veto is itself subject to judicial review. Using Section 35 to block this bill would be unprecedented, dramatic, and further inflame the tensions which continue to tug at Britain’s territorial constitution – but the UK Government has talked itself into a position where some kind of intervention seems inevitable. [...] Whatever happens, the courtroom calls.'
If the bill goes to the Supreme Court, Sturgeon and the YeSNP will want it to be squashed, not upheld.
If the bill goes to the SC it's win-win for the SNP.
Either it's squashed, which furthers the cause of independence because of the constitutional clash, or it gets through (which they want anyway) and it still furthers the cause of independence because it was still a constitutional clash.
Given that the bill is not that popular in Scotland, ultimately the losing position for the SNP was for it to go through without any reaction from HMG.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
Will people think the Conservatives are being cruel, or being sensible?
This chap, who'd worked for the Tories [I think - going on memory], felt the former, which surprised me - which is why it's annoying not to be able to find the reference.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
Nothing to lose but the Union, ultimately. Devolution where a third rate minister can veto properly arrived at legislation of another jurisdiction, on a whim, isn't devolution at all.
You need a popular cause to base the independence argument on.
This is not a popular cause.
It's not really about popular causes. It is about whether you can make a country function. The Conservatives seem to be doing their level best to undermine the Union in recent years.
I get that many Conservatives are actually English nationalists and don't care about the Union, but the UK Government is supposed to be governing the UK. It's in the name...
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
Will people think the Conservatives are being cruel, or being sensible?
This chap, who'd worked for the Tories [I think - going on memory], felt the former, which surprised me - which is why it's annoying not to be able to find the reference.
It seems on this subject you can find pro and against support across and within all the parties, indeed hasn't the SNP had resignations over it?
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
Will people think the Conservatives are being cruel, or being sensible?
This chap, who'd worked for the Tories [I think - going on memory], felt the former, which surprised me - which is why it's annoying not to be able to find the reference.
It seems on this subject you can find pro and against support across and within all the parties, indeed hasn't the SNP had resignations over it?
Good evening, Big G. In a way that's precisely what I'd like to check - if it was a matter of his personal feelings or his professional judgement as an advisor/psephologist. My memory is very much the latter, which is why it is interesting. Not a party activist but an indepndent spad sort of type.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
Will people think the Conservatives are being cruel, or being sensible?
This chap, who'd worked for the Tories [I think - going on memory], felt the former, which surprised me - which is why it's annoying not to be able to find the reference.
This is from Twitter, but from a GB News host, so do those two factors cancel out?
I’m told polling guru Frank Luntz has repeatedly told the Conservative Party to avoid waging a culture war over trans rights.
While it delights and excites some corners of Twitter, in the real world it makes the party look at best distracted and at worst cruel.
There is another problem for Biden, identity politics and Kamala Harris. Her mother was from India, her father from Jamaica, and she is female -- which makes her that rare politician, a "three-fer", someone who checks three diversity boxes. (Which, no doubt, had much to do with Biden picking her for vice president.)
But, that also makes it difficult to replace her -- as he should, since there aren't that many prominent three-fers around. (Offhand I can think of only one, Ilinois Senator Tammy Duckworth. Since she is also a disabled veteran, I suppose you could even call her a "five-fer".)
If Biden could get her onto the Supreme Court, that would solve a number of problems. And I think she would genuinely want the job.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
Will people think the Conservatives are being cruel, or being sensible?
This chap, who'd worked for the Tories [I think - going on memory], felt the former, which surprised me - which is why it's annoying not to be able to find the reference.
It seems on this subject you can find pro and against support across and within all the parties, indeed hasn't the SNP had resignations over it?
Good evening, Big G. In a way that's precisely what I'd like to check - if it was a matter of his personal feelings or his professional judgement as an advisor/psephologist. My memory is very much the latter, which is why it is interesting. Not a party activist but an indepndent spad sort of type.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
Will people think the Conservatives are being cruel, or being sensible?
This chap, who'd worked for the Tories [I think - going on memory], felt the former, which surprised me - which is why it's annoying not to be able to find the reference.
It seems on this subject you can find pro and against support across and within all the parties, indeed hasn't the SNP had resignations over it?
Good evening, Big G. In a way that's precisely what I'd like to check - if it was a matter of his personal feelings or his professional judgement as an advisor/psephologist. My memory is very much the latter, which is why it is interesting. Not a party activist but an indepndent spad sort of type.
I have little doubt there are strong feelings on both sides and clearly Sunak has decided to challenge its effect on UK law and no doubt the Courts will decide
I am not at all convinced this subject is going to help Sturgeon but we will see, I could be wrong
Probably starting to run out of oppressed regional minorities and the provincial poor. Better to enlist a few foreigners than have to start dipping into the Moscow middle classes.
Mind you, the effect on the crime rate in Russia will be interesting.
The stupid, poor criminals will be dead. The stupid but wealthy ones (in jail, but with funds or had friends with funds) have bought themselves out using the Wagner trick of, for a fee, giving them the identity of one of the stupid, poor ones.
The smart and wealthy ones are in the Kremlin.
So the structure of the criminal world will have shifted.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
Will people think the Conservatives are being cruel, or being sensible?
This chap, who'd worked for the Tories [I think - going on memory], felt the former, which surprised me - which is why it's annoying not to be able to find the reference.
I suspect it's low salience, except for transgender people themselves of course, and the most widespread complaint is likely to be, why waste time on this when you should be sorting out healthcare etc? Anti-discrimination is never a (numerically) popular cause, unfortunately.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
Will people think the Conservatives are being cruel, or being sensible?
This chap, who'd worked for the Tories [I think - going on memory], felt the former, which surprised me - which is why it's annoying not to be able to find the reference.
It seems on this subject you can find pro and against support across and within all the parties, indeed hasn't the SNP had resignations over it?
Good evening, Big G. In a way that's precisely what I'd like to check - if it was a matter of his personal feelings or his professional judgement as an advisor/psephologist. My memory is very much the latter, which is why it is interesting. Not a party activist but an indepndent spad sort of type.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
Will people think the Conservatives are being cruel, or being sensible?
This chap, who'd worked for the Tories [I think - going on memory], felt the former, which surprised me - which is why it's annoying not to be able to find the reference.
This is from Twitter, but from a GB News host, so do those two factors cancel out?
I’m told polling guru Frank Luntz has repeatedly told the Conservative Party to avoid waging a culture war over trans rights.
While it delights and excites some corners of Twitter, in the real world it makes the party look at best distracted and at worst cruel.
That's it, thanks. No explicit reference to Scotland but given the timing ... even so, could be as much to do with the "English" Gmt proposals as anything else. Good to have it to check, anyway.
Developers are not sitting on land with planning permission in vast quantities. Getting planning permission is an expensive business (lots of fat fee solicitors) and it generally lapses after 3 years.
I’ve asked to do a planning law seat, so that should be fun.
How much land they are or are not sitting on should be a matter of public record, so show us the evidence.
At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots.
And the three year rule mentioned by Gallowgate is only valid as long as no work of any material nature is undertaken. So developers will often lay a drop kerb at the entrance to the land or clear some hedging or even, these days, just mark out some temporary benchmarks. All that counts as commencement of works and once that is done the 3 year rule no longer applies and there is no requirement to do any further work at all. Planning permission is then permanent.
It's not as simple as that though. Savvy councils can ensure the most profitable houses are phased last, or that the developer must build infrastructure such as doctors surgeries, schools, roads or social housing before building anything else.
You're right though, it is my understanding that it is not lawful to have a condition that specifies a development must be built by X date.
Councils can try that but in almost every instance they fail. The problem councils have are myriad;
1. They are forced by Government to meet housing targets under local plans - or rather to meet targets for assigning land for housing.
2. They are faced with developers trying to bank land and also avoid having to comply with section 106 requirements (for the provision of stuff like schools and medical facilities).
3. They are desperately short of cash.
So they can't not give planning permission. That would put them in breach of their legal requirements under the local plans. They can't force the developers to do stuff because once they have given planning permission they lose all hold they have over the developers. And usually the way Section 106 works today is that, instead of the developer having to build facilities, they simply pay the council a lump sum so the council is responsible for the provision instead. The council then spends the money on something else.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
Nothing to lose but the Union, ultimately. Devolution where a third rate minister can veto properly arrived at legislation of another jurisdiction, on a whim, isn't devolution at all.
You need a popular cause to base the independence argument on.
This is not a popular cause.
It's not really about popular causes. It is about whether you can make a country function. The Conservatives seem to be doing their level best to undermine the Union in recent years.
I get that many Conservatives are actually English nationalists and don't care about the Union, but the UK Government is supposed to be governing the UK. It's in the name...
It is actually the UK government standing up for the two thirds of Scots who oppose the Gender Recognition Bill, not the SNP.
Even if you’re a Scot whose against the legislation I’m sure sure Sturgeon will make the point that the next time it could be something you agree with .
Westminster blocking legislation voted through by the elected representatives of the Scottish People is appalling .
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
Nothing to lose but the Union, ultimately. Devolution where a third rate minister can veto properly arrived at legislation of another jurisdiction, on a whim, isn't devolution at all.
Rubbish, this is the best chance Unionists have had since 2014 to find an issue to expand their 55% No vote from 2014
Comments
https://twitter.com/mbmpolicy/status/1615058094932856832
In Scotland itself we have conflicting views in case law. The Inner house, basically the Appeal court, ruled that requiring males who had chosen to be females was incompatible with the EA and undermined the right that women had to form a certain proportion of boards etc. Lady Haldane came to a different view on the basis that biological men who chose to change their gender were in fact women so there was no problem. Personally, I did not find her distinction of the Inner House decision particularly persuasive but that does not necessarily mean that the Inner House decision was right.
If it was right then it is difficult to see how this bill does not exceed the powers of the Scottish Parliament. If Lady Haldane is right then it doesn't because the EA is not affected. I would not be confident about which way this argument would go.
What it certainly does is hammer a nail into the coffin of the devolution settlement and drive Scotland towards independence. If you won't recognise other places doing things differently, devolution no longer exists. Given support for the Union is only 50/50 with devolution, that means independence.
'In 2018, a public consultation was held across the UK which gathered over 100,000 responses. It found that 64% of people who contributed believed the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria should be removed, 80% supported the removal of the requirement for a medical report detailing all treatment, and 79% called for the removal of the requirement for individuals to provide evidence of having lived in their ‘acquired gender’ for a period of time.
These results were published in September 2020, but the UK government did not decide to change the GRA. Instead, it did commit to some small, administrative improvements to the process of legal recognition, including reducing the fee to apply to a nominal amount of £5 and moving the process online.
This was labelled as “a missed opportunity to simplify the law on gender recognition whilst maintaining robust safeguards” by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. In Scotland, however, the Government proposed a draft bill to reform the GRA in December 2019, alongside a public consultation.'
https://tinyurl.com/yc85cm37
Not sure if french or English is funnier here, but both LOL.
I assume from the 70s, if genuine at all.
And the three year rule mentioned by Gallowgate is only valid as long as no work of any material nature is undertaken. So developers will often lay a drop kerb at the entrance to the land or clear some hedging or even, these days, just mark out some temporary benchmarks. All that counts as commencement of works and once that is done the 3 year rule no longer applies and there is no requirement to do any further work at all. Planning permission is then permanent.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/two-thirds-of-voters-oppose-snps-gender-reform-plans-d8wh3wh9w
And even if the power to overrule is there, to so decide certainly changes, de facto, the devolutionary settlement, however one chooses to describe that change.
Again, we come back to Sturgeon seems to genuinely think she is lady of Scotland. She apparently does not see why anyone else should limit her powers merely because the law disagrees.
I worked for a Principal who was like that. Refused to take any orders from above and even threatened a Governor with violence when he objected.
Such people are dangers - to themselves as much as anyone else.
The list was last updated in 2011 and is being belatedly updated - almost certainly removing self-ID countries from the express list.
Power to intervene in certain cases.
(1)If a Bill contains provisions—
(a)which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would be incompatible with any international obligations or the interests of defence or national security, or
(b)which make modifications of the law as it applies to reserved matters and which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters,he may make an order prohibiting the Presiding Officer from submitting the Bill for Royal Assent.
(2)The order must identify the Bill and the provisions in question and state the reasons for making the order.
The "reasons" given by the Secretary of State for Scotland are: "this legislation would have an adverse impact on the operation of Great Britain-wide equalities legislation." (he repeats the phrase three times without specifying what specific measure is threatened and how).
The bill is within the powers of the Scottish Parliament to enact, otherwise UKG would use section 29 of the Act.
A clear shot across the bows of the devolution settlement IMO.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/35
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-statement-from-alister-jack
Edit to answer your question more directly. There aren't easily available examples of a legitimate use of S35, which is why the section has never been used since the Act was brought in 25 years ago.
I am very concerned about someone abusing the simplified procedures to gain access to safe places for women, such as rape crisis centres, refuges and prisons. I think and hope that some compromise on such protections would allow the passing of legislation that makes life very difficult for those who believe they have a different gender.
I have received a letter from a debt collection firm telling me they are managing my late father's account on behalf of British Gas. They have the correct date of death, account number, contact details for me and the balance of the account.
But - having spoken to British Gas, there is no record of the account being sent to third parties, and they are still managing it themselves.
Which means that this information has been obtained without authorisation and illegally, presumably by being purchased from an individual at BG.
Who do I complain to about this? Because that's far beyond anything I'm willing to let go. Is it a police matter, or is it as gov.uk suggests a matter for the insolvency service?
While saying she is "sympathetic" to law's aims, "we may have a clash between the position in the UK wide legislation and the position in Scotland" she tells BBC R4 Today
https://twitter.com/Smyth_Chris/status/1614906550849609728
Any demolition work on a building already in place.
Digging a trench.
Any operation that is construed as laying out or constructing part of a road.
… any of that constitutes a meaningful start under Section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Meaning that planning permission is now locked in and does not expire. It doesn’t matter if it’s transparently and obviously just a token action to lock in the planning permissions. There have been court judgements which established that the section 56 concept of "material operations" applies even if no intention to complete a development can be shown.
A government, including Scotland, might choose not to commonly prosecure people under certain laws for example, but that doesn't mean those laws would not exist.
So it simply cannot be the case that activating, even for the first time, the ability to veto, is an actual change. As you point out it might change what people perceived as the de facto position, and their anger will be no less as a result, but facts are still important and it would not be correct to say it made a change. A change in the regular approach? Yes, but not to the settlement.
None of that impacts on the political or moral basis of whether the UK gov should have done this, or if their own reasoning will hold up, which is why there's no need to dispute the point about what the law allows - it would simply distract from the more relevant arguments.
Interesting to see how politics finds its own equilibrium. After the Danish General Election late last year shattered the previous Red-Blue bloc concensus with the formation of a coalition between the Social Democrats, Venstre and the Moderates, the latest Voxmeter poll shows some interesting findings.
The three governing parties are all down slightly from the Folketing election - the Social Democrats are down 1.5%, Venstre are down 1.8% and the Moderates down 0.8% so the total support for the new Government is down from 50.2% to 46.1%.
Who have been the beneficiaries? With the lead parties in the old Red and Blue blocs now together in Government, new parties have emerged to lead the residual Red and Blue sides. On the Red side, the Socialist People's Party is up from 8.3% in the election to 11.7% now making them in fact the second party in Denmark.
On the Blue side, it's not the Conservatives or Denmark Democrats who have gained from the departure of Venstre but the Liberal Alliance which is up from 7.9% in the election to 9.4% now putting them fourth (Venstre third).
It'll be interesting to see how this moves in the next couple of years.
But, that also makes it difficult to replace her -- as he should, since there aren't that many prominent three-fers around. (Offhand I can think of only one, Ilinois Senator Tammy Duckworth. Since she is also a disabled veteran, I suppose you could even call her a "five-fer".)
Thing is though, I don't want to get mad at BG. They're currently doing me a series of quite big favours by deferring payment until probate is granted and I can afford to pay them.
I’m just noting that the Scottish parliament has passed legislation within its powers, and a UK minister has subsequently exercised powers to prevent the legislation being enacted. That is the legal reality of the two processes.
The argument about whether one side or the other is in the right is a separate argument.
The ‘sharper question’ you note is not one that has been litigated. Is it possible for the Scottish government to do so, or is the ministerial decision final ?
By the way, I think it is perfectly OK to think the Bill is wrong in principle or that it is well intentioned but flawed. Not in doubt is that the Bill passed with wide support across all parties in Scotland after lengthy debate. Also it seems, to me at least, within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore legitimate.
And I should add that, although she and I would disagree on many issues, I find much to admire in her life of service.
Whether it's legitimate or not is unclear. It's using the name of a legitimate firm and some of their contact details, but the website address looks subtly different to me.
In any case, why should they pass the account to a debt collection firm when they have already agreed to defer the debt?
The Republicans have been hammered in cities, and (increasingly) in suburbs also.
The fact that the power had never been used in a quarter century is a big thing. It doesn’t mean the power didn’t exist, but its use marks a real change.
If nothing else, it is a significant diminution of the perceived extent of devolution. Some will see the UK minister as having no choice; others will see it as the whim of a UK minister taking precedence over a parliament.
Most folk won’t have previously realised the minister had such a power.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2022/06/hundreds-of-households-wrongly-sent-legal-letters-saying-they-ow/
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-15-january-2023/
Some interesting nuggets in the sub samples. 17% of Conservative 2019 voters among the 15% overall Don't Knows - Starmer and Sunak tied at 37% on best PM which some seem to consider of greater relevance.
Crunching the England numbers (including the Don't Knows):
Labour: 41.8%
Conservative: 24.2%
Don't Know: 14.4%
Liberal Democrat; 8.8%
Reform: 5.6%
Green: 5.1%
Don't Know plus Reform = 20%. All of them I'm told are going Conservative, every single one, without exception? No, I don't think so either. Boris Johnson won England 47-34 in 2019 and that was where he built the majority winning 345 seats to just 179 for Labour.
I know we're not supposed to but chop out the Don't Knows and it's 48.6 for Labour (+11.6) and 28.1 for the Conservatives (-19.1) which is a 15.4% swing to Labour which takes us down to Devon Central (number 198 on the Conservative defence list). That would still of course leave a Conservative Parliamentary Party close to 1997 levels.
I am assuming it's OK to call her "she" even though she says she doesn't know what sex she is.
Most of us are in the same position as she is, in that we haven't had our chromosomes tested. She must think we're all a right load of 'nanas for thinking we're male or female, as almost all of us do. She should say that too on her leaflets.
I am considering whether to classify her statement as the most irritatingly idiotic piece of pedantry I have ever heard in my life.
There's got to be some type of vote in Scotland soon on whether voters are for or against obviously insane sh*t.
PS If she did have her chromosomes tested, how would the result be communicated to her? Somebody might have swapped two samples in the laboratory, either by accident or deliberately. Somebody might be lying too. Surely she can't know if she's a woman or a bloke even if she does have her chromosomes tested?
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23252553.tory-msp-blocking-grr-bill-gift-independence-movement/
MSP for the West Scotland region Jamie Greene broke from his party to back gender reform in Scotland.
'In a letter to the Prime Minister, seen by The Times, he said: “I fear the UK Government’s rumoured moves to block the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill will set us back years.
“This move could be a gift to proponents of independence who may accuse us of tearing up the devolution settlement.
“It could be a gift to Labour, as we show to LGBT+ people, their friends and their families, that we are happy to leave the centre ground for others as we fail to live up to our promise to govern with compassion.”'
And [edit] Andrew Tickell, who is usually pretty sensible and neutral and worth reading, has published an article on the matter, remarking for instance of the option of taking the SG to court:
'There is a significant problem with this strategy, however. On the face of it, the Gender Recognition Bill doesn’t relate to reserved matters. It’s true that “equal opportunities” – broadly codified in the Equality Act 2010 – is reserved to Westminster. But the Scotland Act defines equal opportunities as “the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination” based on a range of protected characteristics. GRA reform doesn’t seem to fall within this reservation.
If the UK Government pursues this route, there’s every chance the justices would side with Holyrood and uphold the bill. Delay is inevitable, but not victory.'
Yet the option currently taken is not miuch better.
'[...] as the Secretary of State’s veto is itself subject to judicial review. Using Section 35 to block this bill would be unprecedented, dramatic, and further inflame the tensions which continue to tug at Britain’s territorial constitution – but the UK Government has talked itself into a position where some kind of intervention seems inevitable. [...] Whatever happens, the courtroom calls.'
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/23251712.uk-government-talked-corner-grr/
Russia offers citizenship to foreigners in exchange for enlisting in army.
Russian authorities have been offering foreigners in Russia Russian citizenship in exchange for enlisting in the country’s armed forces, the General Staff reported on Jan. 16.
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1615056409409818626
It'd certainly be less woke.
You're right though, it is my understanding that it is not lawful to have a condition that specifies a development must be built by X date.
Right you are, and this sorting out by politics has been bad for the nation, and is probably part of the reason that both Democrats and Republicans tend to see the other party as more exteme than it actually is.
However, at present, the Republican leadership in the House has far better geographic diversity than the Democratic leadership.
Speaker Kevin McCarthy, California 20th
Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Louisiana 1st
Majority Whip Tom Emmer, Minnesota 6th
Republican Conference Chairman Elise Stefanik, New York 21st
Republican Policy Committee Chairman Gary Palmer, Alabama 6th
I haven't have many reasons recently to applaud the House Republicans, but I do think that they have done better in choosing leaders that represent the whole nation, than the Democrats.
(When I was growing up, I lived in Tom Foley's district, so I've had a chance to watch that sorting out for many years. Obama and Trump both have made it worse.)
You're completely missing the far more significant issue - that Scottish Labour actually supported a SNP/Green initiative. Almost unheard of.
It played badly in the Australian election.
Interesting. I am not an economist, so I don't know whether there is statistical support for this, but some years ago I came up with this rule of thumb: You are unlikely to have vigorous competition between companies unless there are at least five serious competitors. You won't always get it even then, but as the number of competitors increases, real competition becomes more likely.
And now, learning that you have six big developers makes me ask this question: Do those six developers tend to much stronger in some parts of the UK, and weaker in others, so that, in most places, there are only two or three actually competing?
Either it's squashed, which furthers the cause of independence because of the constitutional clash, or it gets through (which they want anyway) and it still furthers the cause of independence because it was still a constitutional clash.
Given that the bill is not that popular in Scotland, ultimately the losing position for the SNP was for it to go through without any reaction from HMG.
It is certainly very controversial but there is considerable opposition to it not only in RUK but in Scotland itself and it will be fascinating to see how this pans out
Scots Labour seem to be at variance with Starmer over aspects of the legislation, and it has certainly rocketed the subject up the political discourse
I expect it to end up in a legal battle but also will Sunak see a positive in Scotland with support from the likes of J K Rowling
Politics is most definitely not boring, and endless controversial issues seem to be the order of the day, week, month and year
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/03/us-pollster-frank-luntz-urges-tories-to-ditch-culture-wars
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
This is not a popular cause.
I get that many Conservatives are actually English nationalists and don't care about the Union, but the UK Government is supposed to be governing the UK. It's in the name...
I’m told polling guru Frank Luntz has repeatedly told the Conservative Party to avoid waging a culture war over trans rights.
While it delights and excites some corners of Twitter, in the real world it makes the party look at best distracted and at worst cruel.
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1614995255673212933
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23214847.blocking-gender-reforms-will-boost-independence-claims-tory-mp/
And slightly more significantly, this one.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23242368.mark-drakeford-backs-scotlands-gender-recognition-law/
I am not at all convinced this subject is going to help Sturgeon but we will see, I could be wrong
The stupid, poor criminals will be dead. The stupid but wealthy ones (in jail, but with funds or had friends with funds) have bought themselves out using the Wagner trick of, for a fee, giving them the identity of one of the stupid, poor ones.
The smart and wealthy ones are in the Kremlin.
So the structure of the criminal world will have shifted.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23213849.theresa-may-intervenes-rishi-sunaks-threat-block-gender-law/
You are probably right, but I think there are unlikely to be any vacancies on the Court, since, as Thomas Jefferson almost said: "Few die, and none resign."
https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/few-die-none-resign-spurious-quotation/
1. They are forced by Government to meet housing targets under local plans - or rather to meet targets for assigning land for housing.
2. They are faced with developers trying to bank land and also avoid having to comply with section 106 requirements (for the provision of stuff like schools and medical facilities).
3. They are desperately short of cash.
So they can't not give planning permission. That would put them in breach of their legal requirements under the local plans. They can't force the developers to do stuff because once they have given planning permission they lose all hold they have over the developers. And usually the way Section 106 works today is that, instead of the developer having to build facilities, they simply pay the council a lump sum so the council is responsible for the provision instead. The council then spends the money on something else.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/two-thirds-of-voters-oppose-snps-gender-reform-plans-d8wh3wh9w
Westminster blocking legislation voted through by the elected representatives of the Scottish People is appalling .