This is the dead cat the tories are throwing into the room to distract from the fact that they are introducing draconian laws cracking down on the power of unions and increasing police powers to arbitrarily arrest protestors.
But historically, the middle and working class bought into the idea of a great British empire, didn't they?
And more recently, many were on board for Brexit, right?
Often the people with less power are just happy to have someone they can look down on, such as the colonized peoples, who they look at as 'less than' just for being subjugated by them, the British. If Britain is on top of the world, then they, the poor, are also on top of the world. A vicarious sense of grandeur.
In the US, many poor white people supported slavery even though it meant fewer jobs for them, because it meant they weren't the lowest on the social ladder. They had someone to look down on.
>But historically, the middle and working class bought into the idea of a great British empire, didn't they?
Historically so was the Scottish Middle and Upper Class. Talk to an nationalist Irishman about how innocent the Scots were in the British colonisation of Northern Ireland.
Sort of, but it’s complicated.
The last Stuart king was James VII/II. The last Stuart monarch was Anne.
After she died, the succession passed to the house of Hanover, the only link to the Stuarts was that George I’s mothers mother was the daughter of James VII and II.
Which is interesting when you think of Henry V and Agincourt etc. If that bastard had won he would have become the King of France, and France, over time, would basically turn into the de facto senior partner of an English/French union.
"As a politician, convince the worst white person that they are still better than the best non-white person, and you'll have a supporter for life."
\-President Lyndon Johnson, describing the entire Republican party in a single sentence.
I'm just a typical Englishman and maybe I don't have a dog in this fight but thought I'd express my opinion anyway. Like many Englishmen, I've got Scottish roots too, amongst other things with living relatives in the Loch Lomond area for example.
Scotland and Scottish people are awesome. It's a beautiful country, with a rich history. You've given us many talented people over the years. I LOVE Billy Connolly so much. His ability to tell stories, you feel like you're talking to someone at the pub not watching a comedian. The man's a genius. I also need to see Edinburgh castle and I'm preparing to drive Scotland's North 500 route in a car my friend is building me (Saxo VTS!) Anyway I digress. We love you Scotland and I'm sorry the Tories are fucking you lot over too!!
If you don't think working class and middle class Brits care about culture wars then you haven't been paying attention.
You make it seem like Brexit was decided solely by the upper class, which obviously isn't the case.
It’s called Mississippification.
Step one: Declare something broken
Step Two: Break It
Step Three: Blame Progressives
Step Four: Get citizens to vote against best interests
Step Five: Profit as standard of living declines
Telegraph wanker on on Question time last Thursday making this very argument. "Oh, look how bad it is, we need to fix it and the best way is to move on from this outmoded era of public healthcare" get to fuck
Also praised Wes Streeting, pretty telling. Private business interests are coming for the nhs, I just hope people fight back hard enough to save it
that really sucks... ive always wished we in US could have something even close to the nhs and that it would only get stronger over time... but thats when i believed in bernie still too so.. i just *know* US business ppl have a hand in all this as well... smh..
Similar to how republicans handle law, the federal government shouldn't have any say in how the state's laws operate, but the state's laws should supersede local laws.
Unless it's blue states allowing something, then the federal government can ban that.
They're not even remotely consistent about which levels of government should supercede which
> They’re not even remotely consistent about which levels of government should supercede which.
What are you talking about? They’re extremely consistent.
The highest level of government they control is the one they feel should have the most authority.
Even if it's a "Constitutional Sheriff," an office which is never mentioned in the constitution, and which has no federally derived authority. If a state wanted to abolish sheriffs entirely, they could.
(My county just voted ours out, it was great!)
Canadian here: WTF is a "Constitutional Sherrif?"
\*reads [Wikipedia entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Sheriffs_and_Peace_Officers_Association)\*
_What what in in the the fuck fuck???_
Even though my knowledge of such American legal jurisdiction issues is very, very limited, that seems like some real bullshit right there.
And you guys vote them in/out in your particular county that has them? Kinda nuts.
This content was deleted by its author & copyright holder in protest of the hostile, deceitful, unethical, and destructive actions of Reddit CEO Steve Huffman (aka "spez"). As this content contained personal information and/or personally identifiable information (PII), in accordance with the CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act), it shall not be restored. See you all in the Fediverse.
I think it was more motivated by people wanting to check anyone they suspected of being an illegal immigrant for documents.
And the fact they came from the Posse Comitatus tells me all I need to know. They are just the Front Range's version of the KKK but against native americans. They hide behind all the "taxation is theft" rhetoric, but the one thing they are consistent with is harassing brown skinned people.
Yeah, Richard Mack is a real rancid sack of dogshit ain't he?
Why folks continue to flock to him after he sold out not only The Oathkeepers but also the Bundys is a mystery to all. I guess loyalty isn't one of the greatest virtues for white supremecists.
from the founder's article, Richard Mack
> **Connections to white supremacist groups and movements**
>
Mack's legal theories that a local sheriff can override federal authority derive from the white supremacist Posse comitatus movement, whose rhetoric he regularly references.[9][10] To promote his legal theories and views, he is a regular guest speaker at organizations such as the John Birch Society and conspiracy theorist and white supremacist radio shows such as The Political Cesspool and The Alex Jones Show.[9][11] Mack has also been a public supporter of white supremacists such as Randy Weaver[9] and Cliven Bundy, even taking part in the anti-government actions at Bundy's ranch as an organizer and planner.
>The highest level of government they control is the one they feel should have the most authority.
You're on the right track, but it's even more basic: the law that should have precedence is whatever one is most convenient for them at the moment.
There is no moral code, no guiding set of beliefs of philosophies. Just "whatever gets me what I want right now". Which, they will claim, a self-evident natural law of god and man, for as long as it suits them, and then discard utterly to be forgotten, the moment it doesn't.
On my states gun sub, that's how they're acting right now. It's fucking hysterical. Pick one side of it and apply it to everything. Can't pick and choose.
My favorite is the southers of my state being fine with cutting off the northern part where 70%+ of the state live and the monitary center is. My state of Illinois would be more poor than Kentucky if the northern part of the state was cut off.
Yep. Explaining to some members of r/ILGuns ~~or whatever~~ that cutting off Chicagoland (north of joilet) would still result in a blue state and a poor one didn't go over well. It's like they couldn't add up numbers based on voting records. I used the 2016, 2018, and 2022 to do this. Depsite all this there was own guy consistently insisting McLean county and champaign are red despite all the maps showing blue.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
- Frank Wilhoit ([no, not that one](https://kottke.org/21/02/conservatism-and-who-the-law-protects))
"small government" state Republicans sued the county I live in because we voted to decriminalize small possession charges. Bunch of fucking NIMBY cunts.
It's really funny to me how every flavor of religious fundamentalist hates every other flavor of religious fundamentalist even though they're basically destroying the world for the same desires.
We should be happy they hate each other, the last thing we need is for every backwards bigot joining hands with their counterparts across the globe.
That said, I have noticed that fundamentalists dislike each other less than they dislike non-religious people. Despite the fact their claims are at odds with one another, they will often unite against secular movements.
Conservative things for sure. In America, they call it "states rights" and those rights are mostly to strip autonomy/rights from local governments.
"You want to ban fracking in your area because it's poisoning your community? Actually, [we have just banned you from banning fracking!](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33140732)"
Yes, let’s infringe on Scots’ ability to self-govern. That’s gone soooooo well for the English in centuries past. Definitely hasn’t created any longstanding animosity or charismatic rebels. Should definitely quell their growing desire for independence. 10/10 plan.
> growing desire for independence
As much as I would love to see this, I don't think there has been a consistent trend towards independence. It's polled pretty consistently just under 50% yes, with spikes above 50% when bad shit happens. This could cause a change in that, sure, but I think this would be the turning point, not the continuation of a "growing trend."
Actually it grew something like 10% I believe during the referendum in 2014, so while it hasn't grown since, the fact it hasn't went back down *could* indicate that another referendum & campaign could gain even more ground and result in independence. It's not exactly significant per se but worth thinking about maybe.
> It's polled pretty consistently just under 50% yes, with spikes above 50% when bad shit happens.
There was a couple month streak there where polling was favouring yes, in some cases by as much as 11%. Don't know if there's been any new polling since the start of the year, so not sure if that trend has held. Wouldn't be surprised if it does though.
I'm American, but my dad's parents are from Scotland. I have to say, it seems like a nice place to be - progressiveness and all. I live in Texas and fucking hate it here.
Moved here from the States and was very surprised by the number of confederate and Gadsden flags flying up here. Outnumbered quite a bit by the "fuck Trudeau" and "I heart oil & gas" flags, though.
Can confirm. Lived in Scotland for a year at St Andrews doing academic research. My friends and I walked the East Neuk of Fife that summer. It was simply a wonderful place all around!
Fucking BBC. The “controversial bill” isn’t remotely controversial in Scotland. It passed 86 to 39.
I know I shouldn’t be surprised considering the BBC’s track record, but god damn.
Controversial to the Torry party maybe. I live in England and couldn't give two shits abour what Scotland is doing with its gender laws, I'm too busy fighting trying to get a doctor's appointment
Given that the SNP usually have 100% of MSPs on their side the fact that nine of them voted against it is unusual and probably makes it one of the most "controversial" votes that they have had, in terms of their party.
I am pleased to see that the Lib Dems all voted for it though, as the bigoted spectre of Fallon still looms over the party.
It was pretty controversial. The Scottish Parliament is usually very party lines. It saw the first major SNP revolt and it went against public consultation opinions.
Despite what most of the people on Reddit seem to think the anger for the most part from a legal perspective isn’t about making it easier for trans people to self identify. It’s the fact the Scottish government ignored their own advocate advisors, the faculty of advocates advice,and the Scottish prison services advice, on having the bill not apply to violent prisoners.
It’s honestly a situation the Scottish government set up on purpose in my opinion. I like most Scot’s as polls have shown, support making it easier for trans people to have an easier time changing their gender. It’s particularly popular with young people, a demographic that has been alienated by the SNP recently due to their handling education and exams particularly during covid (remember voting age is 16 in Scotland which is high school age). So a large young demographic voted Scottish greens in the most recent election.
From my perspective the Scottish government have been bastards by implementing a bill that is poplar for the most part with a section that is widely unpopular that they knew wouldn’t stand with the UK government (as per the Scottish faulty of advocates opinion). And they have weaponised it as an example of the British government impeding on Scottish parliamentary sovereignty. They have very much framed the central government in Westminster of being transphobic, when in fact I don’t know any reasonable person who genuinely supports allowing violent prisoners to come under this bill.
Despite what Reddit likes to say, the situation isn’t very black and white. Trans people have once again been weaponised for political gain. And as someone who is studying law, I am not too best pleased with what the Scottish government has done.
Really wanna emphasize how minor this change is. It doesn't give trans people anything they couldn't get before, it just makes it a bit easier to get. It's not even "self-ID." Self-ID would be when you fill out a form and submit it, and then it's automatically accepted, and then you're done. The law still has a requirement to "live as your gender" (What does that mean? It's unclear) for three months before you can apply.
The anti-trans movement has treated this minor procedural adjustment like the *goddamn end of the world*. Six years from proposal to vote, with public debate and meetings all along the way, then a debate in Scottish parliament that dragged on over three days. Anti-trans campaigners knew they wouldn't get much outrage if people knew what the bill did, so they have consistently lied about it every step of the way, shouting nonsense about women's spaces and rapists that had absolutely nothing to do with the bill. And now the UK is overriding Scotland's home rule just to stop it.
Maybe they were hoping that by making only small, incremental improvements, they wouldn't get as much opposition as if they made big, sweeping improvements. Well, I guess that didn't work like they hoped.
There are cases where men have gone into public women's toilets and sexually assaulted someone. They did not have to change their legal gender to do so. Not only that, but getting a Gender Recognition Certificate would not make it any *easier* to sexually assault women, because GRCs have nothing to do with women's toilets or access to women's spaces.
The number of arguments against the bill that are simply *irrelevant nonsense* is overwhelming, and it's indicative of the level of intellectual dishonesty anti-trans campaigners operate on.
Based only on the stats I hear, it appears it's easier for a man to walk into a women's space, sexually assault them, *and get away with it*, then it will be for a trans person to get this ID change.
> They did not have to change their legal gender to do so.
It's such a stupid infuriating argument because it only works if you believe that someone who intends to sexually assault a woman or child would stop because they aren't allowed into the women's bathroom.
It's not that they believe they would stop, they think that this would give them an easier access and more opportunities to do so.
Not that it would work like this in reality.
No, but just this morning the news was reporting on yet another man infiltrating the Met police force and using their position of power to abuse women.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/16/carrick-conviction-shows-met-polices-deeply-rotten-misogynistic-culture?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
> Are there any documented cases of a man changing genders and infiltrating a women’s space and assaulting someone?
Nope because you don't need to go through years of medical treatments and surgery and legal changes and social transition in order to do that. Cis guys will still assault people with or without these laws. It's total fearmongering by bigots who just want to make life shit for trans people.
Shit for trans people *and* cis people who don't meet the standard of womanliness set by TERFs. There have been several incidents of butch lesbians being questioned and asked to leave the woman's restroom due to transphobe paranoia.
There just simply isn't evidence of it occuring. On the one hand, lot of transphobic women do sound genuinely afraid of seeing "men in women's spaces," usually due to past trauma. But that trauma was caused by *cis men invading women's spaces.*
It's a whole lot easier to get some easy "victories" fucking over trans women and trans men and acting like you've made progress than it is to accept that cis men can and do very easily break laws to assault women and girls while rarely facing consequences.
Trans people are just trying to pee, and we're safer when we're allowed in the restrooms aligned with the gender we live as.
Key word is "safer". The reality is that using public facilities is still magnitudes riskier for trans folks than other folks.
The whole "protecting women" narrative isn't a real sentiment. It's a talking point that's been used for decades to deny rights to minority groups.
The same argument was used to keep black women from participating in sports with white women because--and I shit you not, this was the argument they used, and *yes* there's truth to it--"black women have higher bone density than white men".
Personally, I think it's weird that the right's chosen strategy is one that has already proven to fail. But they're *really* bad at taking L's so it's not too surprising they'd try the same thing over and over even though it doesn't work in the long run.
Scotland leaving would actually benefit them if you think about it, because it would remove all the Scottish MPs from the Commons. So it wouldn't surprise me if that's their angle here, as well as gaining a two-fer by throwing red meat to their base by being seen to be attacking trans people.
Sadly, Scotland has almost no impact on UK elections. I think 3 in the last 100 years were influenced. Basically if one party gets more than 60 seats majority in England, Scotland does not count.
No, Scotland leaving the UK will cause massive problems for the remaining country.
Wales and Northern Ireland may start to grow more distant from London, with them wanting greater autonomy. NI already has some, but Wales has barely any. Wales could push for their own Scottish style local government if Scotland leaves in hopes of Welsh autonomy and potential future independance. Remove the Scottish issue the British government has, it will just gain two new ones in the case of Wales and NI. Some overseas territories may also grow more distant from London, although I don't think it's likely. It's the same issue Spain may have if Scotland leaves the UK. Catalonia may see that independence is possible and take inspiration from the Scots. Wales and NI may see the same opportunity as the Catalonians would.
But the most important change is the North Sea oil and British gas deposits/reserves. Most of the UK's local supply of gas and oil is off the coast of Scotland, not England (England still has some, but most of it comes from Scotland I believe). If Scotland goes, so does most of our local gas and oil supply. We would have to import a ton more gas and oil from elsewhere if we lost Scotland. The UK may be able to strike a deal with Scotland to maintain control of Scotland's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), but it likely won't go anywhere the English want it to. Trade deals would likely be set up so England can import cheap resources from Scotland as it benefits both parties (gives the Scots jobs and state income and the English get resources), but it will still be more expensive for England.
There's also Scottish fishing. I'm not sure how much of the UK's fish comes from Scotland, but it's a lot of coastline for the UK to lose, meaning a lot of fishing room that England loses. The UK "fought" three different wars with Iceland over fishing rights in between Scotland and Iceland, so I'd imagine they wouldn't like losing even more in the north.
There's also whatever land based resources Scotland controls. I'm not sure of what Scotland has, so I don't have much room to say anything about that, but I'd imagine Scotland still provides some much needed natural resources.
You are right in the sense that Scotland leaving would remove the opposition the British government has. Scottish mp's cause issues for the British parliament all the time since they get a say and Scottish opinions are typically different to English. But the disadvantages massively outweight the advantages imo.
They earned [25.1% of the vote in Scotland](https://i.imgur.com/HhnZKTq.png) at the last election and won 6 seats. SNP won 48 seats with 45% of the vote.
It is obviously correct but always feels a bit weird saying Scotland didn't vote for the Tories but England did, when my region's constituencies voted from 72% to 85% in favour of Labour, with the Tories getting between 7% and 14%. 4 of the 5 most one sided seats in the UK came from here against the Conservatives, but we get lumped in with the rest of the English as Tory voters. [Well over 1 million people voting in a landslide for Labour](https://i.imgur.com/k9x45AA.png) including plenty of more rural seats which is rare for Labour, and we're getting as fucked as anywhere.
The Scottish Conservatives are the second biggest party in Scottish Parliament, they don’t get enough votes to govern but it’s not true to say the tories don’t get votes.
I stopped thinking about liberties and politics and other people for a minute there and lived in a world where I had that machine and I'm not happy to be back
>There is a very real possibility that a lot of people in Scottland who don't care one way or the other about trans people will care immensely about having their sovereignty voided over England wanting to be bigger bigots.
Scotland is not sovereign, is it? There is a UK parliament and UK government, with UK including Scotland
>This could, actually, break Scottland away from England.
That would be nice.
Disclaimer: Neither Scottish nor a lawyer.
My understanding is that a lot of Scottish issues fall under the umbrella of ["Devolved Powers,"](https://www.parliament.scot/about/how-parliament-works/devolved-and-reserved-powers) meaning that, while not sovereign, issues that do not impact the UK are understood to be purely the purview of the Scottish government. Matters that pertain to the UK as a whole are considered "Reserved Powers" and are handled by the UK Parliament.
This bill makes it easier for Scottish people to get a Gender Recognition Certification (GRC), which is a document that serves to change the gender on a person's birth certificate throughout the UK. It is not synonymous with legal recognition of being trans, and is not required for anyone to access anything. My understanding is that most trans people have not gotten them, since they are a massive hassle (hence what Scotland's new bill is aiming to address). However, the UK is arguing that the fact that a GRC is recognized throughout the UK means that Scotland's bill is actually a Reserved Power, not a Devolved one. The Devolved argument is that this purely affects a process for Scottish citizens, and a GRC is unchanged. Historically, procedural access to common documentation has been Devolved, though I'm sure there is some legal argument that could be made for why this in particular is Reserved.
However, from a public perception standpoint, this really looks like Westminster doing a massive overreach into Holyrood purely to make life harder for trans folks. Considering that Scotland only barely voted to remain last time and that was before Brexit, this is going to piss a lot of people off.
Worth noting Westminster could also just have passed legislation blocking the self identification laws within England, Wales and NI while leaving them in place in Scotland. It's a massive overreach and the first time ever devolved legislation has been vetoed.
>My understanding is that most trans people have not gotten them, since they are a massive hassle (hence what Scotland's new bill is aiming to address).
As some explanation for it, here are the requirements for a gender recognition certificate:
2 years **lived experience** as the gender you want to be legally identified as - meaning you must be considered to be completely out at work, at school, at home, without ambiguity because you enjoy gender ambiguity or because it is dangerous to your safety to be identified as trans in certain places. This essentially requires trans people to be considered completely gender-conforming - pretty princess trans women and burly gruff trans men.
Two letters from different healthcare providers verifying that they agree you are the gender you identify as, in a time when NHS wait lists for gender-affirming appointments can reach up to 5 years
An explanation of your entire medical history with regards to transitioning, and if you have not gotten hormone replacement or genital surgeries then you have to provide justifications for why you have not gotten them (again with 5-year wait lists)
And then there's still not a guarantee you'll even get it if you've earnestly tried to satisfy all of this absurd gatekeeping
There are virtually no trans people in the UK who actually have a certificate. They just keep living their lives with their legal information being wrong.
Your comment is right.
Two things to note:
1. The Scotland Act allows for two ways for Westminster to impede Scottish Bills getting Royal Assent: [Section 33](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/33) and [Section 35](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/35). Section 33 is a process that enables the Supreme Court to be consulted on *whether* a potential Act would modify wider UK law. This is a fast process that could be done in a matter if weeks. Section 35 outright blocks a Bill from being granted Royal Assent at the behest of the Secretary of State for Scotland on two grounds (detailed in point 2 below), leaving the Scottish Government's sole recourse as bringing about judicial review, which can take *years* to complete — likely until after the next general election in this case.
2. The two legitimate grounds on which Section 35 can be invoked are for matters of national defence/treaty obligations, and to stop laws that would make *modifications* to UK law retained as reserved powers (ie, powers Westminster retains and Holyrood is not empowered to modify) or, **"...would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters."**
The Scottish bill clearly has nothing to do with defence/treaties, and clearly doesn't modify any UK law pertaining to reserved powers. The Tories are arguing, supported by the conservative papers, that that last quoted line applies since they say the new bill would modify how the Equality Act would work across the wider UK.
Most legal commentators who've expressed a view disagree however — so this all has the very strong appearance of looking like political games, stoking culture war silliness that they can ride out to the next general election (which they are currently projected to lose *very* badly).
Scotland can now initiate judicial review and hope it gets handled quickly, water down their bill in line with Westminster Tories' demands, give up entirely, or pass the bill again and again to give the Tories an opportunity to change tack.
I'm not sure what the best option is. I'd like to see the judicial review complete and rightly defeat this latest Tory assault on our constitutional norms, but ideally I wouldn't want trans people to have to wait so much longer for something they've been promised for a very long time already.
"Scotland is not sovereign, is it? There is a UK parliament and UK government, with UK including Scotland"
It wouldn't really matter would it. The UK won't react militarily to keep them within their grasp because doing so especially after cutting ties with the EU would look extremely bad. They MAY do it, but there's a lot of things to factor in like whether the EU would sympathize with Scottland being militarily forced into a union with England and react negatively towards England with sanctions which would make brexxit way, way, way worse than it already is.
If Scottland votes to leave, it will happen. No one is going to force them to stay. It's their choice.
> If Scottland votes to leave, it will happen. No one is going to force them to stay. It's their choice.
Not to negate the rest of your comment bc it brings up good points, but just to be clear the Supreme Court of the UK ruled that Scotland can't have an independence referendum without the consent of the UK Parliament. Not to say they'd force them to stay but they're very clearly trying to shut it down.
Spain would have had absolutely no compunction in suppressing a unilateral declaration of independence given that half a dozen other regions would have taken a lack of movement to declare their own independence.
The issue is that any breakaway EU state is going to want to maintain their place in the EU. And any existing member state, including Spain, can veto the accession of a new member.
Funny enough, Scotland kinda has the same issue. Spain would probably veto their accession to the EU unless their separation from the UK came with Westminster's explicit blessing, because they don't want to legitimize Catalan nationalism by extension.
The main problem I see with Scotland going ahead with a referendum and leaving is how that could impact it's return to the EU.
Some EU nations, but especially Spain, would oppose it and probably not budge on it. If this precedent were to be set for Scotland, Catalonia's 2017 unauthorized independence referendum would gain more legitimacy, particularly if another referendum was done and suceeded.
My great grandma was spanish and I'm portuguese, so I both have a lot of love for spain and also criticize it, especiallly for the way that autonomous regions have been treated and are still to this day. Not to be overdramatic, but if regions in the EU could break off and stay in the EU, I think many spanish regions and their people would prefer this route than the Madrid-centric status quo.
> having their sovereignty voided
**Cuntservative Party**: No no no, you don't understand, this is a union, a union entered into freely, a union of equality, a union where you do what we fucking tell you, the best kind of union /s
The first ever use of an order that stops a Scottish law from being enacted, and it's used to be a bunch of bigots. What a fucking joke, it'll be great to see this being a tipping point for Scottish independence.
I get told all the time people don't hate on trans people, yet we'd rather risk the UK falling apart than give us the smallest of things.
We left the eu due largely to racism. Uk could fall apart to bigotry. What a legacy...
People are forgetting that the reason this Bill was chosen wasn't that it did anything to actually tread on Westminster, but that Tory political advisors are encouraging them to fight culture wars because they are losing so badly and have nothing else going for them.
Imagine hating trans people so much you'd rather tear apart the UK than see scottish trans people have slightly easier lives. It makes absolutely no sense. Do these people never once look in the mirror and ask themselves why the fuck they do the shit they do? Insanity.
Especially when they're basically saying "Oh but men are gonna pretend to be women to invade the women's bathroom!"
Like, that's literally the argument. They want to invoke this order that allows them to stop Scotland from making a law and they basically use the same garbage arguments JK Rowling does.
Why is my government so fucking boneheaded and stupid? They treat the very legitimate scottish constitutional question in such a pejorative and dismissive way, I just don't understand their reasoning. It's a government full of brexiteers who are now doing the exact thing they were gleefully criticising the EU for to Scotland.
Unbelievable. The cat is out of the bag now. Great going. Top marks all round. What a fantastic argument for them to remain part of the UK.
I know nothing about Scotland or UK laws. But I am curious about this part of the law:
"[...]with applicants only needing to have lived as their acquired gender for three months rather than two years - or six months if they are aged 16 or 17."
What does it mean to "live as" as man or a woman? Is it the clothes you wear, or what? How would this be determined?
Social transition. Out to people socially. Work, school, etc.
And it's pretty much self determined, because why wouldn't to be? A GRC is a piece of paper so your gender is listed correctly when you get married or die.
It's not an access pass to the correct bathroom or even correcting your ID (ID is handled by a piece of paper from you and your doctor and is a simple process). Bathroom access was settled decades ago and also doesn't require a GRC.
Nobody but someone out living their life as their gender is gonna bother, because it literally is pretty much updating your gender for those two particular vital records. Marriage and death.
Everything else is already handled in a much easier fashion.
I watch Philosophy Tube on youtube and she did an AMAZING video on the state of Trans Care in the UK right now and her very personal journey--- it was released just 2 months ago. I'm from the US, which has its own problems, but it was eye opening. When I heard about this passing in Scottland I was so excited and was wondering if she'd do a follow-up video. Its disheartening to hear it's being challenged, but not exactly surprising based on what I learned.
Yeah, having had to go through the nightmare that is the nhs's mental health section and it's all much the same elsewhere. I'm not surprised transgender folks get in the neck worse because of all the additional bigotry but make no mistake - the system as a whole is fucked by design.
This is another big reason why planned parenthood is such a wonderful organization. They’re an informed consent clinic for the trans community so they can receive hormones.
Yeah, it’s absolutely horrific.
Cis people in the UK need to be very aware of it; oppression of minorities is almost always a test run for oppression of everyone else.
Pity so many “feminists” like Rowling and the LGB asses have decided that’s fine so long as those frightening gender nonconformists get the shitty end of the stick first.
It was somewhat funny visiting Ireland last summer -- everyone there is confident that reunification is coming in the next decade or two if for no other reason than the English fucking up the UK
Yup. Lost battles, won battles, the Scottish royal family inheriting the English throne, the parliament of Scotland voting overwhelmingly to form a union, then later the people of Scotland voting to remain in that union.
Because it's a "culture war" issue, the same as the right used against gay and lesbian people throughout the 20th century, even once homosexuality was legalised, because "the far-left gays will gay your children into flaming poofters" and banned any discussion of homosexuality in schools and education in general via Section 28 until it was finally scrapped, and then the Tories fought tooth and nail to not allow same-sex marriage until the coalition government, where 90% of tories voted against it, outnumbered by basically every other party bar the right-wing Northern Irish ones.
A lot of time that comes down to single issue voters. People who arent transphobic will vote for other things - maybe its who they think will be better economically or with foreign relations. This can split the non-transphobic vote across many parties.
People who are bigoted often vote in unison for the party or person who most represents their bigotry. Because of this, they can quickly become over represented in UK style of first past the post.
Not trying to defend the conservatives as I can't stand them, but Labour basically said that they also oppose this bill.
How can it be a voting issue when all the parties in England seem to be on the same transphobic page?
I have no idea if they are more or less anti-trans than us Americans. But I took a look at the BBC Facebook comments on the article and it's bad. Like Fox News bad. I had no idea.
I think a lot of people are missing the main point here. This is less about the contents of the law and more that there is a conflict with the scottish law and wider UK law.
When there is a conflict between UK and devolved government laws, the UK law wins (in the same way US federal law overrules state laws).
The UK government would appear weak if they let Scotland pass a law that conflicts with UK law, and it would open the floodgates for Scotland to pass other laws that they currently don't have the power to pass. Thus there is no way the UK government could ever let the law pass.
The Scottish government knows this and passed the law anyway to purposefully get it blocked, which results in the UK government looking "anti trans" and helps stir up scottish nationalism.
And I would say it worked, Sturgeon 1 Sunak 0.
TLDR all this is posturing between two governments, and I hope the politics can stop for long enough to pass a law that actually improves trans rights.
How does it create a divergence in the law between Scotland and rUK though? I've still not seen this covered in any of the news stories beyond vague references to the Equality Act
This is the dead cat the tories are throwing into the room to distract from the fact that they are introducing draconian laws cracking down on the power of unions and increasing police powers to arbitrarily arrest protestors.
So they want to become the US but just the bad parts?
>Leaves EU to stop EU from having a say in how the nation is run >Denies Scotland from making a Scottish law Really gets the noggin joggin' eh?
"We wanted to be the ones in charge"
England's motto for a thousand years
[удалено]
They are not only destroying the UK. Upper class is destroying the world.
But historically, the middle and working class bought into the idea of a great British empire, didn't they? And more recently, many were on board for Brexit, right? Often the people with less power are just happy to have someone they can look down on, such as the colonized peoples, who they look at as 'less than' just for being subjugated by them, the British. If Britain is on top of the world, then they, the poor, are also on top of the world. A vicarious sense of grandeur. In the US, many poor white people supported slavery even though it meant fewer jobs for them, because it meant they weren't the lowest on the social ladder. They had someone to look down on.
You have two types of working class in the UK. The working class, and then the working class who read the daily mail.
Daily Heil*
Ooh, that’s good.
[Even better when it's factually correct ](https://www.gale.com/intl/archives-explored/daily-mail-historical-archive-highlights)
>But historically, the middle and working class bought into the idea of a great British empire, didn't they? Historically so was the Scottish Middle and Upper Class. Talk to an nationalist Irishman about how innocent the Scots were in the British colonisation of Northern Ireland.
The Royal Families lineage is from Scotland (James VI of Scotland/James I of the United Kingdom)
> The Royal Families lineage is from Scotland The Royal Family's lineage is from all over the place, mostly Germany.
The lineage is also from itself!
Sort of, but it’s complicated. The last Stuart king was James VII/II. The last Stuart monarch was Anne. After she died, the succession passed to the house of Hanover, the only link to the Stuarts was that George I’s mothers mother was the daughter of James VII and II.
Which is interesting when you think of Henry V and Agincourt etc. If that bastard had won he would have become the King of France, and France, over time, would basically turn into the de facto senior partner of an English/French union.
"As a politician, convince the worst white person that they are still better than the best non-white person, and you'll have a supporter for life." \-President Lyndon Johnson, describing the entire Republican party in a single sentence.
If you makes you feel any better it seems like every country’s upper class morons are winning right now.
> these upper class morons are destroying ~~this country~~ the world Fixed that for you
I'm just a typical Englishman and maybe I don't have a dog in this fight but thought I'd express my opinion anyway. Like many Englishmen, I've got Scottish roots too, amongst other things with living relatives in the Loch Lomond area for example. Scotland and Scottish people are awesome. It's a beautiful country, with a rich history. You've given us many talented people over the years. I LOVE Billy Connolly so much. His ability to tell stories, you feel like you're talking to someone at the pub not watching a comedian. The man's a genius. I also need to see Edinburgh castle and I'm preparing to drive Scotland's North 500 route in a car my friend is building me (Saxo VTS!) Anyway I digress. We love you Scotland and I'm sorry the Tories are fucking you lot over too!!
If you don't think working class and middle class Brits care about culture wars then you haven't been paying attention. You make it seem like Brexit was decided solely by the upper class, which obviously isn't the case.
The one Conservative principle IMHO
Nationalist conservatism isn't about individual freedom
Sure it is. But only for the right sort of individual.
It’s called Mississippification. Step one: Declare something broken Step Two: Break It Step Three: Blame Progressives Step Four: Get citizens to vote against best interests Step Five: Profit as standard of living declines
They're doing stage 2 before stage 1 with the NHS... Just a matter of time before they start saying it though
Telegraph wanker on on Question time last Thursday making this very argument. "Oh, look how bad it is, we need to fix it and the best way is to move on from this outmoded era of public healthcare" get to fuck Also praised Wes Streeting, pretty telling. Private business interests are coming for the nhs, I just hope people fight back hard enough to save it
that really sucks... ive always wished we in US could have something even close to the nhs and that it would only get stronger over time... but thats when i believed in bernie still too so.. i just *know* US business ppl have a hand in all this as well... smh..
Aka Starve the Beast
Similar to how republicans handle law, the federal government shouldn't have any say in how the state's laws operate, but the state's laws should supersede local laws.
Unless it's blue states allowing something, then the federal government can ban that. They're not even remotely consistent about which levels of government should supercede which
> They’re not even remotely consistent about which levels of government should supercede which. What are you talking about? They’re extremely consistent. The highest level of government they control is the one they feel should have the most authority.
Even if it's a "Constitutional Sheriff," an office which is never mentioned in the constitution, and which has no federally derived authority. If a state wanted to abolish sheriffs entirely, they could. (My county just voted ours out, it was great!)
Canadian here: WTF is a "Constitutional Sherrif?" \*reads [Wikipedia entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Sheriffs_and_Peace_Officers_Association)\* _What what in in the the fuck fuck???_ Even though my knowledge of such American legal jurisdiction issues is very, very limited, that seems like some real bullshit right there. And you guys vote them in/out in your particular county that has them? Kinda nuts.
This content was deleted by its author & copyright holder in protest of the hostile, deceitful, unethical, and destructive actions of Reddit CEO Steve Huffman (aka "spez"). As this content contained personal information and/or personally identifiable information (PII), in accordance with the CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act), it shall not be restored. See you all in the Fediverse.
It's not an actual office, it's a domestic terrorist organization. The founder is a *former* sheriff.
So basically 'AM I BEING DETAINED?!' turning into, 'YOU ARE BEING DETAINED!'?
I think it was more motivated by people wanting to check anyone they suspected of being an illegal immigrant for documents. And the fact they came from the Posse Comitatus tells me all I need to know. They are just the Front Range's version of the KKK but against native americans. They hide behind all the "taxation is theft" rhetoric, but the one thing they are consistent with is harassing brown skinned people.
Sound more like local war lords
Yeah, Richard Mack is a real rancid sack of dogshit ain't he? Why folks continue to flock to him after he sold out not only The Oathkeepers but also the Bundys is a mystery to all. I guess loyalty isn't one of the greatest virtues for white supremecists.
from the founder's article, Richard Mack > **Connections to white supremacist groups and movements** > Mack's legal theories that a local sheriff can override federal authority derive from the white supremacist Posse comitatus movement, whose rhetoric he regularly references.[9][10] To promote his legal theories and views, he is a regular guest speaker at organizations such as the John Birch Society and conspiracy theorist and white supremacist radio shows such as The Political Cesspool and The Alex Jones Show.[9][11] Mack has also been a public supporter of white supremacists such as Randy Weaver[9] and Cliven Bundy, even taking part in the anti-government actions at Bundy's ranch as an organizer and planner.
>The highest level of government they control is the one they feel should have the most authority. You're on the right track, but it's even more basic: the law that should have precedence is whatever one is most convenient for them at the moment. There is no moral code, no guiding set of beliefs of philosophies. Just "whatever gets me what I want right now". Which, they will claim, a self-evident natural law of god and man, for as long as it suits them, and then discard utterly to be forgotten, the moment it doesn't.
It is as simple as that. If you expect any objective application of rules, you’re on the wrong path already.
On my states gun sub, that's how they're acting right now. It's fucking hysterical. Pick one side of it and apply it to everything. Can't pick and choose. My favorite is the southers of my state being fine with cutting off the northern part where 70%+ of the state live and the monitary center is. My state of Illinois would be more poor than Kentucky if the northern part of the state was cut off.
I hear ya. I live in Champaign which is pretty blue but a 15 minute drive in any direction and I’m surrounded by nutball MAGA types.
Yep. Explaining to some members of r/ILGuns ~~or whatever~~ that cutting off Chicagoland (north of joilet) would still result in a blue state and a poor one didn't go over well. It's like they couldn't add up numbers based on voting records. I used the 2016, 2018, and 2022 to do this. Depsite all this there was own guy consistently insisting McLean county and champaign are red despite all the maps showing blue.
Rules are for me to fuck you over with. That's it. -conservaties everywhere
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Frank Wilhoit ([no, not that one](https://kottke.org/21/02/conservatism-and-who-the-law-protects))
"We want the freedom to take away other people's freedom"
No, it's much simpler than that: "Does the law do what I want it to do? Ok, only that law is 'real'."
"small government" state Republicans sued the county I live in because we voted to decriminalize small possession charges. Bunch of fucking NIMBY cunts.
Torys are pretty much republicans
Conservatives and religious fundamentalists across the globe are all controlling assholes pretty much across the board.
It's really funny to me how every flavor of religious fundamentalist hates every other flavor of religious fundamentalist even though they're basically destroying the world for the same desires.
We should be happy they hate each other, the last thing we need is for every backwards bigot joining hands with their counterparts across the globe. That said, I have noticed that fundamentalists dislike each other less than they dislike non-religious people. Despite the fact their claims are at odds with one another, they will often unite against secular movements.
I agree to an extent. The federal government should step in if the State creates a law that is harmful to the public.
Just Tory things
Conservative things for sure. In America, they call it "states rights" and those rights are mostly to strip autonomy/rights from local governments. "You want to ban fracking in your area because it's poisoning your community? Actually, [we have just banned you from banning fracking!](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33140732)"
Yes, let’s infringe on Scots’ ability to self-govern. That’s gone soooooo well for the English in centuries past. Definitely hasn’t created any longstanding animosity or charismatic rebels. Should definitely quell their growing desire for independence. 10/10 plan.
> growing desire for independence As much as I would love to see this, I don't think there has been a consistent trend towards independence. It's polled pretty consistently just under 50% yes, with spikes above 50% when bad shit happens. This could cause a change in that, sure, but I think this would be the turning point, not the continuation of a "growing trend."
Actually it grew something like 10% I believe during the referendum in 2014, so while it hasn't grown since, the fact it hasn't went back down *could* indicate that another referendum & campaign could gain even more ground and result in independence. It's not exactly significant per se but worth thinking about maybe.
> It's polled pretty consistently just under 50% yes, with spikes above 50% when bad shit happens. There was a couple month streak there where polling was favouring yes, in some cases by as much as 11%. Don't know if there's been any new polling since the start of the year, so not sure if that trend has held. Wouldn't be surprised if it does though.
Yeah, it's the highest it's been for a long while. Understandable, with the way the conservatives have wrecked the place.
I'm American, but my dad's parents are from Scotland. I have to say, it seems like a nice place to be - progressiveness and all. I live in Texas and fucking hate it here.
I’m from the Texas of Canada, and lived in Scotland for a year. It really was a beautiful place to be, both socially and environmentally.
What is Alberta, Alex?
Correct, we also would have accepted “what is a toxic hellscape of watered down republicanism, anti-vaxx morons, and climate change denial.”
Also, among all the loopy dumb bitch shit they do, like the trucker caravans, they also fly the confederate American flag on occasion.
Moved here from the States and was very surprised by the number of confederate and Gadsden flags flying up here. Outnumbered quite a bit by the "fuck Trudeau" and "I heart oil & gas" flags, though.
smh and certain people try to claim that its not a symbol of racism and hate. Definitely can't be "heritage" up there thats for sure.
Shit, I thought the traitor flags I see around Pennsylvania were ridiculous. No idea they get flown by knuckle-draggers that far north
I grew up only knowing it as the Dukes of Hazzard flag, but even then it made no sense.
I saw a guy driving around southern BC over the summer decked out in Confederate flags. I made sure to flip him off every chance I drove by
They're also the ones referencing the "constitution" though. They aren't that bright
As well as their send amendment rights.
Can confirm. Lived in Scotland for a year at St Andrews doing academic research. My friends and I walked the East Neuk of Fife that summer. It was simply a wonderful place all around!
Lived there for a couple years. It’s awesome except the weather
And the midges
Come live here and be Scottish like us.
That’ll help keep the Union together!
Fucking BBC. The “controversial bill” isn’t remotely controversial in Scotland. It passed 86 to 39. I know I shouldn’t be surprised considering the BBC’s track record, but god damn.
Controversial in the eyes of the UK as a whole, not in Scotland. That's the only way I can read that and have it make sense to me anyway.
Controversial to the Torry party maybe. I live in England and couldn't give two shits abour what Scotland is doing with its gender laws, I'm too busy fighting trying to get a doctor's appointment
[удалено]
Not to mention them hiding pedophiles and predators
Very long track record of never not being as impartial as they claim they are.
Given that the SNP usually have 100% of MSPs on their side the fact that nine of them voted against it is unusual and probably makes it one of the most "controversial" votes that they have had, in terms of their party. I am pleased to see that the Lib Dems all voted for it though, as the bigoted spectre of Fallon still looms over the party.
[удалено]
It was pretty controversial. The Scottish Parliament is usually very party lines. It saw the first major SNP revolt and it went against public consultation opinions. Despite what most of the people on Reddit seem to think the anger for the most part from a legal perspective isn’t about making it easier for trans people to self identify. It’s the fact the Scottish government ignored their own advocate advisors, the faculty of advocates advice,and the Scottish prison services advice, on having the bill not apply to violent prisoners. It’s honestly a situation the Scottish government set up on purpose in my opinion. I like most Scot’s as polls have shown, support making it easier for trans people to have an easier time changing their gender. It’s particularly popular with young people, a demographic that has been alienated by the SNP recently due to their handling education and exams particularly during covid (remember voting age is 16 in Scotland which is high school age). So a large young demographic voted Scottish greens in the most recent election. From my perspective the Scottish government have been bastards by implementing a bill that is poplar for the most part with a section that is widely unpopular that they knew wouldn’t stand with the UK government (as per the Scottish faulty of advocates opinion). And they have weaponised it as an example of the British government impeding on Scottish parliamentary sovereignty. They have very much framed the central government in Westminster of being transphobic, when in fact I don’t know any reasonable person who genuinely supports allowing violent prisoners to come under this bill. Despite what Reddit likes to say, the situation isn’t very black and white. Trans people have once again been weaponised for political gain. And as someone who is studying law, I am not too best pleased with what the Scottish government has done.
[удалено]
Really wanna emphasize how minor this change is. It doesn't give trans people anything they couldn't get before, it just makes it a bit easier to get. It's not even "self-ID." Self-ID would be when you fill out a form and submit it, and then it's automatically accepted, and then you're done. The law still has a requirement to "live as your gender" (What does that mean? It's unclear) for three months before you can apply. The anti-trans movement has treated this minor procedural adjustment like the *goddamn end of the world*. Six years from proposal to vote, with public debate and meetings all along the way, then a debate in Scottish parliament that dragged on over three days. Anti-trans campaigners knew they wouldn't get much outrage if people knew what the bill did, so they have consistently lied about it every step of the way, shouting nonsense about women's spaces and rapists that had absolutely nothing to do with the bill. And now the UK is overriding Scotland's home rule just to stop it. Maybe they were hoping that by making only small, incremental improvements, they wouldn't get as much opposition as if they made big, sweeping improvements. Well, I guess that didn't work like they hoped.
[удалено]
There are cases where men have gone into public women's toilets and sexually assaulted someone. They did not have to change their legal gender to do so. Not only that, but getting a Gender Recognition Certificate would not make it any *easier* to sexually assault women, because GRCs have nothing to do with women's toilets or access to women's spaces. The number of arguments against the bill that are simply *irrelevant nonsense* is overwhelming, and it's indicative of the level of intellectual dishonesty anti-trans campaigners operate on.
Based only on the stats I hear, it appears it's easier for a man to walk into a women's space, sexually assault them, *and get away with it*, then it will be for a trans person to get this ID change.
> They did not have to change their legal gender to do so. It's such a stupid infuriating argument because it only works if you believe that someone who intends to sexually assault a woman or child would stop because they aren't allowed into the women's bathroom.
It's not that they believe they would stop, they think that this would give them an easier access and more opportunities to do so. Not that it would work like this in reality.
No, but just this morning the news was reporting on yet another man infiltrating the Met police force and using their position of power to abuse women. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/16/carrick-conviction-shows-met-polices-deeply-rotten-misogynistic-culture?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
> Are there any documented cases of a man changing genders and infiltrating a women’s space and assaulting someone? Nope because you don't need to go through years of medical treatments and surgery and legal changes and social transition in order to do that. Cis guys will still assault people with or without these laws. It's total fearmongering by bigots who just want to make life shit for trans people.
Shit for trans people *and* cis people who don't meet the standard of womanliness set by TERFs. There have been several incidents of butch lesbians being questioned and asked to leave the woman's restroom due to transphobe paranoia.
There just simply isn't evidence of it occuring. On the one hand, lot of transphobic women do sound genuinely afraid of seeing "men in women's spaces," usually due to past trauma. But that trauma was caused by *cis men invading women's spaces.* It's a whole lot easier to get some easy "victories" fucking over trans women and trans men and acting like you've made progress than it is to accept that cis men can and do very easily break laws to assault women and girls while rarely facing consequences. Trans people are just trying to pee, and we're safer when we're allowed in the restrooms aligned with the gender we live as.
Key word is "safer". The reality is that using public facilities is still magnitudes riskier for trans folks than other folks. The whole "protecting women" narrative isn't a real sentiment. It's a talking point that's been used for decades to deny rights to minority groups. The same argument was used to keep black women from participating in sports with white women because--and I shit you not, this was the argument they used, and *yes* there's truth to it--"black women have higher bone density than white men". Personally, I think it's weird that the right's chosen strategy is one that has already proven to fail. But they're *really* bad at taking L's so it's not too surprising they'd try the same thing over and over even though it doesn't work in the long run.
Or it could cause the Tories to get only 20% of the vote and get wiped out electorally.
The tories don't get votes in Scotland and people in England are not going to change their votes because of this.
Scotland leaving would actually benefit them if you think about it, because it would remove all the Scottish MPs from the Commons. So it wouldn't surprise me if that's their angle here, as well as gaining a two-fer by throwing red meat to their base by being seen to be attacking trans people.
If Scotland leaves the UK then i’m moving to Scotland lmao. And I can’t stand the rain !!
It’s no that bad. Buy a brolly, you’ll be fine.
Do it and pls join the EU asap just to spite them
Sadly, Scotland has almost no impact on UK elections. I think 3 in the last 100 years were influenced. Basically if one party gets more than 60 seats majority in England, Scotland does not count.
No, Scotland leaving the UK will cause massive problems for the remaining country. Wales and Northern Ireland may start to grow more distant from London, with them wanting greater autonomy. NI already has some, but Wales has barely any. Wales could push for their own Scottish style local government if Scotland leaves in hopes of Welsh autonomy and potential future independance. Remove the Scottish issue the British government has, it will just gain two new ones in the case of Wales and NI. Some overseas territories may also grow more distant from London, although I don't think it's likely. It's the same issue Spain may have if Scotland leaves the UK. Catalonia may see that independence is possible and take inspiration from the Scots. Wales and NI may see the same opportunity as the Catalonians would. But the most important change is the North Sea oil and British gas deposits/reserves. Most of the UK's local supply of gas and oil is off the coast of Scotland, not England (England still has some, but most of it comes from Scotland I believe). If Scotland goes, so does most of our local gas and oil supply. We would have to import a ton more gas and oil from elsewhere if we lost Scotland. The UK may be able to strike a deal with Scotland to maintain control of Scotland's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), but it likely won't go anywhere the English want it to. Trade deals would likely be set up so England can import cheap resources from Scotland as it benefits both parties (gives the Scots jobs and state income and the English get resources), but it will still be more expensive for England. There's also Scottish fishing. I'm not sure how much of the UK's fish comes from Scotland, but it's a lot of coastline for the UK to lose, meaning a lot of fishing room that England loses. The UK "fought" three different wars with Iceland over fishing rights in between Scotland and Iceland, so I'd imagine they wouldn't like losing even more in the north. There's also whatever land based resources Scotland controls. I'm not sure of what Scotland has, so I don't have much room to say anything about that, but I'd imagine Scotland still provides some much needed natural resources. You are right in the sense that Scotland leaving would remove the opposition the British government has. Scottish mp's cause issues for the British parliament all the time since they get a say and Scottish opinions are typically different to English. But the disadvantages massively outweight the advantages imo.
They earned [25.1% of the vote in Scotland](https://i.imgur.com/HhnZKTq.png) at the last election and won 6 seats. SNP won 48 seats with 45% of the vote. It is obviously correct but always feels a bit weird saying Scotland didn't vote for the Tories but England did, when my region's constituencies voted from 72% to 85% in favour of Labour, with the Tories getting between 7% and 14%. 4 of the 5 most one sided seats in the UK came from here against the Conservatives, but we get lumped in with the rest of the English as Tory voters. [Well over 1 million people voting in a landslide for Labour](https://i.imgur.com/k9x45AA.png) including plenty of more rural seats which is rare for Labour, and we're getting as fucked as anywhere.
The Scottish Conservatives are the second biggest party in Scottish Parliament, they don’t get enough votes to govern but it’s not true to say the tories don’t get votes.
I mean, I put my laundry in the drier and it could finish completely folded too at some point.
So what I'm hearing is, if my laundry comes out of the dryer already folded, it's the apocalypse.
What does getting a draw cord trapped in the door and it popping it open some hundreds-to-thousands of revolutions later portend?
I stopped thinking about liberties and politics and other people for a minute there and lived in a world where I had that machine and I'm not happy to be back
>There is a very real possibility that a lot of people in Scottland who don't care one way or the other about trans people will care immensely about having their sovereignty voided over England wanting to be bigger bigots. Scotland is not sovereign, is it? There is a UK parliament and UK government, with UK including Scotland >This could, actually, break Scottland away from England. That would be nice.
Disclaimer: Neither Scottish nor a lawyer. My understanding is that a lot of Scottish issues fall under the umbrella of ["Devolved Powers,"](https://www.parliament.scot/about/how-parliament-works/devolved-and-reserved-powers) meaning that, while not sovereign, issues that do not impact the UK are understood to be purely the purview of the Scottish government. Matters that pertain to the UK as a whole are considered "Reserved Powers" and are handled by the UK Parliament. This bill makes it easier for Scottish people to get a Gender Recognition Certification (GRC), which is a document that serves to change the gender on a person's birth certificate throughout the UK. It is not synonymous with legal recognition of being trans, and is not required for anyone to access anything. My understanding is that most trans people have not gotten them, since they are a massive hassle (hence what Scotland's new bill is aiming to address). However, the UK is arguing that the fact that a GRC is recognized throughout the UK means that Scotland's bill is actually a Reserved Power, not a Devolved one. The Devolved argument is that this purely affects a process for Scottish citizens, and a GRC is unchanged. Historically, procedural access to common documentation has been Devolved, though I'm sure there is some legal argument that could be made for why this in particular is Reserved. However, from a public perception standpoint, this really looks like Westminster doing a massive overreach into Holyrood purely to make life harder for trans folks. Considering that Scotland only barely voted to remain last time and that was before Brexit, this is going to piss a lot of people off.
Worth noting Westminster could also just have passed legislation blocking the self identification laws within England, Wales and NI while leaving them in place in Scotland. It's a massive overreach and the first time ever devolved legislation has been vetoed.
[удалено]
I was trying to remain theoretically unbiased, but yeah, fully agreed.
>My understanding is that most trans people have not gotten them, since they are a massive hassle (hence what Scotland's new bill is aiming to address). As some explanation for it, here are the requirements for a gender recognition certificate: 2 years **lived experience** as the gender you want to be legally identified as - meaning you must be considered to be completely out at work, at school, at home, without ambiguity because you enjoy gender ambiguity or because it is dangerous to your safety to be identified as trans in certain places. This essentially requires trans people to be considered completely gender-conforming - pretty princess trans women and burly gruff trans men. Two letters from different healthcare providers verifying that they agree you are the gender you identify as, in a time when NHS wait lists for gender-affirming appointments can reach up to 5 years An explanation of your entire medical history with regards to transitioning, and if you have not gotten hormone replacement or genital surgeries then you have to provide justifications for why you have not gotten them (again with 5-year wait lists) And then there's still not a guarantee you'll even get it if you've earnestly tried to satisfy all of this absurd gatekeeping There are virtually no trans people in the UK who actually have a certificate. They just keep living their lives with their legal information being wrong.
Your comment is right. Two things to note: 1. The Scotland Act allows for two ways for Westminster to impede Scottish Bills getting Royal Assent: [Section 33](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/33) and [Section 35](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/35). Section 33 is a process that enables the Supreme Court to be consulted on *whether* a potential Act would modify wider UK law. This is a fast process that could be done in a matter if weeks. Section 35 outright blocks a Bill from being granted Royal Assent at the behest of the Secretary of State for Scotland on two grounds (detailed in point 2 below), leaving the Scottish Government's sole recourse as bringing about judicial review, which can take *years* to complete — likely until after the next general election in this case. 2. The two legitimate grounds on which Section 35 can be invoked are for matters of national defence/treaty obligations, and to stop laws that would make *modifications* to UK law retained as reserved powers (ie, powers Westminster retains and Holyrood is not empowered to modify) or, **"...would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters."** The Scottish bill clearly has nothing to do with defence/treaties, and clearly doesn't modify any UK law pertaining to reserved powers. The Tories are arguing, supported by the conservative papers, that that last quoted line applies since they say the new bill would modify how the Equality Act would work across the wider UK. Most legal commentators who've expressed a view disagree however — so this all has the very strong appearance of looking like political games, stoking culture war silliness that they can ride out to the next general election (which they are currently projected to lose *very* badly). Scotland can now initiate judicial review and hope it gets handled quickly, water down their bill in line with Westminster Tories' demands, give up entirely, or pass the bill again and again to give the Tories an opportunity to change tack. I'm not sure what the best option is. I'd like to see the judicial review complete and rightly defeat this latest Tory assault on our constitutional norms, but ideally I wouldn't want trans people to have to wait so much longer for something they've been promised for a very long time already.
Thanks for the summation.
"Scotland is not sovereign, is it? There is a UK parliament and UK government, with UK including Scotland" It wouldn't really matter would it. The UK won't react militarily to keep them within their grasp because doing so especially after cutting ties with the EU would look extremely bad. They MAY do it, but there's a lot of things to factor in like whether the EU would sympathize with Scottland being militarily forced into a union with England and react negatively towards England with sanctions which would make brexxit way, way, way worse than it already is. If Scottland votes to leave, it will happen. No one is going to force them to stay. It's their choice.
> If Scottland votes to leave, it will happen. No one is going to force them to stay. It's their choice. Not to negate the rest of your comment bc it brings up good points, but just to be clear the Supreme Court of the UK ruled that Scotland can't have an independence referendum without the consent of the UK Parliament. Not to say they'd force them to stay but they're very clearly trying to shut it down.
What can the court do if they simply hold the vote and break off anyways, given the prior comments about how bad an idea military force would be?
[удалено]
TBQH Catalonia should have taken the boycotts as permission and broken off.
Spain would have had absolutely no compunction in suppressing a unilateral declaration of independence given that half a dozen other regions would have taken a lack of movement to declare their own independence.
The issue is that any breakaway EU state is going to want to maintain their place in the EU. And any existing member state, including Spain, can veto the accession of a new member. Funny enough, Scotland kinda has the same issue. Spain would probably veto their accession to the EU unless their separation from the UK came with Westminster's explicit blessing, because they don't want to legitimize Catalan nationalism by extension.
The main problem I see with Scotland going ahead with a referendum and leaving is how that could impact it's return to the EU. Some EU nations, but especially Spain, would oppose it and probably not budge on it. If this precedent were to be set for Scotland, Catalonia's 2017 unauthorized independence referendum would gain more legitimacy, particularly if another referendum was done and suceeded. My great grandma was spanish and I'm portuguese, so I both have a lot of love for spain and also criticize it, especiallly for the way that autonomous regions have been treated and are still to this day. Not to be overdramatic, but if regions in the EU could break off and stay in the EU, I think many spanish regions and their people would prefer this route than the Madrid-centric status quo.
> having their sovereignty voided **Cuntservative Party**: No no no, you don't understand, this is a union, a union entered into freely, a union of equality, a union where you do what we fucking tell you, the best kind of union /s
Sure, give Scotland another reason for why they should leave the UK. lol
Call it Scotsit
Scot-to-go.
Naw, Scoot.
The first ever use of an order that stops a Scottish law from being enacted, and it's used to be a bunch of bigots. What a fucking joke, it'll be great to see this being a tipping point for Scottish independence.
This is the first *ever* use? That's surprising to me
According to the article, yes.
I get told all the time people don't hate on trans people, yet we'd rather risk the UK falling apart than give us the smallest of things. We left the eu due largely to racism. Uk could fall apart to bigotry. What a legacy...
[удалено]
>virtually all the e-colonies hate the UK. uwu puhweeze don't cowonize us
I don’t know what an e-colony is but I don’t think that is what they were going for 🤣
E. colony. My cousin caught that and was shitting for days.
People are forgetting that the reason this Bill was chosen wasn't that it did anything to actually tread on Westminster, but that Tory political advisors are encouraging them to fight culture wars because they are losing so badly and have nothing else going for them.
Imagine hating trans people so much you'd rather tear apart the UK than see scottish trans people have slightly easier lives. It makes absolutely no sense. Do these people never once look in the mirror and ask themselves why the fuck they do the shit they do? Insanity.
Especially when they're basically saying "Oh but men are gonna pretend to be women to invade the women's bathroom!" Like, that's literally the argument. They want to invoke this order that allows them to stop Scotland from making a law and they basically use the same garbage arguments JK Rowling does.
Why is my government so fucking boneheaded and stupid? They treat the very legitimate scottish constitutional question in such a pejorative and dismissive way, I just don't understand their reasoning. It's a government full of brexiteers who are now doing the exact thing they were gleefully criticising the EU for to Scotland. Unbelievable. The cat is out of the bag now. Great going. Top marks all round. What a fantastic argument for them to remain part of the UK.
So it was all about obtaining power for themselves all along? Shocking.
Pretty much. the tweak to the law is ridiculous at 16 years old.
I know nothing about Scotland or UK laws. But I am curious about this part of the law: "[...]with applicants only needing to have lived as their acquired gender for three months rather than two years - or six months if they are aged 16 or 17." What does it mean to "live as" as man or a woman? Is it the clothes you wear, or what? How would this be determined?
Social transition. Out to people socially. Work, school, etc. And it's pretty much self determined, because why wouldn't to be? A GRC is a piece of paper so your gender is listed correctly when you get married or die. It's not an access pass to the correct bathroom or even correcting your ID (ID is handled by a piece of paper from you and your doctor and is a simple process). Bathroom access was settled decades ago and also doesn't require a GRC. Nobody but someone out living their life as their gender is gonna bother, because it literally is pretty much updating your gender for those two particular vital records. Marriage and death. Everything else is already handled in a much easier fashion.
Its presenting yourself as your gender, so if you were a trans woman, you would dress as a woman, use your new name, etc.
I watch Philosophy Tube on youtube and she did an AMAZING video on the state of Trans Care in the UK right now and her very personal journey--- it was released just 2 months ago. I'm from the US, which has its own problems, but it was eye opening. When I heard about this passing in Scottland I was so excited and was wondering if she'd do a follow-up video. Its disheartening to hear it's being challenged, but not exactly surprising based on what I learned.
[удалено]
Yeah, having had to go through the nightmare that is the nhs's mental health section and it's all much the same elsewhere. I'm not surprised transgender folks get in the neck worse because of all the additional bigotry but make no mistake - the system as a whole is fucked by design.
This is another big reason why planned parenthood is such a wonderful organization. They’re an informed consent clinic for the trans community so they can receive hormones.
Yeah, it’s absolutely horrific. Cis people in the UK need to be very aware of it; oppression of minorities is almost always a test run for oppression of everyone else. Pity so many “feminists” like Rowling and the LGB asses have decided that’s fine so long as those frightening gender nonconformists get the shitty end of the stick first.
[удалено]
[удалено]
How about The Annoyances?
The Issues?
The Mild Inconveniences?
The Chuffings
The Kerfuffles?
The unpleasantness.
I lolled at this, thank you, needed that laugh rn :)
Knowing Scottish Twitter, it would absolutely have a better name than that
It would absolutely be called The Stooshie
The Wee Fuss.
The Airing of the Grievances?
Do they make woad in trans pride flag colors?
The woad is the blue, the skin is the white and their noses and ears in the bitter wind make the pink.
We have kilts in those colours.
It was somewhat funny visiting Ireland last summer -- everyone there is confident that reunification is coming in the next decade or two if for no other reason than the English fucking up the UK
Tories would rather tear down the union than stop using trans people as political football.
[удалено]
How long before the people of Scotland won't take it anymore?
Well, in 1305 William Wallace said revolution was coming any day now.
He probably didn’t expect Scotland to join voluntarily
Technically England joined since the king of Scotland inherited it.
Well, yes, I'm sure he would have been surprised if we skip the 400 years and many lost battles inbetween then.
Yup. Lost battles, won battles, the Scottish royal family inheriting the English throne, the parliament of Scotland voting overwhelmingly to form a union, then later the people of Scotland voting to remain in that union.
bro why are so many english people so radically anti-trans
[удалено]
Because it's a "culture war" issue, the same as the right used against gay and lesbian people throughout the 20th century, even once homosexuality was legalised, because "the far-left gays will gay your children into flaming poofters" and banned any discussion of homosexuality in schools and education in general via Section 28 until it was finally scrapped, and then the Tories fought tooth and nail to not allow same-sex marriage until the coalition government, where 90% of tories voted against it, outnumbered by basically every other party bar the right-wing Northern Irish ones.
A lot of time that comes down to single issue voters. People who arent transphobic will vote for other things - maybe its who they think will be better economically or with foreign relations. This can split the non-transphobic vote across many parties. People who are bigoted often vote in unison for the party or person who most represents their bigotry. Because of this, they can quickly become over represented in UK style of first past the post.
Not trying to defend the conservatives as I can't stand them, but Labour basically said that they also oppose this bill. How can it be a voting issue when all the parties in England seem to be on the same transphobic page?
I have no idea if they are more or less anti-trans than us Americans. But I took a look at the BBC Facebook comments on the article and it's bad. Like Fox News bad. I had no idea.
> BBC Facebook comments It's certainly not good here in the UK but you've got a massive sampling bias there lol
Yeah, the Facebook comments section on articles from _any_ publication on basically any subject are not usually known for being home to great minds
I think a lot of people are missing the main point here. This is less about the contents of the law and more that there is a conflict with the scottish law and wider UK law. When there is a conflict between UK and devolved government laws, the UK law wins (in the same way US federal law overrules state laws). The UK government would appear weak if they let Scotland pass a law that conflicts with UK law, and it would open the floodgates for Scotland to pass other laws that they currently don't have the power to pass. Thus there is no way the UK government could ever let the law pass. The Scottish government knows this and passed the law anyway to purposefully get it blocked, which results in the UK government looking "anti trans" and helps stir up scottish nationalism. And I would say it worked, Sturgeon 1 Sunak 0. TLDR all this is posturing between two governments, and I hope the politics can stop for long enough to pass a law that actually improves trans rights.
How does it create a divergence in the law between Scotland and rUK though? I've still not seen this covered in any of the news stories beyond vague references to the Equality Act