Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.

[Granny Danger]

4 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

100 percent would support Westminster overturning this. As for independence you can forget it, it’ll never happen in a million years thanks to the kind of thing we are talking about right now. Not a chance. 

I appreciate you replying.  At least we now know that you no more support democracy than you do trans rights.

[doulikefish]

1320 in a username is some patter for a Tory.We must assume him a Tory as all the other parties that sit voted for it (and 1 Tory)

[williemillersmoustache]

11 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

100 percent would support Westminster overturning this. As for independence you can forget it, it’ll never happen in a million years thanks to the kind of thing we are talking about right now. Not a chance. 

Announce your big team without announcing your big team type post. 

"We can't be independent because we have held an exhaustive democratic procedure and enacted legislation to protect the rights of transsexuals."

Is it just me or does this sound a bit, odd?

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, doulikefish said:

1320 in a username is some patter for a Tory.We must assume him a Tory as all the other parties that sit voted for it (and 1 Tory)

I’m not sure he’s a Tory, he’s certainly not a troll.  Not all transphobes are Tories, there are some in the SNP group in Holyrood including in senior government positions.

[Boo Khaki]

25 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

I hope @Boo Khaki is right when they reckon Westminster trying to overrule via S35 will be futile. In the meantime, well done to the MSPs kicking against the p***ks. 

If Westminster wants to Section 35 this, they'll have to prove that it has implications for reserved law that are wholly outside the competence of the Scottish Government. I don't believe that it does, and the whole point of Holyrood taking 2+ days to sit through these amendments was to filter out the ones obviously lodged in bad faith and designed specifically to draw the bill into territory where it may be outwith SG competence. 

Section 35 is clearly intended to prevent Scottish governments going 'rogue' and using their own powers over devolved law to 'poison' reserved matters. What it is not intended as is a mechanism for the Scottish Secretary to wield a nuclear button over legislation brought about by a democratically elected Scottish Parliament when that legislation has overwhelming cross-party support, has been a manifesto commitment through two SGE's, and the party espousing it has won overwhelming victories in both.

If the SNP/Green coalition had pulled this out of the hat two minutes ago, railroaded it through despite universal opposition party disapproval, and made no mention of any such intention in their election manifesto, then I could see some sort of logic behind the SS going 'hud oan a minute...', but that is emphatically not the case here. It's abundantly clear that S35 is being pulled out of the hat because this direction of travel is entirely at odds with Tory outlook and nothing else. It's not because the legislation is outwith competence, or that it has been surreptitiously produced, or that it has been produced in bad faith, which is what S35 is there to counter, it's being threatened purely because it's thrown down a gauntlet to a Westminster government that is increasingly dependent upon culture wars shite because they no longer have any credibility when they talk about issues like the economy, democracy, honesty, transparency, etc

Should probably add - I have no doubt that the threat of an S35 stunt would have been considered by the SG while this debate was underway, and quite possibly discussed at the meeting between Shona Robison and Kemi Badenoch the other day, yet the SG has pressed on with this uncowed. This can only be because they are confident that there is no legitimate basis for an s35 that will stand up to scrutiny, which is what I believe to be the case given the constant theme of caution over the amendments, or, the SG fully expected the s35 palaver and sees the consequences as a win/win no matter the outcome. Yes, this bill being scuppered would be a blow for the rights of trans people in Scotland, but then it would only be a temporary setback at worst, and would no doubt lead to a further entrenching of pro-Indi attitudes as occurs every single time Westminster demonstrates the fundamental lack of democracy within the union.

Edited December 22, 2022 by Boo Khaki

[sophia]

2 hours ago, 1320Lichtie said:

This will not go down well 

I'm with you sister.

Just imagine preparing for the act and being met with that.

[sophia]

4 hours ago, razamanaz said:

Can the natz not answer a question without the SNP default of blaming someone else?

Is that it? Is that your standard?

[carpetmonster]

36 minutes ago, doulikefish said:

1320 in a username is some patter for a Tory.We must assume him a Tory as all the other parties that sit voted for it (and 1 Tory)

MIght've been two Tories. Sandesh Gulhane was an aye alongside Jamie Greene on the first reading. Full breakdown likely available tomorrow. 

[GNU_Linux]

1 minute ago, carpetmonster said:

MIght've been two Tories. Sandesh Gulhane was an aye alongside Jamie Greene on the first reading. Full breakdown likely available tomorrow. 

 

 

[Mark Connolly]

Jackson Carlaw definitely testing the whips over the last few days

[Granny Danger]

Given the voting on this it is very simplistic to present it as an SNP v Tory issue.

[Boo Khaki]

7 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Given the voting on this it is very simplistic to present it as an SNP v Tory issue.

Purely on the voting itself, yes, it's an over-simplification given that it was a whipped vote and there were still objectors, but on party policy there is only one party that rejects Self-ID, the Tories, so it's more like Everyone v Tory. 

Exception being Alba in Westminster, but their days as a political party with actual elected members are numbered anyway. Oh, and I suspect the DUP are probably right there as well. I'd forgotten about them, only temporarily though, sadly.

Edited December 22, 2022 by Boo Khaki

[BFTD]

Quite funny how a small rebellion has been considered evidence that the SNP is falling apart by some of the same folk who were furious for years that the "cult-like" party all shared a "hivemind" and disagreed on nothing, which was unnatural and would, erm, see the SNP fall apart.

It's almost like the primary concern was furiously hoping the party would fall apart, with the actual circumstances irrelevant.

[Boo Khaki]

47 minutes ago, BFTD said:

Quite funny how a small rebellion has been considered evidence that the SNP is falling apart by some of the same folk who were furious for years that the "cult-like" party all shared a "hivemind" and disagreed on nothing, which was unnatural and would, erm, see the SNP fall apart.

It's almost like the primary concern was furiously hoping the party would fall apart, with the actual circumstances irrelevant.

Straying into the 'BBC Bias thread' territory here, but I can't help but notice that the 'Is Sturgeon losing her grip on the SNP?' piece is still front and centre on their news page, as it has been for about ten days, when usually these things come and go and are replaced within 24 hours. So yes, I'd agree that there's a whole heap of wishful thinking going on in the media, rather than objective reporting.

[razamanaz]

17 hours ago, sophia said:

Is that it? Is that your standard?

Sorry. dragged down to nats standards, just trying to annoy someone who wouldn't answer a straight question

[Aufc]

Quite disappointing to see the SNPs energy strategy looking to stop new oil fields. Whilst I am on board with moving to a greener society, this wont happen overnight and oil & gas is going to a key part of the UKs energy strategy for the next 25 years at least. So why is she so keen to wipe the industry out as soon as possible? All that will end up happening is we will need to import product from abroad. Why not extract every possible amount to help fund the transition to greener sources. 

[fatshaft]

On 22/12/2022 at 21:45, Boo Khaki said:

Straying into the 'BBC Bias thread' territory here, but I can't help but notice that the 'Is Sturgeon losing her grip on the SNP?' piece is still front and centre on their news page, as it has been for about ten days, when usually these things come and go and are replaced within 24 hours. So yes, I'd agree that there's a whole heap of wishful thinking going on in the media, rather than objective reporting.

Awful lot of now ex-SNP members have debunked over to Alba, the fact 9 still went against the whip shows the level of discontent there. At least one MSP has admitted to voting for GRR solely because the party asked him to 

[Wee Bully]

4 minutes ago, fatshaft said:

Awful lot of now ex-SNP members have debunked over to Alba, the fact 9 still went against the whip shows the level of discontent there. At least one MSP has admitted to voting for GRR solely because the party asked him to 

What is “an awful lot”.  I’m an ex-SNP member, and there is no way I would touch Alba with a barge poll.  I don’t know of any other ex-members who have any time for Alba either.  I suspect they only appeal to the Gammon wing of the independence movement, which is happily pretty small

[Boo Khaki]

I wasn't contending it isn't a perfectly legitimate question to ask, only that the article was front and centre on their webpage for far longer than other similar articles ever are, so it stinks to high heaven of trying to set the narrative rather than just reporting it. It was still up the other day, almost a month after it first appeared.

Edited January 11, 2023 by Boo Khaki

[fatshaft]

Just now, Wee Bully said:

What is “an awful lot”.  I’m an ex-SNP member, and there is no way I would touch Alba with a barge poll.  I don’t know of any other ex-members who have any time for Alba either.  I suspect they only appeal to the Gammon wing of the independence movement, which is happily pretty small

Well basically everyone who has joined is ex-SNP so there'a bout 10,000 activists gone, my own branch has had 3 or 4 activists go, hefty considering you're looking at at most 20 hard core volunteers, and a couple more are going to give it one last push or they are off as well