Mr. Divvie, if self-ID is such a good thing, and 'transwomen are women' why isn't the rapist in a women's prison? Why's it right that said rapist be sent elsewhere?
The whole point of self-ID is that someone determines for themselves their legal gender.
In other news, I’m back on drought watch. In the South West we’ve had no meaningful rain for three weeks and there is none in the forecast. Even after a seriously wet spell from October to mid-January, reservoir levels are well down on where they were this time last year. If we do not get a spring deluge things will get very seriously bad come the summer.
Yet in South Wilts we still have flooded fields. Has the rain been that localised?
Truss going round complaining that her “mandate wasn’t respected” highlights that she still doesn’t understand that her problem was that she never had one; a vote of Tory members can never mandate dramatic changes to the policy platform on which they won the election.
Mr Dickson is quite correct - this has been a Green driven project from the get go. The mystery is why Sturgeon has chosen to expend so much political capital on it. Although the “broad and deep support” is largely from Scottish government funded bodies, not the public who are broadly and deeply opposed.
It really is her Poll Tax moment.
Poll Tax is incorrect analogy.
I’m still old enough to remember when public opinion was still overwhelmingly in favour of capital punishment, and were furious with the political parties for abolishing it. That fizzled out. Ditto anti-gay campaigns.
What percentage of the public are nowadays in favour of corporal and/or capital punishment? Can’t remember seeing data on that in decades. It’s a dead issue.
While anti-gay sentiment still exists in society, it is a fraction of what it was in the 70s and 80s.
In a few decades folk will look back at the anti-trans loonies and wonder what the fuss was about.
(Incidentally, a trans person won the first round of Melodifestivalen last night. Notably, all age groups gave the 12 point maximum.)
The "stab in the back" by the mysterious left wing cabal who run our hedge funds and financial markets (!??!!) Is a pretty bonkers myth. Not least because the kamikwasi budget gave those financial engineering Trots massive tax cuts.
It's total bollocks. I read an article that must have had 20 or so quotes from investment bankers and pension fund managers putting the boot into Kwarteng's unfunded plans, which in case Liz Lampard hasn't figured it out are a group of people not known for their socialist politics.
The other interesting thing to watch is the rise in Labour's ratings in Scotland. They have been on a slow but steady upward trajectory and Anas Sarwar is doing a good job.
If Labour can get into double figure MPs, as I now think quite possible, it has implications for their chances of an overall Westminster majority.
Well seen you are not in Scotland and never have been. The invisible millionaire is doing nothing.
Mr Dickson is quite correct - this has been a Green driven project from the get go. The mystery is why Sturgeon has chosen to expend so much political capital on it. Although the “broad and deep support” is largely from Scottish government funded bodies, not the public who are broadly and deeply opposed.
It really is her Poll Tax moment.
Poll Tax is incorrect analogy.
I’m still old enough to remember when public opinion was still overwhelmingly in favour of capital punishment, and were furious with the political parties for abolishing it. That fizzled out. Ditto anti-gay campaigns.
What percentage of the public are nowadays in favour of corporal and/or capital punishment? Can’t remember seeing data on that in decades. It’s a dead issue.
While anti-gay sentiment still exists in society, it is a fraction of what it was in the 70s and 80s.
In a few decades folk will look back at the anti-trans loonies and wonder what the fuss was about.
(Incidentally, a trans person won the first round of Melodifestivalen last night. Notably, all age groups gave the 12 point maximum.)
A great stupidity indicator, this. I would be challenging you, if I could be bothered, to produce any evidence of anti-trans loonies, as opposed to non trans crooks and cheats exploiting loopholes. Do you think people who object to blackface are racists?
The "stab in the back" by the mysterious left wing cabal who run our hedge funds and financial markets (!??!!) Is a pretty bonkers myth. Not least because the kamikwasi budget gave those financial engineering Trots massive tax cuts.
It's total bollocks. I read an article that must have had 20 or so quotes from investment bankers and pension fund managers putting the boot into Kwarteng's unfunded plans, which in case Liz Lampard hasn't figured it out are a group of people not known for their socialist politics.
Truss needs to be knocked down hard. The only word anyone wants to hear from her is sorry. Will Sunak put her in her place? No. He’s too weak. Instead of putting her shameful episode back in its box, he’ll let her indulge herself.
Mr Dickson is quite correct - this has been a Green driven project from the get go. The mystery is why Sturgeon has chosen to expend so much political capital on it. Although the “broad and deep support” is largely from Scottish government funded bodies, not the public who are broadly and deeply opposed.
It really is her Poll Tax moment.
Poll Tax is incorrect analogy.
I’m still old enough to remember when public opinion was still overwhelmingly in favour of capital punishment, and were furious with the political parties for abolishing it. That fizzled out. Ditto anti-gay campaigns.
What percentage of the public are nowadays in favour of corporal and/or capital punishment? Can’t remember seeing data on that in decades. It’s a dead issue.
While anti-gay sentiment still exists in society, it is a fraction of what it was in the 70s and 80s.
In a few decades folk will look back at the anti-trans loonies and wonder what the fuss was about.
(Incidentally, a trans person won the first round of Melodifestivalen last night. Notably, all age groups gave the 12 point maximum.)
On the trans aspect of this it's a topic I don't like discussing online as there is so much hatred around and the complexities and nuances of gender identity too easily get lost in ignorance and raging venom. That's not avoidance: I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it.
All I want to say for now is that the right-wing here and in the US have weaponised culture wars and this 'anti-woke' agenda.
That's the biggest problem with Nicola. Not that she was wrong but that her timing was and in some ways that's even worse because it can damage a cause for years. Really astute politicians know when to make their move and when to bide their time.
Two or three years from now, whatever obfuscations are dribbling out of Sir Keir's mouth, the climate here in the UK will feel very different, as it did when Tony Blair's New Labour took over in 1997. The time to move forward with trans freedoms will come, regardless of whether the hateful oldies hate it, but that time is not yet.
Ideologues of all sorts often do this and Socialists are every bit as bad as the Right. They love to dictate and force their ideas on others because of course 'they know best'. Look at Sadiq with the Ulez.
Bored of this
"I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it."
I bet you have not. £500, loser to pay Trussell Trust or red Cross Ukraine appeal, national press means proper ex Fleet Street titles, TV is BBC itv or c4, written excludes below the line, appeared excludes question from audience.
On the trans aspect of this it's a topic I don't like discussing online as there is so much hatred around and the complexities and nuances of gender identity too easily get lost in ignorance and raging venom. That's not avoidance: I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it.
All I want to say for now is that the right-wing here and in the US have weaponised culture wars and this 'anti-woke' agenda.
That's the biggest problem with Nicola. Not that she was wrong but that her timing was and in some ways that's even worse because it can damage a cause for years. Really astute politicians know when to make their move and when to bide their time.
Two or three years from now, whatever obfuscations are dribbling out of Sir Keir's mouth, the climate here in the UK will feel very different, as it did when Tony Blair's New Labour took over in 1997. The time to move forward with trans freedoms will come, regardless of whether the hateful oldies hate it, but that time is not yet.
Ideologues of all sorts often do this and Socialists are every bit as bad as the Right. They love to dictate and force their ideas on others because of course 'they know best'. Look at Sadiq with the Ulez.
We are on the same side in this debate, but your final paragraph about “Socialists” is well off the mark. This Scottish legislation has broad and deep support throughout all sections of civic Scotland and is not a “Socialist” micro-project. Actually, in the vanguard it is the Greens and Liberal Democrats who have consistently driven the issue for many years now. They were the engine.
Stuart , you are talking mince there, it does not have support throughout Scotland. It is supported by Sturgeon's bunch of nodding donkey's and the weirdo Greens and LD's. There are NO rights that Trans do not have and the end result will be detrimental to real trans people. A few trips to Scotland and talking to real people may help you with reality.
Hands up all those who’ve heard of Colleen Hoover ?
The publishing figures for 2022 were rather depressing. In a country of 332 million people, only 28 books out of ~300,000 titles sold more than 500,000 copies. Eight were by one author, Colleen Hoover, and no book of history or politics sold more than 295,000 copies. https://twitter.com/JasonColavito/status/1620151389363245057
Nope My wife came up with It ends with us and said there was a sequel (presumably It starts with us) but she hasn't actually read them. Presumably she had a decent back catalogue which she was able to reprint or get into print for the first time when It ends with us made a hit.
Truss going round complaining that her “mandate wasn’t respected” highlights that she still doesn’t understand that her problem was that she never had one; a vote of Tory members can never mandate dramatic changes to the policy platform on which they won the election.
Did Brown have a mandate?
Blair was clear at the 2005 election he wasn't going to run again and Brown was the obvious candidate to take over.
Truss going round complaining that her “mandate wasn’t respected” highlights that she still doesn’t understand that her problem was that she never had one; a vote of Tory members can never mandate dramatic changes to the policy platform on which they won the election.
Did Brown have a mandate?
The point is about a radical change in government policy without any public vote.
The Section 35 block on the bill has gone from being a point of high dudgeon to a disaster. There are no grounds to object to the UK government’s block when the Scottish government looks so baffled. This has been a disaster for the first minister and the SNP. It has damaged the nation and made Holyrood look stupid. Such arrogance from Sturgeon has become commonplace — and is doing her cause no good at all.
Yes, Sturgeon and her morons ignored public opinion , ignored every organisation apart from their few wholly funded pet charities. Imelda thought she was untouchable. They have so poisoned all aspects of Scottish establishment with their chums, lackey's , ne'er do wells and nutters that we are well and truly done for. Stureon and her bunch of wasters must be cleared out as soon as possible.
The government appears to have barely noticed that there is a global race to dominate the green technologies of the future. In investment attracted, jobs created, income earned and lives bettered, the prizes for the winners will be huge. In prosperity foregone, the penalty for the laggards will be severe.
The United States is out of the blocks. The European Union is hurrying along the track. China is competing too. Here in dear old blighty, we are not even at the starting line.
Some of the blame belongs with Brexit, which has made the UK a less appealing destination for investment. Culpability also lies with the incessant instability since the referendum. We need a long-term plan to invest in the R&D, skills and infrastructure necessary for a green economy, but that’s not going to happen when you have a succession of short-term prime ministers too consumed by scandals and scrabbling for their survival to think about the future.
Being a serious competitor in this race will require an industrial strategy, a concept to which many Tories are ideologically allergic. Rishi Sunak has had nothing of substance to say about the green transition since he became prime minister.
The only future economy is a green economy. The coming decades will see one of the greatest industrial transformations in human history. The UK needs to be at the races, not fiddling with its laces while others speed away down the track leaving us for dust.
But the loons in govt and the "Conservative" party are not "... not fiddling with [their] laces ...", they are sitting around wondering why everyone else is wearing those new-fangled shoe things...
Given Sturgeon's aim to get 51%+ of Scottish votes at the next general election as a mandate for independence after the Supreme Court and UK government refused indyref2, for the SNP to have fallen below the voteshares it got at the last UK and Scottish parliament elections is pretty damaging for her.
She will kill it with her megalomania by insisting it is a vote for SNP , as her only concern is to retain power, and waste the other independence votes.
On the trans aspect of this it's a topic I don't like discussing online as there is so much hatred around and the complexities and nuances of gender identity too easily get lost in ignorance and raging venom. That's not avoidance: I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it.
All I want to say for now is that the right-wing here and in the US have weaponised culture wars and this 'anti-woke' agenda.
That's the biggest problem with Nicola. Not that she was wrong but that her timing was and in some ways that's even worse because it can damage a cause for years. Really astute politicians know when to make their move and when to bide their time.
Two or three years from now, whatever obfuscations are dribbling out of Sir Keir's mouth, the climate here in the UK will feel very different, as it did when Tony Blair's New Labour took over in 1997. The time to move forward with trans freedoms will come, regardless of whether the hateful oldies hate it, but that time is not yet.
Ideologues of all sorts often do this and Socialists are every bit as bad as the Right. They love to dictate and force their ideas on others because of course 'they know best'. Look at Sadiq with the Ulez.
We are on the same side in this debate, but your final paragraph about “Socialists” is well off the mark. This Scottish legislation has broad and deep support throughout all sections of civic Scotland and is not a “Socialist” micro-project. Actually, in the vanguard it is the Greens and Liberal Democrats who have consistently driven the issue for many years now. They were the engine.
Stuart , you are talking mince there, it does not have support throughout Scotland. It is supported by Sturgeon's bunch of nodding donkey's and the weirdo Greens and LD's. There are NO rights that Trans do not have and the end result will be detrimental to real trans people. A few trips to Scotland and talking to real people may help you with reality.
Why haven’t you mentioned SLab who were more supportive of the GRA bill than the SNP?
Truss going round complaining that her “mandate wasn’t respected” highlights that she still doesn’t understand that her problem was that she never had one; a vote of Tory members can never mandate dramatic changes to the policy platform on which they won the election.
Did Brown have a mandate?
The point is about a radical change in government policy without any public vote.
Partially but as has been argued on PB for ever, we do not have a presidential system. The PM is not directly voted for by the public. And it is arguable that governments are allowed to deviate from the manifesto, particularly when there are black swan events. Covid and the Ukraine war are two such events, and Truss’s change of tack was partly a response to that.
“Not an issue” “Nobody cares” oh well…..I’m not sure Sturgeon is out of the woods yet - her inability (and that of the SNP spokesperson on BBC question time) to admit that a rapist with a penis is a “man” left the audience distinctly unimpressed. When ideology met reality was never going to end well, for ideology. The subsequent monstering of the lady from the audience who expressed the not outlandish view that “you can’t change sex” by some TRAs is unlikely to win them any new allies.
Mr Dickson is quite correct - this has been a Green driven project from the get go. The mystery is why Sturgeon has chosen to expend so much political capital on it. Although the “broad and deep support” is largely from Scottish government funded bodies, not the public who are broadly and deeply opposed.
Stuart was talking absolute rubbish which makes me think he is a Sturgeon puppet rather than a real person. Which one of her chums will he be.
On the trans aspect of this it's a topic I don't like discussing online as there is so much hatred around and the complexities and nuances of gender identity too easily get lost in ignorance and raging venom. That's not avoidance: I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it.
All I want to say for now is that the right-wing here and in the US have weaponised culture wars and this 'anti-woke' agenda.
That's the biggest problem with Nicola. Not that she was wrong but that her timing was and in some ways that's even worse because it can damage a cause for years. Really astute politicians know when to make their move and when to bide their time.
Two or three years from now, whatever obfuscations are dribbling out of Sir Keir's mouth, the climate here in the UK will feel very different, as it did when Tony Blair's New Labour took over in 1997. The time to move forward with trans freedoms will come, regardless of whether the hateful oldies hate it, but that time is not yet.
Ideologues of all sorts often do this and Socialists are every bit as bad as the Right. They love to dictate and force their ideas on others because of course 'they know best'. Look at Sadiq with the Ulez.
We are on the same side in this debate, but your final paragraph about “Socialists” is well off the mark. This Scottish legislation has broad and deep support throughout all sections of civic Scotland and is not a “Socialist” micro-project. Actually, in the vanguard it is the Greens and Liberal Democrats who have consistently driven the issue for many years now. They were the engine.
The cross party support for self-ID means it is unlikely to be repealed, though I do expect that we will get some safeguards via amendments and case law.
It hasn’t been passed, so it can’t be repealed.
The S.35 issues were largely around the safeguarding issues that self-ID creates.
The notion that “we can pass a bad law and let the courts sort out our mess” is an abdication of political responsibility.
This requires a lot more careful and deeper thinking than the TWAW and “No debate” crowd have put in so far.
And once the “affirmative care” (sic) lawsuits start coming…..
Although - to play devil's advocate here - that's been a long running problem in British politics. Look at Tony Blair's laws. Or Thatcher's, for the matter of that. Even before then, the Obscene Publications Act 1959 would stand as an example of a spectacularly badly written law that the courts had to sort out.
What's less usual is that here it's one Parliament blocking another, which I believe is a new departure.
The classic, to me, of this genre of crap law, is the whole decitizenising people at the whim of the Home Sec.
This is because of a series of stupid legal changes made prosecuting people for treason virtually impossible. Because loyalty to a state is so old fashioned, boring etc
Then it was discovered that there were a nice vein of people in the country who would not merely cheer another cricket team, but would cheer when bombs blew up pop concerts and buses.
And join terrorist organisation dedicated to such, overseas.
Various hacks were tried - we ended up with a form of detention without trial and tearing up passports.
What about an actual solution? A treason law that says that treason is giving aid to
1) countries at war with the U.K. 2) aid or membership of a list of organisations. Said list to voted on, regularly, in parliament. Parliament gets ultimate say who or what is on the list.
Truss going round complaining that her “mandate wasn’t respected” highlights that she still doesn’t understand that her problem was that she never had one; a vote of Tory members can never mandate dramatic changes to the policy platform on which they won the election.
Did Brown have a mandate?
Blair was clear at the 2005 election he wasn't going to run again and Brown was the obvious candidate to take over.
That’s irrelevant though. I don’t recall a manifesto with Blair for three years and then Brown for two. And frankly Blair was dragged kicking and screaming out of No 10. He only promised to go to keep Brown onside.
Truss going round complaining that her “mandate wasn’t respected” highlights that she still doesn’t understand that her problem was that she never had one; a vote of Tory members can never mandate dramatic changes to the policy platform on which they won the election.
Did Brown have a mandate?
The point is about a radical change in government policy without any public vote.
Partially but as has been argued on PB for ever, we do not have a presidential system. The PM is not directly voted for by the public. And it is arguable that governments are allowed to deviate from the manifesto, particularly when there are black swan events. Covid and the Ukraine war are two such events, and Truss’s change of tack was partly a response to that.
Didn’t the market crash after the KwasiTrussterfuck qualify as another black swan, particularly as the goons who initiated it definitely didn’t see it coming? Getting rid of them was a change of tack that was definitely a response to that.
On the trans aspect of this it's a topic I don't like discussing online as there is so much hatred around and the complexities and nuances of gender identity too easily get lost in ignorance and raging venom. That's not avoidance: I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it.
All I want to say for now is that the right-wing here and in the US have weaponised culture wars and this 'anti-woke' agenda.
That's the biggest problem with Nicola. Not that she was wrong but that her timing was and in some ways that's even worse because it can damage a cause for years. Really astute politicians know when to make their move and when to bide their time.
Two or three years from now, whatever obfuscations are dribbling out of Sir Keir's mouth, the climate here in the UK will feel very different, as it did when Tony Blair's New Labour took over in 1997. The time to move forward with trans freedoms will come, regardless of whether the hateful oldies hate it, but that time is not yet.
Ideologues of all sorts often do this and Socialists are every bit as bad as the Right. They love to dictate and force their ideas on others because of course 'they know best'. Look at Sadiq with the Ulez.
We are on the same side in this debate, but your final paragraph about “Socialists” is well off the mark. This Scottish legislation has broad and deep support throughout all sections of civic Scotland and is not a “Socialist” micro-project. Actually, in the vanguard it is the Greens and Liberal Democrats who have consistently driven the issue for many years now. They were the engine.
It does not have ‘broad and deep support.’ Opinion polls consistently show large majorities opposed to it.
I think it is fair to say that the Bill had broad support amongst the people who get elected to Holyrood, once again showing how little they have in common with the Scottish people they purport to represent.
I must say that I have been surprised that this has had such an impact. I was astonished and dismayed that the clear hand of the Scottish government in the Salmond prosecution did her so little damage, as did her plainly dishonest performances before the Committee at Holyrood, as did her policies of continuously locking us down more than England, causing even more economic damage. I had almost concluded that she was bullet proof but apparently not.
Truss going round complaining that her “mandate wasn’t respected” highlights that she still doesn’t understand that her problem was that she never had one; a vote of Tory members can never mandate dramatic changes to the policy platform on which they won the election.
Did Brown have a mandate?
I think mandates are slippery things. On the one hand, Brown had been a key architect of the 2005 manifesto and was deeply involved in the Government beforehand. On the other hand, some of the stuff he did he probably didn't have a mandate for (I'm thinking changes to the top rate of income tax). By and large, I would argue, he did have a mandate.
Truss was a much more radical departure from platform on which her party was elected. She, like Brown (and May, and Boris, and Sunak) had the legal right to be Prime Minister but she certainly had less of a mandate than Brown. Arguably, Truss had a mandate from the Tory selectorate but not from the general public.
Truss going round complaining that her “mandate wasn’t respected” highlights that she still doesn’t understand that her problem was that she never had one; a vote of Tory members can never mandate dramatic changes to the policy platform on which they won the election.
Did Brown have a mandate?
The point is about a radical change in government policy without any public vote.
Partially but as has been argued on PB for ever, we do not have a presidential system. The PM is not directly voted for by the public. And it is arguable that governments are allowed to deviate from the manifesto, particularly when there are black swan events. Covid and the Ukraine war are two such events, and Truss’s change of tack was partly a response to that.
Didn’t the market crash after the KwasiTrussterfuck qualify as another black swan, particularly as the goons who initiated it definitely didn’t see it coming? Getting rid of them was a change of tack that was definitely a response to that.
Absolutely. I tire of people calling for a fresh mandate when this country changes PM mid parliament. If the PM chooses to seek such a mandate, then fine. But there is no requirement to do so.
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
Sturgeon should do a u-turn and remove the gender bill and replace it with one that included some of the sensible amendments.
Better to hold your hands up and say we’re going to think again and understand the concerns. It might be embarrassing but continuing to defend the bill which is clearly flawed is doing a lot of damage to the SNP.
Power mad Sturgeon will never do that, given they have every facet of Scotland tied up with lackeys we are only lucky at this point that the UK can throw it out. Would be far better to be independent and be able to throw a crap Scottish government out.
Truss going round complaining that her “mandate wasn’t respected” highlights that she still doesn’t understand that her problem was that she never had one; a vote of Tory members can never mandate dramatic changes to the policy platform on which they won the election.
Did Brown have a mandate?
I think mandates are slippery things. On the one hand, Brown had been a key architect of the 2005 manifesto and was deeply involved in the Government beforehand. On the other hand, some of the stuff he did he probably didn't have a mandate for (I'm thinking changes to the top rate of income tax). By and large, I would argue, he did have a mandate.
Truss was a much more radical departure from platform on which her party was elected. She, like Brown (and May, and Boris, and Sunak) had the legal right to be Prime Minister but she certainly had less of a mandate than Brown. Arguably, Truss had a mandate from the Tory selectorate but not from the general public.
We are a parliamentary democracy and Brown also had a majority of his party's MPs backing him, as did May in 2016, Boris in 2019 and as does Rishi now.
Truss' problem was not she never won a general election but even most of her party's MPs didn't vote for her to become PM
The government is failing in one of its most basic functions. It's bad enough that only a tiny proportion of violent crimes, particularly rape, result in conviction, but even worse that, when they do, those found guilty are able to go on to commit further serious offences.
On the trans aspect of this it's a topic I don't like discussing online as there is so much hatred around and the complexities and nuances of gender identity too easily get lost in ignorance and raging venom. That's not avoidance: I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it.
All I want to say for now is that the right-wing here and in the US have weaponised culture wars and this 'anti-woke' agenda.
That's the biggest problem with Nicola. Not that she was wrong but that her timing was and in some ways that's even worse because it can damage a cause for years. Really astute politicians know when to make their move and when to bide their time.
Two or three years from now, whatever obfuscations are dribbling out of Sir Keir's mouth, the climate here in the UK will feel very different, as it did when Tony Blair's New Labour took over in 1997. The time to move forward with trans freedoms will come, regardless of whether the hateful oldies hate it, but that time is not yet.
Ideologues of all sorts often do this and Socialists are every bit as bad as the Right. They love to dictate and force their ideas on others because of course 'they know best'. Look at Sadiq with the Ulez.
We are on the same side in this debate, but your final paragraph about “Socialists” is well off the mark. This Scottish legislation has broad and deep support throughout all sections of civic Scotland and is not a “Socialist” micro-project. Actually, in the vanguard it is the Greens and Liberal Democrats who have consistently driven the issue for many years now. They were the engine.
It does not have ‘broad and deep support.’ Opinion polls consistently show large majorities opposed to it.
I think it is fair to say that the Bill had broad support amongst the people who get elected to Holyrood, once again showing how little they have in common with the Scottish people they purport to represent.
I must say that I have been surprised that this has had such an impact. I was astonished and dismayed that the clear hand of the Scottish government in the Salmond prosecution did her so little damage, as did her plainly dishonest performances before the Committee at Holyrood, as did her policies of continuously locking us down more than England, causing even more economic damage. I had almost concluded that she was bullet proof but apparently not.
In politics I think bulletproof is a relative, rather than absolute, term. Some politicians can survive one 'bullet', others can survive many. Some can survive a hit that would end another's career (Boris), but in the end the scandals mount up and develop a narrative.
Mr. B, old figures, but a few years ago I read that even 'successful' authors made an average of less than $10,000 a year. Essentially, very, very few can actually do it as a job, so people have to either have enough free time and money to do it as an entertaining hobby, be one of the tiny number who make enough to scratch a living, or not bother.
And the latter option removes an awful lot of people who might have interesting stories or useful things to say.
Yes, it's one of those careers, like music or professional sports, where most make next to nothing and a very few make gigantic fortunes, particularly from film rights, etc. (before they are cancelled for speaking out on trans issues).
It'll get worse as Gen Zs and younger read less and less.
It may remove an awful lot of people who have interesting stories, but it'll also get rid of rather more blowhards with nothing to say, who will have to retreat from bookstores to obscure political sites.
Mr. B, old figures, but a few years ago I read that even 'successful' authors made an average of less than $10,000 a year. Essentially, very, very few can actually do it as a job, so people have to either have enough free time and money to do it as an entertaining hobby, be one of the tiny number who make enough to scratch a living, or not bother.
And the latter option removes an awful lot of people who might have interesting stories or useful things to say.
Yes, it's one of those careers, like music or professional sports, where most make next to nothing and a very few make gigantic fortunes, particularly from film rights, etc. (before they are cancelled for speaking out on trans issues).
It'll get worse as Gen Zs and younger read less and less.
It may remove an awful lot of people who have interesting stories, but it'll also get rid of rather more blowhards with nothing to say, who will have to retreat from bookstores to obscure political sites.
Truss going round complaining that her “mandate wasn’t respected” highlights that she still doesn’t understand that her problem was that she never had one; a vote of Tory members can never mandate dramatic changes to the policy platform on which they won the election.
Did Brown have a mandate?
I think mandates are slippery things. On the one hand, Brown had been a key architect of the 2005 manifesto and was deeply involved in the Government beforehand. On the other hand, some of the stuff he did he probably didn't have a mandate for (I'm thinking changes to the top rate of income tax). By and large, I would argue, he did have a mandate.
Truss was a much more radical departure from platform on which her party was elected. She, like Brown (and May, and Boris, and Sunak) had the legal right to be Prime Minister but she certainly had less of a mandate than Brown. Arguably, Truss had a mandate from the Tory selectorate but not from the general public.
Brown had a mandate to form a government as he could command a majority in the house. As did Major, Johnson, Truss, Sunak etc etc. People like to use mandates and manifestos to bash their opponents, but are blind when their own ‘side’ ignores the manifesto, or launches entirely new policy ideas.
On the trans aspect of this it's a topic I don't like discussing online as there is so much hatred around and the complexities and nuances of gender identity too easily get lost in ignorance and raging venom. That's not avoidance: I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it.
All I want to say for now is that the right-wing here and in the US have weaponised culture wars and this 'anti-woke' agenda.
That's the biggest problem with Nicola. Not that she was wrong but that her timing was and in some ways that's even worse because it can damage a cause for years. Really astute politicians know when to make their move and when to bide their time.
Two or three years from now, whatever obfuscations are dribbling out of Sir Keir's mouth, the climate here in the UK will feel very different, as it did when Tony Blair's New Labour took over in 1997. The time to move forward with trans freedoms will come, regardless of whether the hateful oldies hate it, but that time is not yet.
Ideologues of all sorts often do this and Socialists are every bit as bad as the Right. They love to dictate and force their ideas on others because of course 'they know best'. Look at Sadiq with the Ulez.
Bored of this
"I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it."
I bet you have not. £500, loser to pay Trussell Trust or red Cross Ukraine appeal, national press means proper ex Fleet Street titles, TV is BBC itv or c4, written excludes below the line, appeared excludes question from audience.
You cannot lose , that is a fantasist nutter there, the other week they could not boil a kettle as they were so poor.
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
People are capable about caring about a list of things. Ordering it in some first to last order is, itself, a forced question.
After all, were we not told that no one ranked the EU as a priority, based on such rankings? As in no one cared if we are in or out?
Mr. B, old figures, but a few years ago I read that even 'successful' authors made an average of less than $10,000 a year. Essentially, very, very few can actually do it as a job, so people have to either have enough free time and money to do it as an entertaining hobby, be one of the tiny number who make enough to scratch a living, or not bother.
And the latter option removes an awful lot of people who might have interesting stories or useful things to say.
Yes, it's one of those careers, like music or professional sports, where most make next to nothing and a very few make gigantic fortunes, particularly from film rights, etc. (before they are cancelled for speaking out on trans issues).
It'll get worse as Gen Zs and younger read less and less.
It may remove an awful lot of people who have interesting stories, but it'll also get rid of rather more blowhards with nothing to say, who will have to retreat from bookstores to obscure political sites.
Mr. B, old figures, but a few years ago I read that even 'successful' authors made an average of less than $10,000 a year. Essentially, very, very few can actually do it as a job, so people have to either have enough free time and money to do it as an entertaining hobby, be one of the tiny number who make enough to scratch a living, or not bother.
And the latter option removes an awful lot of people who might have interesting stories or useful things to say.
Yes, it's one of those careers, like music or professional sports, where most make next to nothing and a very few make gigantic fortunes, particularly from film rights, etc. (before they are cancelled for speaking out on trans issues).
It'll get worse as Gen Zs and younger read less and less.
It may remove an awful lot of people who have interesting stories, but it'll also get rid of rather more blowhards with nothing to say, who will have to retreat from bookstores to obscure political sites.
*looks up from his poolside Margarita in Bangkok*
*waves Hello*
A rare example and well done to you, although you probably crave greater exposure than the Flint Knappers Gazette (est. 100,000 bce, nr Olduvai Gorge, current circulation 4). Perhaps aspire to greater things?
Truss going round complaining that her “mandate wasn’t respected” highlights that she still doesn’t understand that her problem was that she never had one; a vote of Tory members can never mandate dramatic changes to the policy platform on which they won the election.
Did Brown have a mandate?
The point is about a radical change in government policy without any public vote.
Partially but as has been argued on PB for ever, we do not have a presidential system. The PM is not directly voted for by the public. And it is arguable that governments are allowed to deviate from the manifesto, particularly when there are black swan events. Covid and the Ukraine war are two such events, and Truss’s change of tack was partly a response to that.
While there is reasonable concern over how the Tories have changed leader and policy over 2022, I don't think I am alone in also being concerned how financiers brought down a government, without even a tissue of a mandate.
On the trans aspect of this it's a topic I don't like discussing online as there is so much hatred around and the complexities and nuances of gender identity too easily get lost in ignorance and raging venom. That's not avoidance: I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it.
All I want to say for now is that the right-wing here and in the US have weaponised culture wars and this 'anti-woke' agenda.
That's the biggest problem with Nicola. Not that she was wrong but that her timing was and in some ways that's even worse because it can damage a cause for years. Really astute politicians know when to make their move and when to bide their time.
Two or three years from now, whatever obfuscations are dribbling out of Sir Keir's mouth, the climate here in the UK will feel very different, as it did when Tony Blair's New Labour took over in 1997. The time to move forward with trans freedoms will come, regardless of whether the hateful oldies hate it, but that time is not yet.
Ideologues of all sorts often do this and Socialists are every bit as bad as the Right. They love to dictate and force their ideas on others because of course 'they know best'. Look at Sadiq with the Ulez.
Bored of this
"I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it."
I bet you have not. £500, loser to pay Trussell Trust or red Cross Ukraine appeal, national press means proper ex Fleet Street titles, TV is BBC itv or c4, written excludes below the line, appeared excludes question from audience.
You cannot lose , that is a fantasist nutter there, the other week they could not boil a kettle as they were so poor.
I particularly enjoyed the fable of filling a thermos with the dregs of the boiled water from the kettle.
On the trans aspect of this it's a topic I don't like discussing online as there is so much hatred around and the complexities and nuances of gender identity too easily get lost in ignorance and raging venom. That's not avoidance: I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it.
All I want to say for now is that the right-wing here and in the US have weaponised culture wars and this 'anti-woke' agenda.
That's the biggest problem with Nicola. Not that she was wrong but that her timing was and in some ways that's even worse because it can damage a cause for years. Really astute politicians know when to make their move and when to bide their time.
Two or three years from now, whatever obfuscations are dribbling out of Sir Keir's mouth, the climate here in the UK will feel very different, as it did when Tony Blair's New Labour took over in 1997. The time to move forward with trans freedoms will come, regardless of whether the hateful oldies hate it, but that time is not yet.
Ideologues of all sorts often do this and Socialists are every bit as bad as the Right. They love to dictate and force their ideas on others because of course 'they know best'. Look at Sadiq with the Ulez.
We are on the same side in this debate, but your final paragraph about “Socialists” is well off the mark. This Scottish legislation has broad and deep support throughout all sections of civic Scotland and is not a “Socialist” micro-project. Actually, in the vanguard it is the Greens and Liberal Democrats who have consistently driven the issue for many years now. They were the engine.
It does not have ‘broad and deep support.’ Opinion polls consistently show large majorities opposed to it.
I think it is fair to say that the Bill had broad support amongst the people who get elected to Holyrood, once again showing how little they have in common with the Scottish people they purport to represent.
I must say that I have been surprised that this has had such an impact. I was astonished and dismayed that the clear hand of the Scottish government in the Salmond prosecution did her so little damage, as did her plainly dishonest performances before the Committee at Holyrood, as did her policies of continuously locking us down more than England, causing even more economic damage. I had almost concluded that she was bullet proof but apparently not.
Yes, she survived all of that entirely unscathed. Then she chooses this hill to run up, against intense machine gun fire, like the Sons of Ulster at Thiepval Ridge
Truss going round complaining that her “mandate wasn’t respected” highlights that she still doesn’t understand that her problem was that she never had one; a vote of Tory members can never mandate dramatic changes to the policy platform on which they won the election.
Did Brown have a mandate?
I think mandates are slippery things. On the one hand, Brown had been a key architect of the 2005 manifesto and was deeply involved in the Government beforehand. On the other hand, some of the stuff he did he probably didn't have a mandate for (I'm thinking changes to the top rate of income tax). By and large, I would argue, he did have a mandate.
Truss was a much more radical departure from platform on which her party was elected. She, like Brown (and May, and Boris, and Sunak) had the legal right to be Prime Minister but she certainly had less of a mandate than Brown. Arguably, Truss had a mandate from the Tory selectorate but not from the general public.
We are a parliamentary democracy and Brown also had a majority of his party's MPs backing him, as did May in 2016, Boris in 2019 and as does Rishi now.
Truss' problem was not she never won a general election but even most of her party's MPs didn't vote for her to become PM
Indeed, and that's what gave Truss the legal right to Govern. Mandates are not a legal concept. Having a mandate from her MPs would have helped her too but, since she was complaining that MPs didn't respect her mandate, it appears she didn't consider their mandate as important. In a Parliamentary democracy that is just dumb.
Of course, that is different from a mandate from the electorate. If you come in midterm, with a mandate from your party and MPs, but you do stuff that the public doesn't like (and therefore you don't have a mandate for), you'll find yourself out on your ear.
The government appears to have barely noticed that there is a global race to dominate the green technologies of the future. In investment attracted, jobs created, income earned and lives bettered, the prizes for the winners will be huge. In prosperity foregone, the penalty for the laggards will be severe.
The United States is out of the blocks. The European Union is hurrying along the track. China is competing too. Here in dear old blighty, we are not even at the starting line.
Some of the blame belongs with Brexit, which has made the UK a less appealing destination for investment. Culpability also lies with the incessant instability since the referendum. We need a long-term plan to invest in the R&D, skills and infrastructure necessary for a green economy, but that’s not going to happen when you have a succession of short-term prime ministers too consumed by scandals and scrabbling for their survival to think about the future.
Being a serious competitor in this race will require an industrial strategy, a concept to which many Tories are ideologically allergic. Rishi Sunak has had nothing of substance to say about the green transition since he became prime minister.
The only future economy is a green economy. The coming decades will see one of the greatest industrial transformations in human history. The UK needs to be at the races, not fiddling with its laces while others speed away down the track leaving us for dust.
Rawnsley is good when it comes to understanding internal Labour Party machinations, but, like so many political commentators, useless on economics and finance. In fact, probably worse than useless - the way to get a good policy is to do the opposite of whatever he proposes at any given moment.
When everybody agrees, somebody is not thinking. If various other, much larger, blocs are charging, herd-like, to subsidise a technology, the sensible thing for us is to enjoy their heavily-subsidised goods (solar panels, wind turbines or whatever), rather than burning tens of billions to compete with them, which we'll probably lose anyway.
The same with the pointless race to build car batteries and semi-conductors. Very occasionally, with an incredible amount of luck, an industrial strategy can work. But they generally don't. So the four entirely predictable consequences of these races will be:
a) lots of politicians with photos of themselves next to cutting edge factories that become white elephants in a couple of years b) a glut of the good subsidised c) consumers of that good enjoying a boom d) billions or tens of billions of taxpayers' cash wasted
Because the private sector is generally better than government at allocating resources, the way to have a good industrial sector is the same as with any other sector apart from the government and its parasites like the legal industry: low taxes, light regulation, intense competition. Just because every other industrialised country is rushing off the cliff, it doesn't mean we should join them.
On the trans aspect of this it's a topic I don't like discussing online as there is so much hatred around and the complexities and nuances of gender identity too easily get lost in ignorance and raging venom. That's not avoidance: I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it.
All I want to say for now is that the right-wing here and in the US have weaponised culture wars and this 'anti-woke' agenda.
That's the biggest problem with Nicola. Not that she was wrong but that her timing was and in some ways that's even worse because it can damage a cause for years. Really astute politicians know when to make their move and when to bide their time.
Two or three years from now, whatever obfuscations are dribbling out of Sir Keir's mouth, the climate here in the UK will feel very different, as it did when Tony Blair's New Labour took over in 1997. The time to move forward with trans freedoms will come, regardless of whether the hateful oldies hate it, but that time is not yet.
Ideologues of all sorts often do this and Socialists are every bit as bad as the Right. They love to dictate and force their ideas on others because of course 'they know best'. Look at Sadiq with the Ulez.
We are on the same side in this debate, but your final paragraph about “Socialists” is well off the mark. This Scottish legislation has broad and deep support throughout all sections of civic Scotland and is not a “Socialist” micro-project. Actually, in the vanguard it is the Greens and Liberal Democrats who have consistently driven the issue for many years now. They were the engine.
Stuart , you are talking mince there, it does not have support throughout Scotland. It is supported by Sturgeon's bunch of nodding donkey's and the weirdo Greens and LD's. There are NO rights that Trans do not have and the end result will be detrimental to real trans people. A few trips to Scotland and talking to real people may help you with reality.
Why haven’t you mentioned SLab who were more supportive of the GRA bill than the SNP?
TUD they are just a bunch of nonentities, given the majority running SNP are just the failed previous Labour wannabes you could include them in my comment. We really are at an all time political low in Scotland, dross on all sides. Sturgeon and her lot have done for independence in the near term for sure and if Macbeth is anointed it will get even worse.
Truss going round complaining that her “mandate wasn’t respected” highlights that she still doesn’t understand that her problem was that she never had one; a vote of Tory members can never mandate dramatic changes to the policy platform on which they won the election.
Did Brown have a mandate?
Blair was clear at the 2005 election he wasn't going to run again and Brown was the obvious candidate to take over.
That’s irrelevant though. I don’t recall a manifesto with Blair for three years and then Brown for two. And frankly Blair was dragged kicking and screaming out of No 10. He only promised to go to keep Brown onside.
There was clear signposting during the campaign. Use your noggin.
The government is failing in one of its most basic functions. It's bad enough that only a tiny proportion of violent crimes, particularly rape, result in conviction, but even worse that, when they do, those found guilty are able to go on to commit further serious offences.
There is a completely unwarranted belief in the restorative powers of sex offending courses that men have to attend and "pass" in prison. Once they have done so the system seems reluctant to accept that they still a risk, not least because of the huge pressure on the system caused by long term residents.
The government appears to have barely noticed that there is a global race to dominate the green technologies of the future. In investment attracted, jobs created, income earned and lives bettered, the prizes for the winners will be huge. In prosperity foregone, the penalty for the laggards will be severe.
The United States is out of the blocks. The European Union is hurrying along the track. China is competing too. Here in dear old blighty, we are not even at the starting line.
Some of the blame belongs with Brexit, which has made the UK a less appealing destination for investment. Culpability also lies with the incessant instability since the referendum. We need a long-term plan to invest in the R&D, skills and infrastructure necessary for a green economy, but that’s not going to happen when you have a succession of short-term prime ministers too consumed by scandals and scrabbling for their survival to think about the future.
Being a serious competitor in this race will require an industrial strategy, a concept to which many Tories are ideologically allergic. Rishi Sunak has had nothing of substance to say about the green transition since he became prime minister.
The only future economy is a green economy. The coming decades will see one of the greatest industrial transformations in human history. The UK needs to be at the races, not fiddling with its laces while others speed away down the track leaving us for dust.
Rawnsley is good when it comes to understanding internal Labour Party machinations, but, like so many political commentators, useless on economics and finance. In fact, probably worse than useless - the way to get a good policy is to do the opposite of whatever he proposes at any given moment.
When everybody agrees, somebody is not thinking. If various other, much larger, blocs are charging, herd-like, to subsidise a technology, the sensible thing for us is to enjoy their heavily-subsidised goods (solar panels, wind turbines or whatever), rather than burning tens of billions to compete with them, which we'll probably lose anyway.
The same with the pointless race to build car batteries and semi-conductors. Very occasionally, with an incredible amount of luck, an industrial strategy can work. But they generally don't. So the four entirely predictable consequences of these races will be:
a) lots of politicians with photos of themselves next to cutting edge factories that become white elephants in a couple of years b) a glut of the good subsidised c) consumers of that good enjoying a boom d) billions or tens of billions of taxpayers' cash wasted
Because the private sector is generally better than government at allocating resources, the way to have a good industrial sector is the same as with any other sector apart from the government and its parasites like the legal industry: low taxes, light regulation, intense competition. Just because every other industrialised country is rushing off the cliff, it doesn't mean we should join them.
I believe the following in now true - every single big automaker in the world has stopped future development of mass market ICE?
Mr. B, old figures, but a few years ago I read that even 'successful' authors made an average of less than $10,000 a year. Essentially, very, very few can actually do it as a job, so people have to either have enough free time and money to do it as an entertaining hobby, be one of the tiny number who make enough to scratch a living, or not bother.
And the latter option removes an awful lot of people who might have interesting stories or useful things to say.
Yes, it's one of those careers, like music or professional sports, where most make next to nothing and a very few make gigantic fortunes, particularly from film rights, etc. (before they are cancelled for speaking out on trans issues).
It'll get worse as Gen Zs and younger read less and less.
It may remove an awful lot of people who have interesting stories, but it'll also get rid of rather more blowhards with nothing to say, who will have to retreat from bookstores to obscure political sites.
Mr. B, old figures, but a few years ago I read that even 'successful' authors made an average of less than $10,000 a year. Essentially, very, very few can actually do it as a job, so people have to either have enough free time and money to do it as an entertaining hobby, be one of the tiny number who make enough to scratch a living, or not bother.
And the latter option removes an awful lot of people who might have interesting stories or useful things to say.
Yes, it's one of those careers, like music or professional sports, where most make next to nothing and a very few make gigantic fortunes, particularly from film rights, etc. (before they are cancelled for speaking out on trans issues).
It'll get worse as Gen Zs and younger read less and less.
It may remove an awful lot of people who have interesting stories, but it'll also get rid of rather more blowhards with nothing to say, who will have to retreat from bookstores to obscure political sites.
*looks up from his poolside Margarita in Bangkok*
*waves Hello*
A rare example and well done to you, although you probably crave greater exposure than the Flint Knappers Gazette (est. 100,000 bce, nr Olduvai Gorge, current circulation 4). Perhaps aspire to greater things?
I am lucky, I know that. I’ve made it to my late 50s living the life of Riley, basically
There are no nicer places to be in January than Bangkok. Thank you God
But those publishing numbers out of the USA are scary. The situation is rather better in Europe - the Brits, Germans, Nordics, others, read a lot more than the Yanks. But the trend is still down. Add in the threat from AI and I wonder who if anyone will be making a living from writing in 10-20 years
On the trans aspect of this it's a topic I don't like discussing online as there is so much hatred around and the complexities and nuances of gender identity too easily get lost in ignorance and raging venom. That's not avoidance: I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it.
All I want to say for now is that the right-wing here and in the US have weaponised culture wars and this 'anti-woke' agenda.
That's the biggest problem with Nicola. Not that she was wrong but that her timing was and in some ways that's even worse because it can damage a cause for years. Really astute politicians know when to make their move and when to bide their time.
Two or three years from now, whatever obfuscations are dribbling out of Sir Keir's mouth, the climate here in the UK will feel very different, as it did when Tony Blair's New Labour took over in 1997. The time to move forward with trans freedoms will come, regardless of whether the hateful oldies hate it, but that time is not yet.
Ideologues of all sorts often do this and Socialists are every bit as bad as the Right. They love to dictate and force their ideas on others because of course 'they know best'. Look at Sadiq with the Ulez.
Bored of this
"I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it."
I bet you have not. £500, loser to pay Trussell Trust or red Cross Ukraine appeal, national press means proper ex Fleet Street titles, TV is BBC itv or c4, written excludes below the line, appeared excludes question from audience.
You cannot lose , that is a fantasist nutter there, the other week they could not boil a kettle as they were so poor.
I particularly enjoyed the fable of filling a thermos with the dregs of the boiled water from the kettle.
That was indeed the most wonderful lie ever to appear on PB. I respect the skilled sock puppeteer behind @Heathener
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
Morning Bev, Totally agree but given the outcomes immediately after they said the public were talking rubbish and there was no evidence of dangers, up popped the rapist who Sturgeon swore was a woman and had ordered SPS to put in a woman's prison. The public outcry rattled her so much she created a new gender. All it has done is caused a huge public uproar about trans and done them great harm longer term.
The government is failing in one of its most basic functions. It's bad enough that only a tiny proportion of violent crimes, particularly rape, result in conviction, but even worse that, when they do, those found guilty are able to go on to commit further serious offences.
There is a completely unwarranted belief in the restorative powers of sex offending courses that men have to attend and "pass" in prison. Once they have done so the system seems reluctant to accept that they still a risk, not least because of the huge pressure on the system caused by long term residents.
You cannot ‘cure’ pedophilia. No more than you can cure shortness
The only ‘solution’ is chemical castration and/or sentences so long they are a brutal deterrent and they keep the worst offenders inside until nature erodes the libido
On the trans aspect of this it's a topic I don't like discussing online as there is so much hatred around and the complexities and nuances of gender identity too easily get lost in ignorance and raging venom. That's not avoidance: I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it.
All I want to say for now is that the right-wing here and in the US have weaponised culture wars and this 'anti-woke' agenda.
That's the biggest problem with Nicola. Not that she was wrong but that her timing was and in some ways that's even worse because it can damage a cause for years. Really astute politicians know when to make their move and when to bide their time.
Two or three years from now, whatever obfuscations are dribbling out of Sir Keir's mouth, the climate here in the UK will feel very different, as it did when Tony Blair's New Labour took over in 1997. The time to move forward with trans freedoms will come, regardless of whether the hateful oldies hate it, but that time is not yet.
Ideologues of all sorts often do this and Socialists are every bit as bad as the Right. They love to dictate and force their ideas on others because of course 'they know best'. Look at Sadiq with the Ulez.
We are on the same side in this debate, but your final paragraph about “Socialists” is well off the mark. This Scottish legislation has broad and deep support throughout all sections of civic Scotland and is not a “Socialist” micro-project. Actually, in the vanguard it is the Greens and Liberal Democrats who have consistently driven the issue for many years now. They were the engine.
The cross party support for self-ID means it is unlikely to be repealed, though I do expect that we will get some safeguards via amendments and case law.
It hasn’t been passed, so it can’t be repealed.
The S.35 issues were largely around the safeguarding issues that self-ID creates.
The notion that “we can pass a bad law and let the courts sort out our mess” is an abdication of political responsibility.
This requires a lot more careful and deeper thinking than the TWAW and “No debate” crowd have put in so far.
And once the “affirmative care” (sic) lawsuits start coming…..
Although - to play devil's advocate here - that's been a long running problem in British politics. Look at Tony Blair's laws. Or Thatcher's, for the matter of that. Even before then, the Obscene Publications Act 1959 would stand as an example of a spectacularly badly written law that the courts had to sort out.
What's less usual is that here it's one Parliament blocking another, which I believe is a new departure.
I don't think it is. Central government often overrides local government in this country, for instance in planning inquiries, or the whole Government-GLC row in the 1980s. Those institutions may not have been pretentious enough to call themselves "Parliaments", but you still had an assertion of central government power over local elected officials and/or assemblies.
Of course there are differences, but we don't really understand federal government in this country (even in countries like America or Canada there are constant tensions) and Westminster/Whitehall never truly gives up control. The Scotland Act was written this way for this reason, and I'm surprised it's taken as long as it has for a Scottish Parliament law to be overturned.
On the trans aspect of this it's a topic I don't like discussing online as there is so much hatred around and the complexities and nuances of gender identity too easily get lost in ignorance and raging venom. That's not avoidance: I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it.
All I want to say for now is that the right-wing here and in the US have weaponised culture wars and this 'anti-woke' agenda.
That's the biggest problem with Nicola. Not that she was wrong but that her timing was and in some ways that's even worse because it can damage a cause for years. Really astute politicians know when to make their move and when to bide their time.
Two or three years from now, whatever obfuscations are dribbling out of Sir Keir's mouth, the climate here in the UK will feel very different, as it did when Tony Blair's New Labour took over in 1997. The time to move forward with trans freedoms will come, regardless of whether the hateful oldies hate it, but that time is not yet.
Ideologues of all sorts often do this and Socialists are every bit as bad as the Right. They love to dictate and force their ideas on others because of course 'they know best'. Look at Sadiq with the Ulez.
We are on the same side in this debate, but your final paragraph about “Socialists” is well off the mark. This Scottish legislation has broad and deep support throughout all sections of civic Scotland and is not a “Socialist” micro-project. Actually, in the vanguard it is the Greens and Liberal Democrats who have consistently driven the issue for many years now. They were the engine.
It does not have ‘broad and deep support.’ Opinion polls consistently show large majorities opposed to it.
I think it is fair to say that the Bill had broad support amongst the people who get elected to Holyrood, once again showing how little they have in common with the Scottish people they purport to represent.
I must say that I have been surprised that this has had such an impact. I was astonished and dismayed that the clear hand of the Scottish government in the Salmond prosecution did her so little damage, as did her plainly dishonest performances before the Committee at Holyrood, as did her policies of continuously locking us down more than England, causing even more economic damage. I had almost concluded that she was bullet proof but apparently not.
Yes, she survived all of that entirely unscathed. Then she chooses this hill to run up, against intense machine gun fire, like the Sons of Ulster at Thiepval Ridge
Pushed her luck once too often, she began to believe the hype that she was the messiah rather than the pariah.
On the trans aspect of this it's a topic I don't like discussing online as there is so much hatred around and the complexities and nuances of gender identity too easily get lost in ignorance and raging venom. That's not avoidance: I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it.
All I want to say for now is that the right-wing here and in the US have weaponised culture wars and this 'anti-woke' agenda.
That's the biggest problem with Nicola. Not that she was wrong but that her timing was and in some ways that's even worse because it can damage a cause for years. Really astute politicians know when to make their move and when to bide their time.
Two or three years from now, whatever obfuscations are dribbling out of Sir Keir's mouth, the climate here in the UK will feel very different, as it did when Tony Blair's New Labour took over in 1997. The time to move forward with trans freedoms will come, regardless of whether the hateful oldies hate it, but that time is not yet.
Ideologues of all sorts often do this and Socialists are every bit as bad as the Right. They love to dictate and force their ideas on others because of course 'they know best'. Look at Sadiq with the Ulez.
Bored of this
"I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it."
I bet you have not. £500, loser to pay Trussell Trust or red Cross Ukraine appeal, national press means proper ex Fleet Street titles, TV is BBC itv or c4, written excludes below the line, appeared excludes question from audience.
You cannot lose , that is a fantasist nutter there, the other week they could not boil a kettle as they were so poor.
I particularly enjoyed the fable of filling a thermos with the dregs of the boiled water from the kettle.
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
FWIW I agree but I think that there is a lot more fear and anger about this, particularly amongst women, than the actual risk warrants. I know a number of very politically correct women who are very unhappy about this. They are uncomfortable being opposed to the sort of things they have promoted and supported their entire adult lives but they are also angry that their own rights are being compromised.
Truss going round complaining that her “mandate wasn’t respected” highlights that she still doesn’t understand that her problem was that she never had one; a vote of Tory members can never mandate dramatic changes to the policy platform on which they won the election.
Did Brown have a mandate?
I think mandates are slippery things. On the one hand, Brown had been a key architect of the 2005 manifesto and was deeply involved in the Government beforehand. On the other hand, some of the stuff he did he probably didn't have a mandate for (I'm thinking changes to the top rate of income tax). By and large, I would argue, he did have a mandate.
Truss was a much more radical departure from platform on which her party was elected. She, like Brown (and May, and Boris, and Sunak) had the legal right to be Prime Minister but she certainly had less of a mandate than Brown. Arguably, Truss had a mandate from the Tory selectorate but not from the general public.
Brown had a mandate to form a government as he could command a majority in the house. As did Major, Johnson, Truss, Sunak etc etc. People like to use mandates and manifestos to bash their opponents, but are blind when their own ‘side’ ignores the manifesto, or launches entirely new policy ideas.
That's why I said they're slippery things.
You can have different mandates from different groups. I prefer to think of mandates as distinct from the legal and political power to launch new policy ideas outside of a manifesto. A Government that continually ignores the concept of a mandate when doing so may find themselves on the path to a very public electoral defeat if that policy is unpopular. If it is popular, then the electorate consent to it at a GE and you had a mandate for it.
The government appears to have barely noticed that there is a global race to dominate the green technologies of the future. In investment attracted, jobs created, income earned and lives bettered, the prizes for the winners will be huge. In prosperity foregone, the penalty for the laggards will be severe.
The United States is out of the blocks. The European Union is hurrying along the track. China is competing too. Here in dear old blighty, we are not even at the starting line.
Some of the blame belongs with Brexit, which has made the UK a less appealing destination for investment. Culpability also lies with the incessant instability since the referendum. We need a long-term plan to invest in the R&D, skills and infrastructure necessary for a green economy, but that’s not going to happen when you have a succession of short-term prime ministers too consumed by scandals and scrabbling for their survival to think about the future.
Being a serious competitor in this race will require an industrial strategy, a concept to which many Tories are ideologically allergic. Rishi Sunak has had nothing of substance to say about the green transition since he became prime minister.
The only future economy is a green economy. The coming decades will see one of the greatest industrial transformations in human history. The UK needs to be at the races, not fiddling with its laces while others speed away down the track leaving us for dust.
We have two problems: 1) The stupidity of the Tories. Their spiv owners make money from selling things off. They have no interest in long term and ensure the party is so anti an industrial strategy that we see any kind of investment as communism. 2) The absolutism of the fossil / green lobbies. We should both invest massively in green tech AND continue to exploit our north sea resources. The world continues to need things made from oil even as we wean ourselves off petrol.
Which is how we end up doing very little about green energy industrialisation, whilst one side wants to drill more oil to shut the green lobby hippy crap down and the other side thinks one more drop of oil is world death tomorrow.
By industrialisation I mean installing turbines *that we designed and made ourselves* rather than importing them.
Truss going round complaining that her “mandate wasn’t respected” highlights that she still doesn’t understand that her problem was that she never had one; a vote of Tory members can never mandate dramatic changes to the policy platform on which they won the election.
Did Brown have a mandate?
Blair was clear at the 2005 election he wasn't going to run again and Brown was the obvious candidate to take over.
That’s irrelevant though. I don’t recall a manifesto with Blair for three years and then Brown for two. And frankly Blair was dragged kicking and screaming out of No 10. He only promised to go to keep Brown onside.
There was clear signposting during the campaign. Use your noggin.
I don’t accept the narrative. Yes of course Brown was seen as the successor. Doesn’t make it any different to any other change of PM mid term.
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
FWIW I agree but I think that there is a lot more fear and anger about this, particularly amongst women, than the actual risk warrants. I know a number of very politically correct women who are very unhappy about this. They are uncomfortable being opposed to the sort of things they have promoted and supported their entire adult lives but they are also angry that their own rights are being compromised.
If Sturgeon's colossal unforced-error on this has made her personally less popular (and somewhat damaged the indy cause) then the question in the header can be addressed by asking: What will make a disenchanted ex-SNP voter change a Scottish man's, woman's, rapist's mind and "support" Sturgeon again
It is hard to see. Sturgeon cannot row back from her Woke position. She has already tried a bit of back-pedalling and it made everything worse. It made her look cranky and weird
So she is stuck with where she is. Her best bet is that it all blows over and people forget, but why should they? What has worked to her advantage before - the parochialism of Holyrood, the lack of MAJOR issues to focus on, so she can blat on about indy - now works against her. The focus will remain on Trans Rights in Scotland, in a way that isn't happening anywhere else in the world
I suspect she is permanently tarnished. Tho I readily confess I have predicted her demise several times in the past, and been proven quite wrong
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
FWIW I agree but I think that there is a lot more fear and anger about this, particularly amongst women, than the actual risk warrants. I know a number of very politically correct women who are very unhappy about this. They are uncomfortable being opposed to the sort of things they have promoted and supported their entire adult lives but they are also angry that their own rights are being compromised.
Agree David, she has stirred up a shitstorm for some unfathomable reason other than her own personal choices , though she may well have wanted the stushie with UK to hide her not having her guaranteed referendum this year as a side show. She is in big trouble for sure.
The government is failing in one of its most basic functions. It's bad enough that only a tiny proportion of violent crimes, particularly rape, result in conviction, but even worse that, when they do, those found guilty are able to go on to commit further serious offences.
There is a completely unwarranted belief in the restorative powers of sex offending courses that men have to attend and "pass" in prison. Once they have done so the system seems reluctant to accept that they still a risk, not least because of the huge pressure on the system caused by long term residents.
You cannot ‘cure’ pedophilia. No more than you can cure shortness
The only ‘solution’ is chemical castration and/or sentences so long they are a brutal deterrent and they keep the worst offenders inside until nature erodes the libido
But, but they are required to consider how their victims feel and empathise with them. How could it go wrong?
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
FWIW I agree but I think that there is a lot more fear and anger about this, particularly amongst women, than the actual risk warrants. I know a number of very politically correct women who are very unhappy about this. They are uncomfortable being opposed to the sort of things they have promoted and supported their entire adult lives but they are also angry that their own rights are being compromised.
Agree David, she has stirred up a shitstorm for some unfathomable reason other than her own personal choices , though she may well have wanted the stushie with UK to hide her not having her guaranteed referendum this year as a side show. She is in big trouble for sure.
Her position at the moment, re the offender, can be summarised as "it's not a man or a woman, it's a rapist"
Whatever side you are on in this depressing debate, that is a really really ugly statement. Dehumanising everyone and offending everyone. And it is Sturgeon's stated opinion: because she has snookered herself completely
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
FWIW I agree but I think that there is a lot more fear and anger about this, particularly amongst women, than the actual risk warrants. I know a number of very politically correct women who are very unhappy about this. They are uncomfortable being opposed to the sort of things they have promoted and supported their entire adult lives but they are also angry that their own rights are being compromised.
If Sturgeon's colossal unforced-error on this has made her personally less popular (and somewhat damaged the indy cause) then the question in the header can be addressed by asking: What will make a disenchanted ex-SNP voter change a Scottish man's, woman's, rapist's mind and "support" Sturgeon again
It is hard to see. Sturgeon cannot row back from her Woke position. She has already tried a bit of back-pedalling and it made everything worse. It made her look cranky and weird
So she is stuck with where she is. Her best bet is that it all blows over and people forget, but why should they? What has worked to her advantage before - the parochialism of Holyrood, the lack of MAJOR issues to focus on, so she can blat on about indy - now works against her. The focus will remain on Trans Rights in Scotland, in a way that isn't happening anywhere else in the world
I suspect she is permanently tarnished. Tho I readily confess I have predicted her demise several times in the past, and been proven quite wrong
The lack of any sane alternative to SNP is her lucky charm , most will hold their nose and stick with SNP. The London parties are truly rubbish and not interested in Scotland other than the gravy train and baubles.
Truss going round complaining that her “mandate wasn’t respected” highlights that she still doesn’t understand that her problem was that she never had one; a vote of Tory members can never mandate dramatic changes to the policy platform on which they won the election.
Did Brown have a mandate?
I think mandates are slippery things. On the one hand, Brown had been a key architect of the 2005 manifesto and was deeply involved in the Government beforehand. On the other hand, some of the stuff he did he probably didn't have a mandate for (I'm thinking changes to the top rate of income tax). By and large, I would argue, he did have a mandate.
Truss was a much more radical departure from platform on which her party was elected. She, like Brown (and May, and Boris, and Sunak) had the legal right to be Prime Minister but she certainly had less of a mandate than Brown. Arguably, Truss had a mandate from the Tory selectorate but not from the general public.
Brown had a mandate to form a government as he could command a majority in the house. As did Major, Johnson, Truss, Sunak etc etc. People like to use mandates and manifestos to bash their opponents, but are blind when their own ‘side’ ignores the manifesto, or launches entirely new policy ideas.
Any replacement PM doesn't start with the same mandate, and hence much less political capital, than an election winner. It was in large part Truss's failure to recognise that, which did for her - probably because she'd spent weeks out on the stump working as hard as she would in a proper election, which blinded her to the fact that she hadn't won any public endorsement and was second choice amongst those who had been elected.
On the trans aspect of this it's a topic I don't like discussing online as there is so much hatred around and the complexities and nuances of gender identity too easily get lost in ignorance and raging venom. That's not avoidance: I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it.
All I want to say for now is that the right-wing here and in the US have weaponised culture wars and this 'anti-woke' agenda.
That's the biggest problem with Nicola. Not that she was wrong but that her timing was and in some ways that's even worse because it can damage a cause for years. Really astute politicians know when to make their move and when to bide their time.
Two or three years from now, whatever obfuscations are dribbling out of Sir Keir's mouth, the climate here in the UK will feel very different, as it did when Tony Blair's New Labour took over in 1997. The time to move forward with trans freedoms will come, regardless of whether the hateful oldies hate it, but that time is not yet.
Ideologues of all sorts often do this and Socialists are every bit as bad as the Right. They love to dictate and force their ideas on others because of course 'they know best'. Look at Sadiq with the Ulez.
We are on the same side in this debate, but your final paragraph about “Socialists” is well off the mark. This Scottish legislation has broad and deep support throughout all sections of civic Scotland and is not a “Socialist” micro-project. Actually, in the vanguard it is the Greens and Liberal Democrats who have consistently driven the issue for many years now. They were the engine.
Stuart , you are talking mince there, it does not have support throughout Scotland. It is supported by Sturgeon's bunch of nodding donkey's and the weirdo Greens and LD's. There are NO rights that Trans do not have and the end result will be detrimental to real trans people. A few trips to Scotland and talking to real people may help you with reality.
Why haven’t you mentioned SLab who were more supportive of the GRA bill than the SNP?
TUD they are just a bunch of nonentities, given the majority running SNP are just the failed previous Labour wannabes you could include them in my comment. We really are at an all time political low in Scotland, dross on all sides. Sturgeon and her lot have done for independence in the near term for sure and if Macbeth is anointed it will get even worse.
Well, we may have differing views on the SNP but the essential conundrum remains, the alternatives for a governing party are terrible. I tend towards blip on the issue but the fact remains that the SNP remain the most GRA sceptic out of the 4 that backed the bill leaving the SCons as the anti GRA choice, and they are REALLY FUCKING TERRIBLE.
The question for the SNP is very simply this: will the supposed mass disgust over the GRR Bill make people who have endlessly voted SNP because independence now vote instead for parties against independence?
I say that because although there are two other parties who support independence - the Greens and Alba - they don't appear to be rational choices for most voters.
So the supposed furore over the GRR only makes a difference if people now turn away from "independence" being the answer to all questions and we can start addressing the actual issues in Scotland - education, jobs, drugs, investment etc. I don't think GRR is remotely as acute an issue as some of you think which will convert your committed secessionist towards voting for unionism.
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
FWIW I agree but I think that there is a lot more fear and anger about this, particularly amongst women, than the actual risk warrants. I know a number of very politically correct women who are very unhappy about this. They are uncomfortable being opposed to the sort of things they have promoted and supported their entire adult lives but they are also angry that their own rights are being compromised.
If Sturgeon's colossal unforced-error on this has made her personally less popular (and somewhat damaged the indy cause) then the question in the header can be addressed by asking: What will make a disenchanted ex-SNP voter change a Scottish man's, woman's, rapist's mind and "support" Sturgeon again
It is hard to see. Sturgeon cannot row back from her Woke position. She has already tried a bit of back-pedalling and it made everything worse. It made her look cranky and weird
So she is stuck with where she is. Her best bet is that it all blows over and people forget, but why should they? What has worked to her advantage before - the parochialism of Holyrood, the lack of MAJOR issues to focus on, so she can blat on about indy - now works against her. The focus will remain on Trans Rights in Scotland, in a way that isn't happening anywhere else in the world
I suspect she is permanently tarnished. Tho I readily confess I have predicted her demise several times in the past, and been proven quite wrong
BBC Scotland's "The Sunday Show" (follows the Kuenssberg show) studiously avoiding the issue.
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
FWIW I agree but I think that there is a lot more fear and anger about this, particularly amongst women, than the actual risk warrants. I know a number of very politically correct women who are very unhappy about this. They are uncomfortable being opposed to the sort of things they have promoted and supported their entire adult lives but they are also angry that their own rights are being compromised.
Agree David, she has stirred up a shitstorm for some unfathomable reason other than her own personal choices , though she may well have wanted the stushie with UK to hide her not having her guaranteed referendum this year as a side show. She is in big trouble for sure.
Her position at the moment, re the offender, can be summarised as "it's not a man or a woman, it's a rapist"
Whatever side you are on in this depressing debate, that is a really really ugly statement. Dehumanising everyone and offending everyone. And it is Sturgeon's stated opinion: because she has snookered herself completely
She also said that anyone not of her opinion was a bigot , racist and transphobic. Really is power crazed.
Mr. B2, I'd argue that Truss' main failure was that her 'plan' involved no OBR assessment, just cutting taxes and assuming wonderful things would ensue.
I'm on the right, politically and economically, but you can't just have no forecast. It's ridiculous.
And that was in the context of the high energy costs, which are disproportionately tough on the low paid, whereas tax cuts disproportionately help those earning more.
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
FWIW I agree but I think that there is a lot more fear and anger about this, particularly amongst women, than the actual risk warrants. I know a number of very politically correct women who are very unhappy about this. They are uncomfortable being opposed to the sort of things they have promoted and supported their entire adult lives but they are also angry that their own rights are being compromised.
If Sturgeon's colossal unforced-error on this has made her personally less popular (and somewhat damaged the indy cause) then the question in the header can be addressed by asking: What will make a disenchanted ex-SNP voter change a Scottish man's, woman's, rapist's mind and "support" Sturgeon again
It is hard to see. Sturgeon cannot row back from her Woke position. She has already tried a bit of back-pedalling and it made everything worse. It made her look cranky and weird
So she is stuck with where she is. Her best bet is that it all blows over and people forget, but why should they? What has worked to her advantage before - the parochialism of Holyrood, the lack of MAJOR issues to focus on, so she can blat on about indy - now works against her. The focus will remain on Trans Rights in Scotland, in a way that isn't happening anywhere else in the world
I suspect she is permanently tarnished. Tho I readily confess I have predicted her demise several times in the past, and been proven quite wrong
The lack of any sane alternative to SNP is her lucky charm , most will hold their nose and stick with SNP. The London parties are truly rubbish and not interested in Scotland other than the gravy train and baubles.
Yes, she has a rock solid floor of indy supporters. The SNP can only fall so far, then they hit that base
However the SNP does not have to fall very far at all to 1. lose the majority of votes in 2024 (her de facto referendum) and then 2. lose her overall majority in Holyrood. Holyrood is designed to produce coalitions
If and when that happens then indy is off the table for a decade or more, for sure, and then we might see a more seismic shift, as civic Nats split with fundamentalist indy-now Nats
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
FWIW I agree but I think that there is a lot more fear and anger about this, particularly amongst women, than the actual risk warrants. I know a number of very politically correct women who are very unhappy about this. They are uncomfortable being opposed to the sort of things they have promoted and supported their entire adult lives but they are also angry that their own rights are being compromised.
If Sturgeon's colossal unforced-error on this has made her personally less popular (and somewhat damaged the indy cause) then the question in the header can be addressed by asking: What will make a disenchanted ex-SNP voter change a Scottish man's, woman's, rapist's mind and "support" Sturgeon again
It is hard to see. Sturgeon cannot row back from her Woke position. She has already tried a bit of back-pedalling and it made everything worse. It made her look cranky and weird
So she is stuck with where she is. Her best bet is that it all blows over and people forget, but why should they? What has worked to her advantage before - the parochialism of Holyrood, the lack of MAJOR issues to focus on, so she can blat on about indy - now works against her. The focus will remain on Trans Rights in Scotland, in a way that isn't happening anywhere else in the world
I suspect she is permanently tarnished. Tho I readily confess I have predicted her demise several times in the past, and been proven quite wrong
The lack of any sane alternative to SNP is her lucky charm , most will hold their nose and stick with SNP. The London parties are truly rubbish and not interested in Scotland other than the gravy train and baubles.
I think that's the point I just made. Being fed up with nippie is not the same as suddenly deciding to vote for unionism. If only there was another independence party that people actually thought they could vote for. Salmond surely isn't so thick as to not recognise that he is totally toxic? What could Alba led by someone else do to the SNP?
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
FWIW I agree but I think that there is a lot more fear and anger about this, particularly amongst women, than the actual risk warrants. I know a number of very politically correct women who are very unhappy about this. They are uncomfortable being opposed to the sort of things they have promoted and supported their entire adult lives but they are also angry that their own rights are being compromised.
If Sturgeon's colossal unforced-error on this has made her personally less popular (and somewhat damaged the indy cause) then the question in the header can be addressed by asking: What will make a disenchanted ex-SNP voter change a Scottish man's, woman's, rapist's mind and "support" Sturgeon again
It is hard to see. Sturgeon cannot row back from her Woke position. She has already tried a bit of back-pedalling and it made everything worse. It made her look cranky and weird
So she is stuck with where she is. Her best bet is that it all blows over and people forget, but why should they? What has worked to her advantage before - the parochialism of Holyrood, the lack of MAJOR issues to focus on, so she can blat on about indy - now works against her. The focus will remain on Trans Rights in Scotland, in a way that isn't happening anywhere else in the world
I suspect she is permanently tarnished. Tho I readily confess I have predicted her demise several times in the past, and been proven quite wrong
I agree with @malcolmg on this. It is not the trans issue on its own, it is that combined with a lack of a clear way forward given the inevitable defeat in the Supreme Court for her referendum and the clear lack of enthusiasm for a "quasi referendum" at the next GE amongst her MPs at Westminster which undermined and removed her appointed nominee there. For the first time she looks a little lost and is allowing herself to be distracted from her main goal.
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
FWIW I agree but I think that there is a lot more fear and anger about this, particularly amongst women, than the actual risk warrants. I know a number of very politically correct women who are very unhappy about this. They are uncomfortable being opposed to the sort of things they have promoted and supported their entire adult lives but they are also angry that their own rights are being compromised.
Few things in life fall into nice cleanly delineated compartments. The odd thing is that no common sense is being applied here. AIUI the existing trans legislation has provisions in it for exceptions and exclusions.
Alternatively If prisoners want to identify as women to go to female jails, put them in a segregated unit and offer either full hormone therapy (which would likely be equivalent to chemical castration) or gender surgery after which they can join the general female population.
Make the offer before they transfer - give them choices so they cannot say it was forced on them. Stay where they are in male prison, solitary in a female prison, hormones or gender surgery.
I can't believe the brass neck of Liz Truss or the media appetite for her nonsense. She shouldn't be given airtime for anything but a grovelling apology.
On the trans aspect of this it's a topic I don't like discussing online as there is so much hatred around and the complexities and nuances of gender identity too easily get lost in ignorance and raging venom. That's not avoidance: I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it.
All I want to say for now is that the right-wing here and in the US have weaponised culture wars and this 'anti-woke' agenda.
That's the biggest problem with Nicola. Not that she was wrong but that her timing was and in some ways that's even worse because it can damage a cause for years. Really astute politicians know when to make their move and when to bide their time.
Two or three years from now, whatever obfuscations are dribbling out of Sir Keir's mouth, the climate here in the UK will feel very different, as it did when Tony Blair's New Labour took over in 1997. The time to move forward with trans freedoms will come, regardless of whether the hateful oldies hate it, but that time is not yet.
Ideologues of all sorts often do this and Socialists are every bit as bad as the Right. They love to dictate and force their ideas on others because of course 'they know best'. Look at Sadiq with the Ulez.
We are on the same side in this debate, but your final paragraph about “Socialists” is well off the mark. This Scottish legislation has broad and deep support throughout all sections of civic Scotland and is not a “Socialist” micro-project. Actually, in the vanguard it is the Greens and Liberal Democrats who have consistently driven the issue for many years now. They were the engine.
Stuart , you are talking mince there, it does not have support throughout Scotland. It is supported by Sturgeon's bunch of nodding donkey's and the weirdo Greens and LD's. There are NO rights that Trans do not have and the end result will be detrimental to real trans people. A few trips to Scotland and talking to real people may help you with reality.
Why haven’t you mentioned SLab who were more supportive of the GRA bill than the SNP?
TUD they are just a bunch of nonentities, given the majority running SNP are just the failed previous Labour wannabes you could include them in my comment. We really are at an all time political low in Scotland, dross on all sides. Sturgeon and her lot have done for independence in the near term for sure and if Macbeth is anointed it will get even worse.
Well, we may have differing views on the SNP but the essential conundrum remains, the alternatives for a governing party are terrible. I tend towards blip on the issue but the fact remains that the SNP remain the most GRA sceptic out of the 4 that backed the bill leaving the SCons as the anti GRA choice, and they are REALLY FUCKING TERRIBLE.
TUD , I agree we have little to no choice at present , unless SNP really try to get all independence voters on board rather than trying to feather their own nest it will stay that way. Sturgeon's vote SNP 1&2 at last election which allowed lots of extra unionist MSP's rather than other independence party MSP's was truly shocking.
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
FWIW I agree but I think that there is a lot more fear and anger about this, particularly amongst women, than the actual risk warrants. I know a number of very politically correct women who are very unhappy about this. They are uncomfortable being opposed to the sort of things they have promoted and supported their entire adult lives but they are also angry that their own rights are being compromised.
Agree David, she has stirred up a shitstorm for some unfathomable reason other than her own personal choices , though she may well have wanted the stushie with UK to hide her not having her guaranteed referendum this year as a side show. She is in big trouble for sure.
Her position at the moment, re the offender, can be summarised as "it's not a man or a woman, it's a rapist"
Whatever side you are on in this depressing debate, that is a really really ugly statement. Dehumanising everyone and offending everyone. And it is Sturgeon's stated opinion: because she has snookered herself completely
She also said that anyone not of her opinion was a bigot , racist and transphobic. Really is power crazed.
One of the most crass and appalling remarks made, in recent years, by any British political leader
Absolutely desperate. "Fuck I'm losing this argument, so I'll just say everyone else is RACIST"
It's 6th form level of invective. No, fuck, it's fourth form. Year 8. Kindergarten bollox
To my mind she is eyeing up the next prize. Her next job - a la Jacinda
The government is failing in one of its most basic functions. It's bad enough that only a tiny proportion of violent crimes, particularly rape, result in conviction, but even worse that, when they do, those found guilty are able to go on to commit further serious offences.
There is a completely unwarranted belief in the restorative powers of sex offending courses that men have to attend and "pass" in prison. Once they have done so the system seems reluctant to accept that they still a risk, not least because of the huge pressure on the system caused by long term residents.
These are of course conversion courses, soon to be illegal anyway.
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
FWIW I agree but I think that there is a lot more fear and anger about this, particularly amongst women, than the actual risk warrants. I know a number of very politically correct women who are very unhappy about this. They are uncomfortable being opposed to the sort of things they have promoted and supported their entire adult lives but they are also angry that their own rights are being compromised.
If Sturgeon's colossal unforced-error on this has made her personally less popular (and somewhat damaged the indy cause) then the question in the header can be addressed by asking: What will make a disenchanted ex-SNP voter change a Scottish man's, woman's, rapist's mind and "support" Sturgeon again
It is hard to see. Sturgeon cannot row back from her Woke position. She has already tried a bit of back-pedalling and it made everything worse. It made her look cranky and weird
So she is stuck with where she is. Her best bet is that it all blows over and people forget, but why should they? What has worked to her advantage before - the parochialism of Holyrood, the lack of MAJOR issues to focus on, so she can blat on about indy - now works against her. The focus will remain on Trans Rights in Scotland, in a way that isn't happening anywhere else in the world
I suspect she is permanently tarnished. Tho I readily confess I have predicted her demise several times in the past, and been proven quite wrong
The lack of any sane alternative to SNP is her lucky charm , most will hold their nose and stick with SNP. The London parties are truly rubbish and not interested in Scotland other than the gravy train and baubles.
I think that's the point I just made. Being fed up with nippie is not the same as suddenly deciding to vote for unionism. If only there was another independence party that people actually thought they could vote for. Salmond surely isn't so thick as to not recognise that he is totally toxic? What could Alba led by someone else do to the SNP?
Alba's lack of elected reps is their problem. Kenny M is just about viable but he sounds increasingly angry old man and Hanvey is a loon, they'll both be hoofed out next election. I can't even remember if they have any councillors. Cherry might do, but she still harbours ambitions to lead the SNP despite most of her colleagues finding her unlikeable.
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
FWIW I agree but I think that there is a lot more fear and anger about this, particularly amongst women, than the actual risk warrants. I know a number of very politically correct women who are very unhappy about this. They are uncomfortable being opposed to the sort of things they have promoted and supported their entire adult lives but they are also angry that their own rights are being compromised.
Few things in life fall into nice cleanly delineated compartments. The odd thing is that no common sense is being applied here. AIUI the existing trans legislation has provisions in it for exceptions and exclusions.
Alternatively If prisoners want to identify as women to go to female jails, put them in a segregated unit and offer either full hormone therapy (which would likely be equivalent to chemical castration) or gender surgery after which they can join the general female population.
Make the offer before they transfer - give them choices so they cannot say it was forced on them. Stay where they are in male prison, solitary in a female prison, hormones or gender surgery.
Of course
Yours is a totally sane and sensible argument which, I imagine, would get the full support of 80-90% of Brits. Because people really are NOT transphobic, misogynist (!!) racist bigots, despite what Nicola would have us believe
Yet Nicola has put herself on the side of the 10-20% fundamentalist self-ID activists. Mad
To be clear - am I to understand that the left wing economic establishment is everyone apart from Patrick Minford? Everyone who opposes unfunded tax cuts is now left wing?
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
FWIW I agree but I think that there is a lot more fear and anger about this, particularly amongst women, than the actual risk warrants. I know a number of very politically correct women who are very unhappy about this. They are uncomfortable being opposed to the sort of things they have promoted and supported their entire adult lives but they are also angry that their own rights are being compromised.
Few things in life fall into nice cleanly delineated compartments. The odd thing is that no common sense is being applied here. AIUI the existing trans legislation has provisions in it for exceptions and exclusions.
Alternatively If prisoners want to identify as women to go to female jails, put them in a segregated unit and offer either full hormone therapy (which would likely be equivalent to chemical castration) or gender surgery after which they can join the general female population.
Make the offer before they transfer - give them choices so they cannot say it was forced on them. Stay where they are in male prison, solitary in a female prison, hormones or gender surgery.
Of course
Yours is a totally sane and sensible argument which, I imagine, would get the full support of 80-90% of Brits. Because people really are NOT transphobic, misogynist (!!) racist bigots, despite what Nicola would have us believe
Yet Nicola has put herself on the side of the 10-20% fundamentalist self-ID activists. Mad
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
FWIW I agree but I think that there is a lot more fear and anger about this, particularly amongst women, than the actual risk warrants. I know a number of very politically correct women who are very unhappy about this. They are uncomfortable being opposed to the sort of things they have promoted and supported their entire adult lives but they are also angry that their own rights are being compromised.
If Sturgeon's colossal unforced-error on this has made her personally less popular (and somewhat damaged the indy cause) then the question in the header can be addressed by asking: What will make a disenchanted ex-SNP voter change a Scottish man's, woman's, rapist's mind and "support" Sturgeon again
It is hard to see. Sturgeon cannot row back from her Woke position. She has already tried a bit of back-pedalling and it made everything worse. It made her look cranky and weird
So she is stuck with where she is. Her best bet is that it all blows over and people forget, but why should they? What has worked to her advantage before - the parochialism of Holyrood, the lack of MAJOR issues to focus on, so she can blat on about indy - now works against her. The focus will remain on Trans Rights in Scotland, in a way that isn't happening anywhere else in the world
I suspect she is permanently tarnished. Tho I readily confess I have predicted her demise several times in the past, and been proven quite wrong
The lack of any sane alternative to SNP is her lucky charm , most will hold their nose and stick with SNP. The London parties are truly rubbish and not interested in Scotland other than the gravy train and baubles.
Yes, she has a rock solid floor of indy supporters. The SNP can only fall so far, then they hit that base
However the SNP does not have to fall very far at all to 1. lose the majority of votes in 2024 (her de facto referendum) and then 2. lose her overall majority in Holyrood. Holyrood is designed to produce coalitions
If and when that happens then indy is off the table for a decade or more, for sure, and then we might see a more seismic shift, as civic Nats split with fundamentalist indy-now Nats
I am of the opinion that we will not have any hope in next decade if she does not go soon. She and her acolytes do not really want independence as they know they would be out on their arses quickly given their pathetic record. They are only interested in saving their own places at the trough.
Truss going round complaining that her “mandate wasn’t respected” highlights that she still doesn’t understand that her problem was that she never had one; a vote of Tory members can never mandate dramatic changes to the policy platform on which they won the election.
Did Brown have a mandate?
The point is about a radical change in government policy without any public vote.
Partially but as has been argued on PB for ever, we do not have a presidential system. The PM is not directly voted for by the public. And it is arguable that governments are allowed to deviate from the manifesto, particularly when there are black swan events. Covid and the Ukraine war are two such events, and Truss’s change of tack was partly a response to that.
Didn’t the market crash after the KwasiTrussterfuck qualify as another black swan, particularly as the goons who initiated it definitely didn’t see it coming? Getting rid of them was a change of tack that was definitely a response to that.
Absolutely. I tire of people calling for a fresh mandate when this country changes PM mid parliament. If the PM chooses to seek such a mandate, then fine. But there is no requirement to do so.
It depends on what the incoming PM intends to do, if they are going to stick to the party mandate then there's no need. If they intend to rip up the existing electoral mandate and implement something totally different then they need to go to the people and win an election.
The government is failing in one of its most basic functions. It's bad enough that only a tiny proportion of violent crimes, particularly rape, result in conviction, but even worse that, when they do, those found guilty are able to go on to commit further serious offences.
There is a completely unwarranted belief in the restorative powers of sex offending courses that men have to attend and "pass" in prison. Once they have done so the system seems reluctant to accept that they still a risk, not least because of the huge pressure on the system caused by long term residents.
There is too the privatised probation system (is it the same in Scotland?) that incentives reducing convicts risk in order to keep them in the profit making bit of the system.
We do seem to have an odd sense of priorities in obsessing over Transfolk while permitting known sex offenders release with inadequate supervision. Which is the bigger threat?
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
FWIW I agree but I think that there is a lot more fear and anger about this, particularly amongst women, than the actual risk warrants. I know a number of very politically correct women who are very unhappy about this. They are uncomfortable being opposed to the sort of things they have promoted and supported their entire adult lives but they are also angry that their own rights are being compromised.
Few things in life fall into nice cleanly delineated compartments. The odd thing is that no common sense is being applied here. AIUI the existing trans legislation has provisions in it for exceptions and exclusions.
Alternatively If prisoners want to identify as women to go to female jails, put them in a segregated unit and offer either full hormone therapy (which would likely be equivalent to chemical castration) or gender surgery after which they can join the general female population.
Make the offer before they transfer - give them choices so they cannot say it was forced on them. Stay where they are in male prison, solitary in a female prison, hormones or gender surgery.
That is exactly what the choice should be , full transition operation before transfer, and you can guarantee there will be no takers.
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
FWIW I agree but I think that there is a lot more fear and anger about this, particularly amongst women, than the actual risk warrants. I know a number of very politically correct women who are very unhappy about this. They are uncomfortable being opposed to the sort of things they have promoted and supported their entire adult lives but they are also angry that their own rights are being compromised.
Few things in life fall into nice cleanly delineated compartments. The odd thing is that no common sense is being applied here. AIUI the existing trans legislation has provisions in it for exceptions and exclusions.
Alternatively If prisoners want to identify as women to go to female jails, put them in a segregated unit and offer either full hormone therapy (which would likely be equivalent to chemical castration) or gender surgery after which they can join the general female population.
Make the offer before they transfer - give them choices so they cannot say it was forced on them. Stay where they are in male prison, solitary in a female prison, hormones or gender surgery.
Of course
Yours is a totally sane and sensible argument which, I imagine, would get the full support of 80-90% of Brits. Because people really are NOT transphobic, misogynist (!!) racist bigots, despite what Nicola would have us believe
Yet Nicola has put herself on the side of the 10-20% fundamentalist self-ID activists. Mad
Just goes to show the extreme insanity of the Trans debate, that it can unify you and me on the majority "sensible" side
Don't let biologically male prisoners with functioning sex organs have access to women in jail, because they will quite likely try and rape them. I mean, how difficult IS that?
So its a question as to whether the SNP's latest issue is enough to push committed pro-independence voters back into voting unionist. And I'm not at all convinced.
Had Scotland actually have achieved independence I would have expected the SNP to collapse into factions almost immediately. Its a grand coalition of policy positions which unite simply around "if we were in charge of our own destiny".
So even if we accept the argument being made that this is a Massive Issue in Scotland that is The Political Issue (and I don't), isn't a government passing laws that aren't brilliant what being independent is supposed to be about? A 'GRR may be shite but its our shite' position that doesn't negate the argument for independence one little bit.
Ultimately, would people rather have shite laws passed in Scotland by people at least claiming (however misguided) to be trying to progress Scotland, as opposed to laws passed in England which sneeringly dismiss the views of Scotland as barely being worth considering?
I just don't see how the GRR is the SNP Poll Tax. And even if it was, having changed leader did not the Tories win the election that followed? I'd be delighted to see the SNP cut down to size, but it isn't in the process of happening...
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
FWIW I agree but I think that there is a lot more fear and anger about this, particularly amongst women, than the actual risk warrants. I know a number of very politically correct women who are very unhappy about this. They are uncomfortable being opposed to the sort of things they have promoted and supported their entire adult lives but they are also angry that their own rights are being compromised.
Agree David, she has stirred up a shitstorm for some unfathomable reason other than her own personal choices , though she may well have wanted the stushie with UK to hide her not having her guaranteed referendum this year as a side show. She is in big trouble for sure.
Her position at the moment, re the offender, can be summarised as "it's not a man or a woman, it's a rapist"
Whatever side you are on in this depressing debate, that is a really really ugly statement. Dehumanising everyone and offending everyone. And it is Sturgeon's stated opinion: because she has snookered herself completely
She also said that anyone not of her opinion was a bigot , racist and transphobic. Really is power crazed.
One of the most crass and appalling remarks made, in recent years, by any British political leader
Absolutely desperate. "Fuck I'm losing this argument, so I'll just say everyone else is RACIST"
It's 6th form level of invective. No, fuck, it's fourth form. Year 8. Kindergarten bollox
To my mind she is eyeing up the next prize. Her next job - a la Jacinda
Her options there are somewhat limited. She might have got a UN style job, although it is very difficult to get these without support from your own UK government, but the "that woman from the UN" comment and others has burnt her bridges there. She might have sought a job in the EU but...Brexit.
Her most enthusiastic supporters would not suggest she has any great wit, so the dinner/lecture round is a bit of a stretch. She is too polarising for something in the media. Possibly some international charity a la David Miliband but how many of those jobs are there?
She is still a formidable political operator and remains more popular than the alternatives in Scotland. She may feel she has little option but to soldier on but it is getting harder.
On the trans aspect of this it's a topic I don't like discussing online as there is so much hatred around and the complexities and nuances of gender identity too easily get lost in ignorance and raging venom. That's not avoidance: I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it.
All I want to say for now is that the right-wing here and in the US have weaponised culture wars and this 'anti-woke' agenda.
That's the biggest problem with Nicola. Not that she was wrong but that her timing was and in some ways that's even worse because it can damage a cause for years. Really astute politicians know when to make their move and when to bide their time.
Two or three years from now, whatever obfuscations are dribbling out of Sir Keir's mouth, the climate here in the UK will feel very different, as it did when Tony Blair's New Labour took over in 1997. The time to move forward with trans freedoms will come, regardless of whether the hateful oldies hate it, but that time is not yet.
Ideologues of all sorts often do this and Socialists are every bit as bad as the Right. They love to dictate and force their ideas on others because of course 'they know best'. Look at Sadiq with the Ulez.
Bored of this
"I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it."
I bet you have not. £500, loser to pay Trussell Trust or red Cross Ukraine appeal, national press means proper ex Fleet Street titles, TV is BBC itv or c4, written excludes below the line, appeared excludes question from audience.
You cannot lose , that is a fantasist nutter there, the other week they could not boil a kettle as they were so poor.
I particularly enjoyed the fable of filling a thermos with the dregs of the boiled water from the kettle.
Someone at one of my former workplaces used to boil the kettle and fill a Thermos each evening before going home.
People have also been told off for using the office milk for their breakfast cereal rather than just for hot drinks.
I can't believe the brass neck of Liz Truss or the media appetite for her nonsense. She shouldn't be given airtime for anything but a grovelling apology.
I always had her tagged as utterly self-absorbed and desiring power for the purposes of adoration. I regard her as nothing more than a glory-hound.
But this new crusade is jaw-droppingly unbelievable and the fact that she is even considering it is an example of why she is so utterly unsuited to be in govt.
OTOH, she might be perfect to be LOTO. She can spend years spouting her right-wing libertarian drivel without being able to achieve anything whilst the Tories clean their political Augean stables. Hopefully she will be running the 3rd or 4th largest party and a lot of the nutjobs will be ejected by the voters.
The government is failing in one of its most basic functions. It's bad enough that only a tiny proportion of violent crimes, particularly rape, result in conviction, but even worse that, when they do, those found guilty are able to go on to commit further serious offences.
There is a completely unwarranted belief in the restorative powers of sex offending courses that men have to attend and "pass" in prison. Once they have done so the system seems reluctant to accept that they still a risk, not least because of the huge pressure on the system caused by long term residents.
There is too the privatised probation system (is it the same in Scotland?) that incentives reducing convicts risk in order to keep them in the profit making bit of the system.
We do seem to have an odd sense of priorities in obsessing over Transfolk while permitting known sex offenders release with inadequate supervision. Which is the bigger threat?
Bit of a Krays thing - You knew where you are with them old fashioned sex offenders, ok, they're nasty but them blokes in dresses, who knows what they might get up to!!
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
FWIW I agree but I think that there is a lot more fear and anger about this, particularly amongst women, than the actual risk warrants. I know a number of very politically correct women who are very unhappy about this. They are uncomfortable being opposed to the sort of things they have promoted and supported their entire adult lives but they are also angry that their own rights are being compromised.
If Sturgeon's colossal unforced-error on this has made her personally less popular (and somewhat damaged the indy cause) then the question in the header can be addressed by asking: What will make a disenchanted ex-SNP voter change a Scottish man's, woman's, rapist's mind and "support" Sturgeon again
It is hard to see. Sturgeon cannot row back from her Woke position. She has already tried a bit of back-pedalling and it made everything worse. It made her look cranky and weird
So she is stuck with where she is. Her best bet is that it all blows over and people forget, but why should they? What has worked to her advantage before - the parochialism of Holyrood, the lack of MAJOR issues to focus on, so she can blat on about indy - now works against her. The focus will remain on Trans Rights in Scotland, in a way that isn't happening anywhere else in the world
I suspect she is permanently tarnished. Tho I readily confess I have predicted her demise several times in the past, and been proven quite wrong
I agree with @malcolmg on this. It is not the trans issue on its own, it is that combined with a lack of a clear way forward given the inevitable defeat in the Supreme Court for her referendum and the clear lack of enthusiasm for a "quasi referendum" at the next GE amongst her MPs at Westminster which undermined and removed her appointed nominee there. For the first time she looks a little lost and is allowing herself to be distracted from her main goal.
David , any idea why are we 18 months into investigation of the stolen £600K and yet it seems to have hardly made any progress. Hard to believe it took police that long to find what everyone knew , ie it was missing. Assume her chums will delay it even longer now it has been passed by police to CPS.
Mr. B, old figures, but a few years ago I read that even 'successful' authors made an average of less than $10,000 a year. Essentially, very, very few can actually do it as a job, so people have to either have enough free time and money to do it as an entertaining hobby, be one of the tiny number who make enough to scratch a living, or not bother.
And the latter option removes an awful lot of people who might have interesting stories or useful things to say.
Yes, it's one of those careers, like music or professional sports, where most make next to nothing and a very few make gigantic fortunes, particularly from film rights, etc. (before they are cancelled for speaking out on trans issues).
It'll get worse as Gen Zs and younger read less and less.
It may remove an awful lot of people who have interesting stories, but it'll also get rid of rather more blowhards with nothing to say, who will have to retreat from bookstores to obscure political sites.
Have a friend who wrote Warhammer fantasy fiction about 15 years ago. He did say the income was pitiful, though he was occassionally surprised by an unexpected royalties cheque that turned up. Clearly not going to be his full time job. He went through a series of different jobs for many years afterwards (including chef) before finally settling on law and became a solicitor.
The government is failing in one of its most basic functions. It's bad enough that only a tiny proportion of violent crimes, particularly rape, result in conviction, but even worse that, when they do, those found guilty are able to go on to commit further serious offences.
There is a completely unwarranted belief in the restorative powers of sex offending courses that men have to attend and "pass" in prison. Once they have done so the system seems reluctant to accept that they still a risk, not least because of the huge pressure on the system caused by long term residents.
There is too the privatised probation system (is it the same in Scotland?) that incentives reducing convicts risk in order to keep them in the profit making bit of the system.
We do seem to have an odd sense of priorities in obsessing over Transfolk while permitting known sex offenders release with inadequate supervision. Which is the bigger threat?
There is no question which is the bigger threat. The problem is the improper use of the class of trans folk by sex offenders Venn diagram style to obtain access to a further class of victims.
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
FWIW I agree but I think that there is a lot more fear and anger about this, particularly amongst women, than the actual risk warrants. I know a number of very politically correct women who are very unhappy about this. They are uncomfortable being opposed to the sort of things they have promoted and supported their entire adult lives but they are also angry that their own rights are being compromised.
Few things in life fall into nice cleanly delineated compartments. The odd thing is that no common sense is being applied here. AIUI the existing trans legislation has provisions in it for exceptions and exclusions.
Alternatively If prisoners want to identify as women to go to female jails, put them in a segregated unit and offer either full hormone therapy (which would likely be equivalent to chemical castration) or gender surgery after which they can join the general female population.
Make the offer before they transfer - give them choices so they cannot say it was forced on them. Stay where they are in male prison, solitary in a female prison, hormones or gender surgery.
Unlike ordinary, decent criminals such as burglars, drug dealers or speeding motorists, sex offenders are required to sign a Register, often forever. This implicitly recognises the notion that they are subject to deep-rooted urges over which they have insufficient control and for which old age is only a partial remedy. With a well-established legal principle that such offenders be treated differently from everyone else, why should this not extend to gender recognition? Any transgender person who is not a convicted felon would surely welcome this because it quite rightly separates the issue of gender recognition from the issue of violent criminality.
Isn't Sturgeon's fervour for the gender matter just because it's another wedge between Scotland and the UK, trying to make it Us versus Them?
Given her predelections it is personal rather than UK, other than it does help make UK the fall guy for her pathetic Bill.
Good morning Malcolm.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
FWIW I agree but I think that there is a lot more fear and anger about this, particularly amongst women, than the actual risk warrants. I know a number of very politically correct women who are very unhappy about this. They are uncomfortable being opposed to the sort of things they have promoted and supported their entire adult lives but they are also angry that their own rights are being compromised.
If Sturgeon's colossal unforced-error on this has made her personally less popular (and somewhat damaged the indy cause) then the question in the header can be addressed by asking: What will make a disenchanted ex-SNP voter change a Scottish man's, woman's, rapist's mind and "support" Sturgeon again
It is hard to see. Sturgeon cannot row back from her Woke position. She has already tried a bit of back-pedalling and it made everything worse. It made her look cranky and weird
So she is stuck with where she is. Her best bet is that it all blows over and people forget, but why should they? What has worked to her advantage before - the parochialism of Holyrood, the lack of MAJOR issues to focus on, so she can blat on about indy - now works against her. The focus will remain on Trans Rights in Scotland, in a way that isn't happening anywhere else in the world
I suspect she is permanently tarnished. Tho I readily confess I have predicted her demise several times in the past, and been proven quite wrong
The lack of any sane alternative to SNP is her lucky charm , most will hold their nose and stick with SNP. The London parties are truly rubbish and not interested in Scotland other than the gravy train and baubles.
I think that's the point I just made. Being fed up with nippie is not the same as suddenly deciding to vote for unionism. If only there was another independence party that people actually thought they could vote for. Salmond surely isn't so thick as to not recognise that he is totally toxic? What could Alba led by someone else do to the SNP?
Alba's lack of elected reps is their problem. Kenny M is just about viable but he sounds increasingly angry old man and Hanvey is a loon, they'll both be hoofed out next election. I can't even remember if they have any councillors. Cherry might do, but she still harbours ambitions to lead the SNP despite most of her colleagues finding her unlikeable.
Big issue is the lack of MSP's with the backbone to challenge the clique, Cherry included. Given SNP are now skint , have lost shedloads of members, etc. Their only hope of funding Murrel and other parasite's huge wages depends on Westminster short money. If they take a drop in that money they are in trouble.
So its a question as to whether the SNP's latest issue is enough to push committed pro-independence voters back into voting unionist. And I'm not at all convinced.
Had Scotland actually have achieved independence I would have expected the SNP to collapse into factions almost immediately. Its a grand coalition of policy positions which unite simply around "if we were in charge of our own destiny".
So even if we accept the argument being made that this is a Massive Issue in Scotland that is The Political Issue (and I don't), isn't a government passing laws that aren't brilliant what being independent is supposed to be about? A 'GRR may be shite but its our shite' position that doesn't negate the argument for independence one little bit.
Ultimately, would people rather have shite laws passed in Scotland by people at least claiming (however misguided) to be trying to progress Scotland, as opposed to laws passed in England which sneeringly dismiss the views of Scotland as barely being worth considering?
I just don't see how the GRR is the SNP Poll Tax. And even if it was, having changed leader did not the Tories win the election that followed? I'd be delighted to see the SNP cut down to size, but it isn't in the process of happening...
You can't compare it to the Tories and the poll tax because the SNP, Sturgeon, Indy and Scotland are entirely sui generis
A better analogy would be to see the SNP as a much loved old sitcom about a quirky family of Cumbrian doctors, with a loyal following, and a beloved leading actress who carries the show. The sitcom has plenty more years to come - seasons commissioned - then suddenly the producers introduce a new character, a ten-foot-tall robot who talks incessantly about malfunctioning toilets, in a decidedly unfunny way, and this robot marries the leading actress in season 7
Lots of loyal viewers will stick with the show, because they love it, but quite a few viewers will think Eww, this character is weird, why am I watching this? Many will be unhappily distracted by the Talking Toilet Robot. Yet the scriptwriters will insist he stays in, because
The government appears to have barely noticed that there is a global race to dominate the green technologies of the future. In investment attracted, jobs created, income earned and lives bettered, the prizes for the winners will be huge. In prosperity foregone, the penalty for the laggards will be severe.
The United States is out of the blocks. The European Union is hurrying along the track. China is competing too. Here in dear old blighty, we are not even at the starting line.
Some of the blame belongs with Brexit, which has made the UK a less appealing destination for investment. Culpability also lies with the incessant instability since the referendum. We need a long-term plan to invest in the R&D, skills and infrastructure necessary for a green economy, but that’s not going to happen when you have a succession of short-term prime ministers too consumed by scandals and scrabbling for their survival to think about the future.
Being a serious competitor in this race will require an industrial strategy, a concept to which many Tories are ideologically allergic. Rishi Sunak has had nothing of substance to say about the green transition since he became prime minister.
The only future economy is a green economy. The coming decades will see one of the greatest industrial transformations in human history. The UK needs to be at the races, not fiddling with its laces while others speed away down the track leaving us for dust.
Rawnsley is good when it comes to understanding internal Labour Party machinations, but, like so many political commentators, useless on economics and finance. In fact, probably worse than useless - the way to get a good policy is to do the opposite of whatever he proposes at any given moment.
When everybody agrees, somebody is not thinking. If various other, much larger, blocs are charging, herd-like, to subsidise a technology, the sensible thing for us is to enjoy their heavily-subsidised goods (solar panels, wind turbines or whatever), rather than burning tens of billions to compete with them, which we'll probably lose anyway.
The same with the pointless race to build car batteries and semi-conductors. Very occasionally, with an incredible amount of luck, an industrial strategy can work. But they generally don't. So the four entirely predictable consequences of these races will be:
a) lots of politicians with photos of themselves next to cutting edge factories that become white elephants in a couple of years b) a glut of the good subsidised c) consumers of that good enjoying a boom d) billions or tens of billions of taxpayers' cash wasted
Because the private sector is generally better than government at allocating resources, the way to have a good industrial sector is the same as with any other sector apart from the government and its parasites like the legal industry: low taxes, light regulation, intense competition. Just because every other industrialised country is rushing off the cliff, it doesn't mean we should join them.
You do have to buy from others though. And you can't do that if you have nothing they or their other trading partners want. Plenty of now successful industrial countries heavily supported their industry to our detriment.
Considering green energy is the future it may be better to have a relatively independent way of producing the stuff and not fall into the resource trap of lots of wind but only exploited by external industry.
The government is failing in one of its most basic functions. It's bad enough that only a tiny proportion of violent crimes, particularly rape, result in conviction, but even worse that, when they do, those found guilty are able to go on to commit further serious offences.
There is a completely unwarranted belief in the restorative powers of sex offending courses that men have to attend and "pass" in prison. Once they have done so the system seems reluctant to accept that they still a risk, not least because of the huge pressure on the system caused by long term residents.
You cannot ‘cure’ pedophilia. No more than you can cure shortness
The only ‘solution’ is chemical castration and/or sentences so long they are a brutal deterrent and they keep the worst offenders inside until nature erodes the libido
IIRC the chemical thing actually led, in at least one instance, to a brutal and horrific murder committed by the subject. Frustration boiling over etc.
Comments
The whole point of self-ID is that someone determines for themselves their legal gender.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/30/britons-dont-tend-support-death-penalty-until-you-
Only 40% now support capital punishment for all murderers but 58% of Conservative voters still do
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2011/10/07/should-schoolchildren-be-caned
"I've written about this in the national press and appeared on tv discussing it."
I bet you have not. £500, loser to pay Trussell Trust or red Cross Ukraine appeal, national press means proper ex Fleet Street titles, TV is BBC itv or c4, written excludes below the line, appeared excludes question from audience.
And it is arguable that governments are allowed to deviate from the manifesto, particularly when there are black swan events. Covid and the Ukraine war are two such events, and Truss’s change of tack was partly a response to that.
This is because of a series of stupid legal changes made prosecuting people for treason virtually impossible. Because loyalty to a state is so old fashioned, boring etc
Then it was discovered that there were a nice vein of people in the country who would not merely cheer another cricket team, but would cheer when bombs blew up pop concerts and buses.
And join terrorist organisation dedicated to such, overseas.
Various hacks were tried - we ended up with a form of detention without trial and tearing up passports.
What about an actual solution? A treason law that says that treason is giving aid to
1) countries at war with the U.K.
2) aid or membership of a list of organisations. Said list to voted on, regularly, in parliament. Parliament gets ultimate say who or what is on the list.
Penalty is up to life.
I must say that I have been surprised that this has had such an impact. I was astonished and dismayed that the clear hand of the Scottish government in the Salmond prosecution did her so little damage, as did her plainly dishonest performances before the Committee at Holyrood, as did her policies of continuously locking us down more than England, causing even more economic damage. I had almost concluded that she was bullet proof but apparently not.
Truss was a much more radical departure from platform on which her party was elected. She, like Brown (and May, and Boris, and Sunak) had the legal right to be Prime Minister but she certainly had less of a mandate than Brown. Arguably, Truss had a mandate from the Tory selectorate but not from the general public.
I tire of people calling for a fresh mandate when this country changes PM mid parliament. If the PM chooses to seek such a mandate, then fine. But there is no requirement to do so.
The problem is that if, as often posited on PB, the public does not overly care about trans issues, then it must be true that the voting public will not care about this trans bill falling. So as a wedge issue it is a poor one to pick. temporary blip stuff.
Temperatures falling and wages falling are way higher up most people's lists.
Would be far better to be independent and be able to throw a crap Scottish government out.
Truss' problem was not she never won a general election but even most of her party's MPs didn't vote for her to become PM
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/05/what-will-it-take-to-stop-the-and-of-women-by-men-on-probation
*waves Hello*
People like to use mandates and manifestos to bash their opponents, but are blind when their own ‘side’ ignores the manifesto, or launches entirely new policy ideas.
After all, were we not told that no one ranked the EU as a priority, based on such rankings? As in no one cared if we are in or out?
Of course, that is different from a mandate from the electorate. If you come in midterm, with a mandate from your party and MPs, but you do stuff that the public doesn't like (and therefore you don't have a mandate for), you'll find yourself out on your ear.
When everybody agrees, somebody is not thinking. If various other, much larger, blocs are charging, herd-like, to subsidise a technology, the sensible thing for us is to enjoy their heavily-subsidised goods (solar panels, wind turbines or whatever), rather than burning tens of billions to compete with them, which we'll probably lose anyway.
The same with the pointless race to build car batteries and semi-conductors.
Very occasionally, with an incredible amount of luck, an industrial strategy can work. But they generally don't. So the four entirely predictable consequences of these races will be:
a) lots of politicians with photos of themselves next to cutting edge factories that become white elephants in a couple of years
b) a glut of the good subsidised
c) consumers of that good enjoying a boom
d) billions or tens of billions of taxpayers' cash wasted
Because the private sector is generally better than government at allocating resources, the way to have a good industrial sector is the same as with any other sector apart from the government and its parasites like the legal industry: low taxes, light regulation, intense competition. Just because every other industrialised country is rushing off the cliff, it doesn't mean we should join them.
We really are at an all time political low in Scotland, dross on all sides. Sturgeon and her lot have done for independence in the near term for sure and if Macbeth is anointed it will get even worse.
Anyone have knowledge to the contrary?
There are no nicer places to be in January than Bangkok. Thank you God
But those publishing numbers out of the USA are scary. The situation is rather better in Europe - the Brits, Germans, Nordics, others, read a lot more than the Yanks. But the trend is still down. Add in the threat from AI and I wonder who if anyone will be making a living from writing in 10-20 years
Oh well. Time for another gin
All it has done is caused a huge public uproar about trans and done them great harm longer term.
The only ‘solution’ is chemical castration and/or sentences so long they are a brutal deterrent and they keep the worst offenders inside until nature erodes the libido
Of course there are differences, but we don't really understand federal government in this country (even in countries like America or Canada there are constant tensions) and Westminster/Whitehall never truly gives up control. The Scotland Act was written this way for this reason, and I'm surprised it's taken as long as it has for a Scottish Parliament law to be overturned.
You can have different mandates from different groups. I prefer to think of mandates as distinct from the legal and political power to launch new policy ideas outside of a manifesto. A Government that continually ignores the concept of a mandate when doing so may find themselves on the path to a very public electoral defeat if that policy is unpopular. If it is popular, then the electorate consent to it at a GE and you had a mandate for it.
1) The stupidity of the Tories. Their spiv owners make money from selling things off. They have no interest in long term and ensure the party is so anti an industrial strategy that we see any kind of investment as communism.
2) The absolutism of the fossil / green lobbies. We should both invest massively in green tech AND continue to exploit our north sea resources. The world continues to need things made from oil even as we wean ourselves off petrol.
Which is how we end up doing very little about green energy industrialisation, whilst one side wants to drill more oil to shut the green lobby hippy crap down and the other side thinks one more drop of oil is world death tomorrow.
By industrialisation I mean installing turbines *that we designed and made ourselves* rather than importing them.
It is hard to see. Sturgeon cannot row back from her Woke position. She has already tried a bit of back-pedalling and it made everything worse. It made her look cranky and weird
So she is stuck with where she is. Her best bet is that it all blows over and people forget, but why should they? What has worked to her advantage before - the parochialism of Holyrood, the lack of MAJOR issues to focus on, so she can blat on about indy - now works against her. The focus will remain on Trans Rights in Scotland, in a way that isn't happening anywhere else in the world
I suspect she is permanently tarnished. Tho I readily confess I have predicted her demise several times in the past, and been proven quite wrong
She is in big trouble for sure.
Whatever side you are on in this depressing debate, that is a really really ugly statement. Dehumanising everyone and offending everyone. And it is Sturgeon's stated opinion: because she has snookered herself completely
I say that because although there are two other parties who support independence - the Greens and Alba - they don't appear to be rational choices for most voters.
So the supposed furore over the GRR only makes a difference if people now turn away from "independence" being the answer to all questions and we can start addressing the actual issues in Scotland - education, jobs, drugs, investment etc. I don't think GRR is remotely as acute an issue as some of you think which will convert your committed secessionist towards voting for unionism.
I'm on the right, politically and economically, but you can't just have no forecast. It's ridiculous.
And that was in the context of the high energy costs, which are disproportionately tough on the low paid, whereas tax cuts disproportionately help those earning more.
However the SNP does not have to fall very far at all to 1. lose the majority of votes in 2024 (her de facto referendum) and then 2. lose her overall majority in Holyrood. Holyrood is designed to produce coalitions
If and when that happens then indy is off the table for a decade or more, for sure, and then we might see a more seismic shift, as civic Nats split with fundamentalist indy-now Nats
Alternatively If prisoners want to identify as women to go to female jails, put them in a segregated unit and offer either full hormone therapy (which would likely be equivalent to chemical castration) or gender surgery after which they can join the general female population.
Make the offer before they transfer - give them choices so they cannot say it was forced on them. Stay where they are in male prison, solitary in a female prison, hormones or gender surgery.
Absolutely desperate. "Fuck I'm losing this argument, so I'll just say everyone else is RACIST"
It's 6th form level of invective. No, fuck, it's fourth form. Year 8. Kindergarten bollox
To my mind she is eyeing up the next prize. Her next job - a la Jacinda
Yours is a totally sane and sensible argument which, I imagine, would get the full support of 80-90% of Brits. Because people really are NOT transphobic, misogynist (!!) racist bigots, despite what Nicola would have us believe
Yet Nicola has put herself on the side of the 10-20% fundamentalist self-ID activists. Mad
We do seem to have an odd sense of priorities in obsessing over Transfolk while permitting known sex offenders release with inadequate supervision. Which is the bigger threat?
Don't let biologically male prisoners with functioning sex organs have access to women in jail, because they will quite likely try and rape them. I mean, how difficult IS that?
Had Scotland actually have achieved independence I would have expected the SNP to collapse into factions almost immediately. Its a grand coalition of policy positions which unite simply around "if we were in charge of our own destiny".
So even if we accept the argument being made that this is a Massive Issue in Scotland that is The Political Issue (and I don't), isn't a government passing laws that aren't brilliant what being independent is supposed to be about? A 'GRR may be shite but its our shite' position that doesn't negate the argument for independence one little bit.
Ultimately, would people rather have shite laws passed in Scotland by people at least claiming (however misguided) to be trying to progress Scotland, as opposed to laws passed in England which sneeringly dismiss the views of Scotland as barely being worth considering?
I just don't see how the GRR is the SNP Poll Tax. And even if it was, having changed leader did not the Tories win the election that followed? I'd be delighted to see the SNP cut down to size, but it isn't in the process of happening...
Her most enthusiastic supporters would not suggest she has any great wit, so the dinner/lecture round is a bit of a stretch. She is too polarising for something in the media. Possibly some international charity a la David Miliband but how many of those jobs are there?
She is still a formidable political operator and remains more popular than the alternatives in Scotland. She may feel she has little option but to soldier on but it is getting harder.
People have also been told off for using the office milk for their breakfast cereal rather than just for hot drinks.
But this new crusade is jaw-droppingly unbelievable and the fact that she is even considering it is an example of why she is so utterly unsuited to be in govt.
OTOH, she might be perfect to be LOTO. She can spend years spouting her right-wing libertarian drivel without being able to achieve anything whilst the Tories clean their political Augean stables. Hopefully she will be running the 3rd or 4th largest party and a lot of the nutjobs will be ejected by the voters.
He did say the income was pitiful, though he was occassionally surprised by an unexpected royalties cheque that turned up.
Clearly not going to be his full time job. He went through a series of different jobs for many years afterwards (including chef) before finally settling on law and became a solicitor.
There is no question which is the bigger threat. The problem is the improper use of the class of trans folk by sex offenders Venn diagram style to obtain access to a further class of victims.
A better analogy would be to see the SNP as a much loved old sitcom about a quirky family of Cumbrian doctors, with a loyal following, and a beloved leading actress who carries the show. The sitcom has plenty more years to come - seasons commissioned - then suddenly the producers introduce a new character, a ten-foot-tall robot who talks incessantly about malfunctioning toilets, in a decidedly unfunny way, and this robot marries the leading actress in season 7
Lots of loyal viewers will stick with the show, because they love it, but quite a few viewers will think Eww, this character is weird, why am I watching this? Many will be unhappily distracted by the Talking Toilet Robot. Yet the scriptwriters will insist he stays in, because
Considering green energy is the future it may be better to have a relatively independent way of producing the stuff and not fall into the resource trap of lots of wind but only exploited by external industry.