By iamsoccerdoc
So Anas Sarwar is a hypocrite (or a coward)? And in another story, a postman was chased by a dog. I think we knew that already. Really the only thing to be learned was just how much of a hypocrite (or coward) he was (or is).
There are two reasons that Sarwar did this is rather beside the point
1. I’m assuming that this is a response to the criticism of Kate Forbes for missing the votes on the GRA which she has fessed up she couldn’t have supported (and thus might very well have had to resign in the same manner as Ash Regan). But how much relevance does Sarwar have here? To the best of my knowledge, he’s not a candidate for the SNP leadership. Nor does he have much traction with those who will elect the new SNP leader. Put short, as my late mother used to tell my brother and I (when in dispute and blaming each other) “two wrongs don’t make a right”.
2. The second point is that many (most?) savvy politicians now realise that gender is kryptonite. Many politicians will run away faced with a question on this matter. One reason is that if you don’t follow in every dot and comma the demands of the trans community you are a homophobe. Yet this community, taking the recent figure from the 2021 English census, is a fraction of 1% of the population.
More seriously, and for whatever reasons, they don’t enjoy much in the way of support in the wider community. Why not, and whether and if so what ought to be done to change this, is a whole other conversation. BUT, the point here is that it is a conversation that really ought to have been begun BEFORE legislating. As Jeanne Freeman has said there were real issues about trans rights – particularly access to all female spaces, whether a “trans women” ARE “women” or what are they and what rights should be accorded to them.
In my view, Nicola in her enthusiasm to drag Scottish social attitudes a bit closer to the 21st century forgot this. As FM she enjoyed fantastic approval ratings and (especially after Covid) was widely trusted. I suspect she thought she could use this to get it through. Perhaps the Named Person imbroglio (and I mean the opposition from the Duelling Banjos end of our religious communities) might have warned her?
So, what about young Ms Forbes? Certainly she has a perfect right to live her life according to her own religious precepts. So does Ian Blackford (also, I understand a Wee Free). However, that said, she is standing for the role of leader of the SNP, and as such – just as with Nicola and Alex before her – the expectation is that she will be a vote winner. Her discomfort with trans rights has support in the wider community. And perhaps the righteous in the SNP ought to ask themselves first, which of the three candidates is most likely to deliver a positive result at the next election(s) , and maybe even independence, rather than their position on trans rights? Cart and horse?
One last thought. I was quite surprised to see that Angus Robertson is not going to stand, he says for “family reasons”. I know he has young children and this is a good reason, but so does Humza, and for that matter Kate Forbes has a baby of about 6 months. Angus also resides in Edinburgh, while Kate is up in the Highlands. I find this all so odd that I wonder – just muse – whether the strategy of certain individuals (no names but I think we all know who we’re talking about) was to encourage Forbes to stand, while Robertson stood back. Identify her as someone of dodgy social views to diminish her standing in the debate so much that she goes back to maternity leave, and, guess what, Robertson changes his mind. Thus we have a run off between Angus and Humza (I’m discounting Ash Regan as too much of an outsider, though I love her idea of an independence convention – and btw, it sounds to me as if Kate Forbes thinks that if she runs Scotland well, we will be independent without having to campaign). Tbh, that is what I suspected nearly as strongly as it appals me. Nicola has gone, so we might just elect the most shop soiled senior minister that we have (Humza) so that as FM he can be battered by his “failures” at Justice and the NHS. Brilliant. Or if not him, a competent enough guy but with no personality. Can you imagine Angus giving Dross or Sarwar the kind of tonking that Nicola used to give them? I can just about imagine Kate Forbes doing the same thing – but she’s a homophobe in’t she?
Talking-up Scotland / Scottish media fact checking is like shooting fish in a barrel 
A key component in leadership is clarity of vision and an ability to be able to communicate that succinctly in order that people understand the need for change and also understand what the change is. While I support the GRR Bill I do think that there has been an absence of a clear vision as to why this is needed or a clear spelling out of what the new system is (I feel like I’ve had to develop that understanding by myself). I worry that we are also drifting towards something similar with the NCS. While with the NCS there is a clearer view about what the problems with the current system are, what is missing is a clear understanding of what the new system will look like and how exactly we get there.
LikeLike
I’m not a religious person and I have no problem with tolerant folks with a strong faith being leaders in politics. Live and Let live is a strong motto of mine.
I am undecided who should be the next SNP leader.
With respect to the above I urge folks to look up the life and times of the Reverend Patrick Brewster (1788 – 1859). A minister in the Paisley Abbey who supported Catholic Emancipation in Ireland, the Abolition of slavery, workers rights and financial help for the poor and much more.
https://www.paisley.org.uk/famous-people/patrick-brewster/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Like you I am also undecided. Had there been a longer list from which we could choose I might have had a different view. I’ve always said there is a wealth of political talent in Scotland but I’m disappointed that the list for leader of the party has been such a short one.
LikeLike
There must be other SNP politicians at Holyrood who could do the job, no?
They have a couple of days to get onboard, let’s hope some throw their hat in the ring!
LikeLike
SNP need to make sure Labours hope of this being a chink in the armour for them to gain by, is completely stymied.
LikeLike
I would like to see someone younger and not so connected with Nicola Sturgeon’s time, not because it was bad but just to inject new energy and ideas rather than constantly having to defend past decisions. I feel Humza Yousaf is too connected as he has been so visible in the health role while Kate Forbes was less in the limelight, partly because of being on maternity leave. Ash Regan is a bit of an unknown and so far hasn’t stood out on policy or ideas for me.
Out of the 3 who have put their names forward so far I think Kate forbes would be my first choice as she seems to be a clear thinker and speaker. If possible though I would prefer someone like Stephen Flynn who I feel has brought a new energy to the Westminster group and speaks well in interviews.
Bottom line though is that whoever gets the job is articulate, compassionate and able to unite or manage the different factions as well as keeping a focus on independence and we will need to give whoever gets it time to grow into the role.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“”As Jeanne Freeman has said there were real issues about trans rights – particularly access to all female spaces, whether a “trans women” ARE “women” or what are they and what rights should be accorded to them.””
When talking about rights such as access to all female spaces you are talking about the Equality Act 2010 not the GRA 2004 or the GRR Bill just passed. Having, or not having a GRC, which trans people currently get via the GRA 2004 does not guarantee access to the most sensitive of female spaces.
Perhaps this short article from the Equality and Human Rights Commission explains it more clearly and concisely thus saving you reading the EQ 2010 and all the guidance documents that come with it
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/protecting-people-sex-and-gender-reassignment-discrimination
Throughout this whole thing people either deliberately or through ignorance have conflated those two acts, GRA and EQ. Strangely I dont remember any great outcry when they were passed in 2004 and 2010 nor have I noticed any diminuation in my rights as a women since they were passed. And I don’t expect the GRR Bill will change that.
Others may differ so I would be interested in them detailing what changes they have experienced
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure if the “Chinese Walls” you imply between the two Acts you seem to me to be implying.
The Equality Act was passed at a time when to secure a Gender Reassignment Certificate there was a much more onerous procedure to be worked through – more time to be spent living in the other sex, appearing before doctors etc. The GRA allows for self ID and much shorter periods. For instance the Bryson case would in no way have been possible under the rules that applied in 2010 – he would be a man dressing as a woman with a long way to go before getting his certificate.
I suspect this might have a lot to do with the fear that is being spread by the media – that there are folk out there who fancy a gander round the woman’s changing room, so they put a skirt on and …. Of course its all nonsense, but the root of the problem is the lack of any sort of gate keeper (if the GRA becomes law) to access rights under the Equalities Act. Concerns about this have come from a variety of women’s groups and I dont think they can be put away by describing them as homophobes (which is kind of odd considering they include a variety of lesbian groups).
What has been forgotten in this is that “Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins”, as American Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendal Holmes put it. In other words where rights overlap we need to consider the views of all/ both sides.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To iamsoccerdoc
I am not sure what you mean when you say I have implied Chinese Walls between the GRA 2004 and the Equality Act 2010.
The GRA 2004 was already in place when the Equality Act 2010 was written. The Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) obtained by going through the lengthy, stressful and undignified process allows people to legally change their gender on birth and death certificates but it is hot required in order to obtain many of the rights conferred by the Equality Act 2010.
In 2015 a House of Commons Committee held an inquiry into the workings of the GRA 2004 and recommended its reform to make the whole process shorter & less stressful. One of their recommendations was a system of self-ID. In 2016-17 the UK Gov started a consultation process for England and Wales while the SG started consultations with a view to reform in Scotland. This eventually led to the GRR Bill. Although it is a shorter process the outcome is the same as the GRA 2004 – legal changes to birth/death certificates. There are safeguards in the Bill – statutory declaration break it and you go to jail and risk assessments carried out by the police on sex offenders to determine if they should get a GRC.
In the case you mention of Isla Bryson the GRA 2004 applies so unlikely she has a GRC but it is not necessary for her to have one or be going through Gender reassignment for her to be accorded the rights that apply to trans people under the Eq Act 2010.
This from the link in my original post:
“”There is no requirement for a trans person to have any kind of medical supervision or intervention, nor to have a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to be protected from gender reassignment discrimination. Trans people are legally protected from discrimination from the moment they propose to change their sex.””
A form of self-id in effect.
So she was protected and the police treated her according to the procedure drawn up in 2014. They took her to prison, kept her separate from the general prison population while they carried out risk assessments: is she a risk to general population, is the general prison population a risk to her and is she at risk of self harm. Each transperson receives the same treatment whether they have a GRC or not and all are treated on a care by case basis.
Therefore she was treated exactly as she should have been under the existing 2004 and 2010 Acts
The GRR Bill had no bearing on her treatment because it is still a Bill so not Law until it gets Royal Assent.
Perhaps re-reading the link I posted might help to sort out the relationship between GRA 2004 and Equality Act 2010 and the GRR Bill’s significance when it becomes law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps some clarity on the Isla Bryson propaganda campaign dreamed up by BBC Scotland and/or the Scotland Office spin monkeys
– Adam Graham was charged as a man in 2019 for crimes committed in 2016 and 2019
– Adam Graham was named on the court papers drawn up in 2020
– Only AFTER the court papers were drawn up did Isla Bryson come into being, a right protected under the Equalities Act 2010.
Those are the facts in the public domain on Graham/Bryson, and they are pertinent.
– The media campaign over Bryson was launched as the GRR bill was passed by Holyrood, most extensively by the BBC in Scotland.
– This was politically motivated, pushing the notion the Bryson case had connection with the GRR which was not yet Law, and conflating rights under the EA.
– The Secretary for Flounce in Scotland blocked the bill from proceeding to royal assent.
I cannot recall where I read this so cannot directly quote, but it was from an expert on the workings of the GRA, who explained the Bryson red-herring as follows –
The GRR only alters the application part of the process, the remainder is an onerous examination of all evidence by a panel before a GRC is granted (or refused) to enable the applicant to change their recorded sexuality at birth.
Since Bryson did not exist when Graham was charged with a sexual offence to stand trial, he/she was automatically disbarred from application under the existing GRA and would also be under the GRR.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good post.
LikeLike
Sorry that was meant for legerwood.
LikeLiked by 1 person
These discussions over GRR, next leader makes me look unprincipled.
Maybe I’m an example of the Prof’s lecture on power and it’s corrupting influence on an individual’s empathy.
Eg. Whilst I appreciate there is a need for legislation to afford protection, fairness for the Trans section of our community, not all were interested in Scotland’s independence. The GRR bill I would have shunted to after independence, ensuring a bunch of proven activists would be in the Indy camp.
Therefore no surprise that I concur with iamsoccerdoc’s, “–perhaps the righteous in the SNP ought to ask themselves first, which of the three candidates is most likely to deliver a positive result—”
Placing that as their priority, to decide endorsement.
LikeLike
I don’t pretend to know the rights and wrongs of the GRR but I do know the following:-
1) The GRR was discussed / debated at length in the Scottish Parliament which was elected by the people of Scotland using PR in free and fair elections. As a democrat I believe this is how laws should be enacted
2) The legislation has been blocked by a person elected to power on the back of votes in another country. It is worth noting that he won his seat on a manifesto that included Ms May’s support for a comparable change in England, that BJ subsequently dropped.
3) If his parliament enacts a bad (or controversial) law (e.g. the Finance Acts introducing austerity) then there is no one to issue a S35 on these laws
4) If the Scottish Government is ever going to pass any meaningful legislation in the future it needs certainty that it won’t be struck down on a whim by the then Governor General. Consequently is is IMHO imperative that the S35 order is challenged in the courts and the limits of its validity established. If the Supreme Court sets no limits then we know that devolved powers have been neutered and we campaign on the need for Independence on that basis.
IMHO The new leader of the SNP must challenge the S35 order, regardless of the contents of the GRR, or find themselves effectively powerless or only enacting laws that Westminster approves.
I shall be casting my members ballot on that basis.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I agree with you the S35 must be challenged. The whole trans/religion thing is a confection manufactured and relentlessly pursued by the media and others for their own ends.
If the S35 is not challenged then no legislation will be safe and Scotland and her people will be the poorer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I posted this over on WGD though I forgot to mention that 50 yrs ago transgender people had the right Self ID and change their birth certificate.
Let’s not forget that transgender people, yes they are fellow travellers and dwellers on this planet, had their rights removed for political reasons, not sexual or religous, and branded as mentally ill by the courts to preserve the rights and privilege of males to inherit the throne and take their seats as heredity peers in the HOL.
Perhaps Kate could use this in her next interview
There are currently 11 transgender women in prison, 6 are housed in male prisons and 5 are housed in women’s prisons.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Completely agree.
There is no point in getting lathered up about specific legislation passed by our parliament when the real issue is that it can and will be vetoed by London’s man/woman in Scotland when it suits their purpose.
This stuchie has exposed the fact that devolution does not work and through the sleekit legislation passed by New Labour,was never intended to.
Just a sop to keep Scots in line but at least the choice is now a binary one.
Independence or London rule.
Nothing else matters as far as Holyrood is concerned,so whoever is the next FM is going to have to take that on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Resignation of Nicola, massive feuding over gender stuff, focus on said gender stuff instead of independence – MI5 couldn’t have planned and plotted this better. Or maybe…….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kate will win. She has God on her side. Martin who criticised every minority in a blog, for a laugh. Ditches Kate. Not very Christian.
LikeLike
11 Transgender in prison, Population 5.4Million. Much to do about nothing. 300 women in prison total who should not be there. 7,000 men. Most should not be there. Half have additional needs. Not diagnosed and without proper support. ‘Crime’ is related to drink & drugs. MUP. Labour did not support. Total abstinence rehab is better than prison. More effective than years on methadone and prison. The Scottish Gov has put in £250million over five years to proper rehab facilities.
Kate has been running a progressive Budget. To tackle poverty. £20 a week payment to children. Support for education and students. Social care, prescriptions. Increased SNHS budget. Bedroom tax mitigated. Social care. Building essential bridges, roads, and railways. Low unemployment. Investment in renewables etc.
Westminster is a total shambles of total corruption. Wasted resources and revenues. Westminster mismanagement of Scottish revenues and resources. A total disgrace beyond belief.
People who support Independence need to get out and vote every election. A higher turnout. Independence support rising. Independence in the bag. Just vit3 for it.
LikeLike
Whoever wins this contest needs to bring the independence voting public with them for me that would appear to be a lot of the younger generation, they are the ones that will eventually turn the tide. From that point of view I believe we need a younger FM and wonder if that is why the “old guard” haven’t put their hats in the ring.
Whilst I admire Kate for being forthright with her views whilst being adamant she will support the democratic rights already enshrined ( I disagree with her stance on LGBT+ rights) her stance may alienate a large proportion of young people who on the whole appear to be much more tolerant of minorities.
I hope that members do get to hear directly from the Candidates without the MSM spin.
Although I don’t agree with her personal beliefs I do believe she has the interests of the country at heart and would be a good FM. Whoever gets the role I hope they get stuck into the media for their lies and misrepresentation.
LikeLiked by 1 person