RANDOM THOUGHTS

It’s hard for me to imagine anyone as hard hearted as the Braverman woman.

But she exists and she has power (limited, I accept, but some power) in Scotland.

What on earth are we doing with people like that in government?

Freedom from Torture Twitter Account, says:

The Home Office is seeking the removal of our video of Joan’s exchange with Suella Braverman. But we are standing our ground.

Clearly the Home Office is embarrassed by the behaviour of Braverman, as indeed it should be, and so should Britain. However, this was a meeting with her constituents. She was actually there as their MP. It is nothing to do with the Home Office. They should butt out.

Here’s the full video.

**********

***********

Just a thought, Mr Sunak.

**********

Ooops.

The thing is, Rich Rishi, dude. There should usually be some element of truth in the stuff you spout. You are failing on every single thing here.

I’ve always thought it was a waste of time to try to be a bigger liar than Boris Johnson, but I have to say, your efforts are impressive.

**********

When you remember that he went on to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer and responsible for Britain’s money, it becomes less and less of a mystery that we find ourselves in the current position.

I realise that the brains behind budgets, regardless of party, are the experienced civil servants who work in the Treasury and that the actual ministers are only there to guide the political direction of the policies, but it would be comforting to know that ministers had at least an inkling of what consequences might arise from various actions.

**********

Seriously, I’m wondering what we get in exchange for this. Cancelled ship orders and interference in our parliament?

**********

It seems that a government minister and ex-chancellor has been on the fiddle tax wise. After all, he’s agreed to pay back millions to HMRC so it looks like he’s agreed it.

Remember, this is the bloke who used our money to keep his horses warm. I am, of course, a great believer in keeping horses warm, but I’m pretty sure that the horses’ people should pay for that electricity, and not the general public.

Not a nice man.

I’m getting the impression of an all round… what’s the word I’m looking for? Oh yeah. Tory.

**********

120 thoughts on “RANDOM THOUGHTS”

    1. Niko, there is something very wrong with the Tories, Law Makers, individual members and Press.

      The whole “Establishment” has become utterly rotten to the core, and they don’t care, openly or privately

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Actually, it’s a bit scary.

        I see so many similarities to 1930s Germany.

        And regardless where you stand on GRA, the fact that unelected Sunak can simply refuse to allow an Act of the Scottish parliament to go through to the king for signing, should say something to all Scots.

        We tolerate your little parliament, although we didn’t ever want it, but regardless of how it votes, WE, the important people in World Beating England, have the final say.

        It reminds me (regardless of my loathing of royalty) that the pipsqueak failure, Truss, decided that Charlie couldn’t go to the COP in Egypt.

        They genuinely believe that they in their incredibly undemocratic nation, are superior to other people.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. “the fact that unelected Sunak can simply refuse to allow an Act of the Scottish parliament to go through to the king for signing”

          It’s literally part of the Scotland Act, it’s always been part of the Scotland Act and the SNP nor the Greens never asked for it to be changed during the Smith Commission. Section 35 – if a bill within Holyrood’s competency infringes on the operation of reserved law (it doesn’t need to change it only it’s operation), it can be stopped from receiving Royal Assent.

          Far be it for me to point out if the SNP had used the mandates they were given year after year to deliver independence, then the Scotland Act would be completely irrelevant.

          I contrast their absolute horror and outrage at this bill being stopped with their acquiescence over Scotland being taken out of the EU. Or indeed their inaction when the Internal Market Act stripped Holyrood of devolved powers.

          Perhaps if the FM were willing to have passed a Referendum bill at Holyrood and had it challenged on section 35 more people would be willing to back her on that issue. I’m aware she appointed a Unionist Lord advocate who wouldn’t agree to it. However 1. she could have appointed someone who would have 2. a backbencher could have been appointed to bring a private members bill that didn’t require the LA’s consent.

          They were warned by multiple sources, including the EHRC, that GRR bill was not competent as proposed because it infringed on UK/GB wide legislation but as per usual the FM ignores anyone that doesn’t agree with her.

          All they need to do now is amend the bill in consultation with Westminster and it would be given Assent. But no, she’s going to waste more public money fighting a legal battle that can’t be won whilst public sector workers are offered below inflation rises and NHS waiting times soar.

          Here’s a suggestion every constituency MSP regardless of party (list MSPs would just be replaced by the next person on the list) that voted for this bill should resign and trigger a by-election whereby they stand on the sole issue of GRRB. Let them put their money where their mouth is and let the people decide if they vote SNP for GRRB as opposed to indy or vote Better Together for this issue than anti indy.

          Scot Gov choose this hill to die on, not Brexit, not the Internal Market Act, not indyref2 but this, a proposal that is opposed by 2/3s of the people and 3/4 if you exclude don’t knows.

          The Green-SNP have been hoisted on their own petard. Two weeks before passing GRRB they went to the Court of Session to argue that possession of a GRC changed someone’s legal sex of all purposes including the reserved Equality Act. And they won their case. They can’t then pass a bill two weeks later amending who is eligible for the GRC and then pretend that it has no affect on EA or on those in E,W and NI.

          I’ve wanted Scottish independence for decades. Up to 2021 I’d never voted for anyone other than the SNP for that very reason. However if I have to remain in the UK and everything Sturgeon has done thus far ensures I do, then I don’t get to complain when devolution works as it was intended to. Donald Dewar spoke in Westminster on this very issue of section 35 pre devolution. It was fully intended to be part of the Scotland Act.

          By all means Westminster overturning Holyrood laws that have no impact on reserved matters, get angry. But guess what the aforementioned Internal Market Act gives them EXACTLY that right. Maybe Scot Gov should have been focussing on getting us out of the Union!

          Liked by 1 person

            1. “How could they use the mandate legally?”

              The constitution is reserved to Westminster. If you accept that we can do nothing to achieve independence without their permission because it’s not legal, then why are you complaining that they have blocked Royal Assent for a bill that Westminster believes is illegal as it interferes with Equalities legislation, the majority of which is reserved. According to your own argument, they are fully entitled to do so because it isn’t legal.

              “How could they get us out of the union?”

              If they really can’t get us out of the union then it is time they stop using the Yes movement votes to get elected and instead ask to be elected on their policies.

              As for Alba, since they aren’t in power who knows what they might do. I do know that Neale Hanvey who is very against GRRB and spoke at the demo outside during the debates, nonetheless voted against section 35 being invoked (he and Kenny take week about turns in London). Alba leadership have stated that the mess was made in Scotland and should be fixed in Scotland. Whilst I agree in principle with that, since Holyrood has no revising chamber there is no way to fix the bill other than an agreement with Westminster to alleviate their concerns.

              Like

              1. It is legal. They are entitled to do it. It even has a number.

                But because it is legal for the English parliament to interfere with our legislation, it doesn’t mean I have to like it. (I say English parliament because it massively consists of English MPs and spends most of the week discussing England matters. Our MPs are largely ignored unless they are Tories or vote with the Tories … for example the Labour bloke with the union jacket and Hanvey)

                In England it’s now legal to arrest someone for demonstrating. I don’t have to approve of it, as I wouldn’t have done in 1930s Germany.

                As I’ve said, there are many things that are legal in Scotland and illegal in England, and vice versa.

                How can something in one country interfere with something in another country. It wouldn’t affect the English, unless they came here.

                Like

          1. Panda Paws , so you say you have wanted Scottish independence for decades ? are you inferring that since 2021 you don’t want Scottish independence because the SNP have not governed the way you would like .

            Liked by 1 person

            1. “are you inferring that since 2021 you don’t want Scottish independence”

              No you’re inferring that. You are assuming the only way to support indy is to vote SNP. Even the SNP don’t believe that since they accept votes for Scot Greens as pro indy even though some may be voting for the environment. Indeed the previous leader Robin Harper is a staunch unionist and campaigned for Better Together.

              “the SNP have not governed the way you would like .”

              No I’ve stopped voting for the SNP because I think they have governed badly since 2016 and are not serious about delivering indy. More importantly why should anyone vote for any party that doesn’t govern the way they like?

              Like

              1. Hi panda paws , im 67 there has never ever been a government in my lifetime that has governed the way I would like , frankly , I think it would be an impossible task for a government because there will always be things that a government any government does that displeases me.Isn’t that the same with you ?

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Yes it is the same with me I’ve never agreed with any party on everything. The difference between us seems to be that I have a tipping point beyond which I can no longer vote for a party. That tipping point for me was the lack of progress on indy and the removal of power from the SNP membership, not GRRB though I disagree with that too. SNP conference has voted for policies and the leadership completely ignores these votes and does what it wants e.g. on currency, on freeports, Growth Commission et al.

                  I hope the SNP membership can wrestle back control from the Executive clique and soon.

                  Liked by 1 person

          2. This is very challengeable and winnable.

            The main argument that has been developed so far by UK Gov is that GRR creates a legislative difference. This, however, is a consequence of the Scotland Act. It is not a winning legal argument in itself because every act passed by Holyrood creates a legislative difference.

            It is not clear that UK gov has properly reviewed this, anyway, before coming to their S35 decision. Judicial review, despite Dominic Raab’s efforts, has not been reformed and has seen many successful challenges to UK gov policy in the past. I would imagine this will be a key argument when this ends up in court.

            Any UK gov that neuters Holyrood does so at their peril. The outcome of this can only be to drive support for independence.

            You have misrepresented the recent case overseen by Lady Haldane. She was unequivocal in her summation that the authors of the Equality Act used the words “sex” and “gender” exactly as intended. It is for this reason that Scot Gov won the case. I know that many find this a politically controversial point but in strictly legal terms this is cut and dried.

            Liked by 3 people

            1. Yes, I thought that the “difference” argument was weak.

              Even before devolution, there were many differences in Scotland, given that it has its own law and legal system (promised at the time of union, presumably to keep the lawyers and judges on board).

              Since the advent of the parliament many more things have become different. And in recent years where the hard right wing government has introduced many restrictive laws in England, they are not enacted for Scotland.

              If, as some have suggested, it is outwith the remit of the Scottish government to legislate on this, why did the British authorities, or the Tory office manager here, not let this be known a long time ago?

              Liked by 1 person

                1. I think one of the biggest examples of the differences that date back long before devolution, is education.

                  Primary school is longer here (7years compared with 6 in England)

                  Secondary school is therefor shorter.

                  Highers, are more broadly based than A levels. 5, 6, 7 subjects at Higher, compared to 2-3 A levels. Scotland is closer to the Bac.

                  University here is 4 years for an honours bachelor degree (and now free), but in England its 3 years, based on the more intensive A level syllabus (and it costs over £9 000 a year).

                  But somehow we muddle through.

                  It appears that we can accept a certificate from Uruguay but we can’t issue a certificate ourselves.

                  Like

                  1. The issue isn’t there being a difference. The issue is whether that difference makes a difference outwith Scotland. No-one in England is affected by Scotland having a different education system. It doesn’t change their education system nor its operation.

                    ” It appears that we can accept a certificate from Uruguay but we can’t issue a certificate ourselves.”

                    No-one is arguing about the issue of a certificate, they are arguing about the changes on the grounds for qualification for obtaining said certificate. The GRC process in foreign countries was to be “as robust” as the UK process. However when some countries brought in self id, they didn’t update their list cos Westminster are incompetent. They are updating it now, indeed if you aren’t on the list now and have self id you wouldn’t be added to it.

                    I think the whole GRRB is the latest example to illustrate the profound problem with devolution especially post Smith. Many of the “new” powers were not actually powers, they were responsibilities. Some of those responsibilities were booby traps e.g. income tax and the fiscal framework. Mundell even boosted they were traps at the time! We should never have agreed to it as stands. We just took powers for powers sake without carefully considering – how does this help us in Scotland and make the people’s lives better and how does it bring indy closer?

                    Like

                    1. There are many legal arguments for and against S35 here. I was careful to only discuss the arguments forwarded by UK gov so far. The arguments made by Alistair Jack can precisely be categorised as a dislike of legislative difference.

                      Liked by 2 people

            2. “The main argument that has been developed so far by UK Gov is that GRR creates a legislative difference.”

              I don’t agree that’s their main argument. If it was I’d agree with you, the very existence of Holyrood will create legislative difference. The point is that Holyrood can only do that in devolved areas. It can’t legally legislate on any matter that will affect the operation of any reserved area.

              Lady Haldane ruled that “It was ruled that ‘sex is not limited to biological birth sex’, and that the sex of a person who holds a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) is altered in the eyes of the law.” that law being the Equality Act 2010 which is UK legislation.

              In altering the conditions by which you qualify for a GRC, you are de facto altering the operation of a reserved Act. Holyrood can’t impose self id on E, W and NI. The only way you can avoid doing so, that I can see, is to make a new Scottish GRC only legally valid in Scotland.

              Anyway here’s a link to the UK government’s justification

              https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statement-of-reasons-related-to-the-use-of-section-35-of-the-scotland-act-1998/html-version

              There’s their section on the Adverse effects of EA.

              https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statement-of-reasons-related-to-the-use-of-section-35-of-the-scotland-act-1998/html-version#part-4-adverse-effects-in-relation-to-the-operation-of-the-equality-act-2010

              Like

            3. Hi Terry Entoure , good point I agree with what you say furthermore I think it worth a mention that Nicola Sturgeon did say at the beginning of her First Ministership that she intended to govern for all , including those who are against Scottish independence , I think we can see that she included those who want a change in gender recognition law too , likely there are other minority groups too .
              In my opinion there are way too many comments with an old school religious taint made by people who are against the gender recognition law changes it makes me wonder about Sunday school and religious education at schools in years gone by which as I recall were advancing much the same arguments as these people who are against the changes.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. “In my opinion there are way too many comments with an old school religious taint”

                I sincerely hope you don’t mean me. I’m an atheist who never attended Sunday School in my life.

                “she included those who want a change in gender recognition law too , likely there are other minority groups too .”

                The GRRB allows ANYONE in Scotland to change their legal sex. It doesn’t mention trans anywhere in the bill. Anyone could do it, you could do it, I could do it. No checks, no balances. Self id was not part of the SNP manifesto, even supposing most voters would read it and it was not on any of their leaflets.

                Tell me, what other of the 9 protected characteristics in the EA do you think people should be allowed to self identify into? Should I be allowed to identity as BAME although I’m whiter than a bottle of milk? Should you be able to self identify as pregnant although you are in your 70s (and quite possibly male)? Why is it okay for sex?

                There is a petition lodged at Westminster to change the definition of sex in the EA to mean biological sex and not legal sex. Do that and much of the opposition to GRRB will melt away. Trans people will be protected under the characteristic “gender reassignment” as currently and single sex spaces including prisons will be protected, as they currently aren’t being, as sex will only be biological sex

                Like

                1. Hi panda paws , when you say

                  “Should I be allowed to identity as BAME although I’m whiter than a bottle of milk? Should you be able to self identify as pregnant although you are in your 70s (and quite possibly male)? “

                  You show no understanding of the fact that there are lots of men who are very manly lots of men who are very girly and a whole lot in between and there are also lots of girls who are very girly , lots of girls who are very manly and a a whole lot in between , all designed by DNA , being an atheist you won’t think designed by god but many do think designed by god.
                  I think that people who feel they are more like the opposite sex from the one they were born into should be able to live as the one closer to what they are.

                  If you were more like the opposite to what you were born you might have a different point of view.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. I think it is hard to put yourself in the position of someone who is very uncomfortable in the body that nature (or god, if you will) gave them.

                    My first degree was psychology, but we never studied this so I’ve no expertise, but I do understand that being uncomfortable in our body and not being able to do anything about it must be a nightmare.

                    Like

                    1. ” do understand that being uncomfortable in our body and not being able to do anything about it must be a nightmare.”

                      Yes gender dysphoria is a very difficult thing to live with which is why few of us had a problem with GRCs being brought in for transsexuals. They were assessed by professionals to ensure that they had no comorbid conditions that might be influencing the view of their identity, that transition was the right thing for them and they weren’t a danger to themselves or others.

                      What the GRRB does is allow ANYONE in Scotland or passing through to change their legal sex regardless of whether they have dysphoria or not. The bill does not mention trans anywhere. Many transsexuals are against self id.

                      You might find this interview of trans woman Seven Hex discussing the process Seven went through and how it differs from self id useful.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    2. Sorry want to correct something I said earlier. Apparently the SNP DID object to section 35 being part of the Scotland Act when Alex Salmond was the leader according to Neale Hanvey’s speech.

                      Liked by 2 people

                    3. I am no expert either but I have read the website by Seven Hex the woman panda paws refers to in their earlier reply , I watched the video panda paws put up which was originally set up by barrheadboy.I don’t care much for this video it doesn’t explain much of Sevens expertise , her website in my opinion is better , especially the bit on “what is trans”.
                      Yes I understand it has all changed over the years but I do not believe it was ever simple, I believe trans rightly covers a multitude of different peoples with differing problems , it never did cover just those who were medicated , pre-op and post-op there were always way more groups than that involved , they just hadn’t surfaced , i also believe the new legislation is a great step forward it’s not a final step there will be further changes because as with all laws fine tuning is a never ending process given the way humans live never stops changing.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    4. It’s very difficult to put people into boxes. or at least their minds.

                      And we are learning more about how the mind works, with all its variations.

                      Everyone is a little different which of course makes legislation hard to do.

                      Like

                  2. “You show no understanding of the fact”

                    Please don’t patronise me. I’m not some wee woman on the internet pontificating on stuff I know nothing about. I’ve done the research and have work experience and education that is relevant to the issues. Whilst I would never say I know everything and I wouldn’t claim to be a world leading expert neither am I speaking from a position of ignorance.

                    I’m very well aware that masculine women and effeminate men exist. You’re the one who apparently has no understanding about what being trans means and about the difference between sex, gender expression and gender identity are. Most gender non conforming people are gay not trans.

                    Not conforming to gender stereotypes is not a problem – the 80s were my formative years- gender non conformity was the rule not the exception. But Marilyn and Boy George are gay men, not trans. Because I don’t wear makeup and nearly always wear trousers does that make me a man? Of course not.

                    I’m perfectly happy for people to live closer to how they feel were that does not impact on other protected groups. But single sex spaces are necessary and no matter how someone feels no-one can change sex and sometimes sex and gender (expression or identity) clash and when they do, for me and the majority of people, sex takes precedence. Trans people deserve to live their lives free from prejudice and discrimination for who they are and luckily in the UK they are protected by the EA 2010 and so can.

                    However trans women aren’t women and they will be places they can’t be allowed into no matter how nice that particular trans person is (and most of the transsexuals I’ve meet are nice. Unfortunately the autogynophiles – not so much). Women deserve prisons, changing rooms, rape centres, refuges et al that are free from men regardless of how they identify. Why can’t many men understand this?

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. I agree you are not a world leading expert.
                      I read the submissions of world leading experts when the Scottish government opened a discussion and requested submissions on their proposals a few years ago , it was open to all , i did not submit a view myself but I read dozens and dozens of the submissions.
                      Experts from all over the world submitted papers as did many ordinary folk , the overwhelming view of world experts held the view that the risks you mention were very low that view was based on evidence from around the world where laws such as the Scottish government wish to introduce have been working well for years .

                      P.S. I didn’t patronise you , you quoted half my sentence as evidence ?

                      Liked by 1 person

                    2. And you think reading a fraction of the evidence makes you an expert? You think believing butch women are an exemplar of trans is a persuasive argument? You assume that I haven’t read widely, that I’ll be mollified with you’re a nice person, I’m a nice person. Do you think women haven’t had this pat on the head treatment for years? Do you think even when we don’t say anything (usually to avoid male aggression) that we haven’t actually noticed it?

                      Let me introduce you to the concept “confirmation bias”.

                      Did you know that the committee only (initially) invited people that agreed with them? – that’s confirmation bias!

                      That they had to be forced to hear the UN Rapporteur for Violence on Women and Girls (or as Sturgeon called her “that person from the UN) and when they did invite her near completion of the committee deliberations they decided to invite the UN Rapporteur on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity back for a 2nd bite of the cherry. That the women’s organisations who were in support are almost fully funded by Scot Gov and only get that funding by being “trans exclusive” ie no longer single sex. That non Scot Gov funded women’s organisations were all against? That survivors of sexual violence were told there wasn’t time to listen to them but hey send in a letter. Trans people on the other hand were given all the committee time they wanted.

                      On the rare occasions those anti self-id got to speak, Shona Robison doodled on her papers rather than listened. Elite sportswomen, Olympic medallists, wanted to give evidence on the affects on women’s sport and weren’t allowed to but the committee took evidence from penis havers instead.

                      You say that where self id has been introduced there has been no increase of risk to women? Did you know that they don’t track it properly? That the crimes committed by predators pretending to be trans to get into women’s jails (and I’ve plenty of links for that!) are in most of these countries counted as “female” crimes. One country had an increase in “female” sex offenders by 800% after introducing self id? I wonder what the bulk of them had in common??? The UK has had an increase in “female” sex offending by 84% in 4 years since some (not even all) police forces recorded gender identity rather than sex. And not once in the 35 minute long Radio 4 programme discussing this did anyone say “is this increase being caused by “women” with penises by any chance?

                      The recent census in England and Wales, released in January 2023 revealed (Scotland’s was delayed)

                      “1 in every 585 transwomen in England and Wales are convicted sex offenders.

                      That compares to
                      1 in every 2750 men

                      and
                      1 in every 243,000 women.”

                      Now either transwomen are even more dangerous than men and thus shouldn’t be in women’s spaces ever or much more likely imho sex offenders abuse self id in which case we shouldn’t allow self id or at the very least we should exclude sex offenders from self id. But the SNP MSP Michelle Thomson’s (who was raped at 14 – she has waived anonymity) amendment to GRRB to exclude sex offenders was voted down wasn’t it.

                      But let’s just pretend the risk to women and girls is actually minimal- so how many more women and girls need to be sexually assaulted, raped and/or murdered before you think the risk is unacceptable? Put a figure on it please? How many rape victims suffering in silence because they don’t want to go to a mixed sex rape crisis centre is okay with you? Do you know that currently at the High Court in Glasgow that two rape victims are being forced to call their alleged attacker “she” and say “her penis”. That convicted multiple rapist in Scotland has changed their name to “Charlene” and is boasting to the other inmates he’ll be in a women’s prison by Easter? He’s no more trans than I’m Napoléon but when you give a predator a loophole, they’ll use it. Women are being raped in Scotland’s jails right now. Those being released are telling us this. It’s also happening world wide. Women being flashed and assaulted in changing rooms right now. Not by those with gender dysphoria but by predators and yes also by autogynophiles – people who are sexually aroused by the thought of themselves as women.

                      How many genuine trans people with dysphoria just wanting to get on with their lives face having their identity usurped by nefarious actors and when it hits the fan (as it will do) being shunned at best or attacked at worst because the uninformed think it’s been people like them doing these things, is fine by you?

                      But hey be kind, and it’s only a small risk. Do you have female relations? What if they are the ones that the “small” risk hits? Will you console them “you’re just unlucky, this hardly ever happens”? Oh and btw there is actually a twitter hashtag – the thing that never happens, happened again recording these so called “rare” events.

                      Oh and btw I’m not writing this for your benefit, I’m writing it for readers to understand why so many women are against self id and why it isn’t genuine trans people we are worried about.

                      But when you create a sacred caste that no-one can criticise for fear of being called names then you get the Catholic priest scandal (even though most priests were not involved) and the children’s entertainer scandal; my childhood Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris and let’s not forget Jimmy Savile. Safeguarding must apply to EVERYONE or it doesn’t work.

                      This issue will destroy the Yes movement and as a women and an independence supporter, I’ll never forgive them.

                      Liked by 1 person

    2. It was a constituency meeting in Hampshire, Fareham, a seat which has always been Conservative… and by large majorities.

      That probably tells you all you need to know.

      Like

  1. I’m afraid I have had enough. I’ve been patient for many years, leafleting, canvassing, both for Independence and the S.N.P. For me, the imposition of a Section 35 order by the Westminster Tories is the last straw. To say I’m disappointed by my party seemingly kicking the ball farther down the road, is putting it mildly. No doubt this has to do with my age, as I have now given up almost completely on seeing an Independent Scotland in my lifetime. I have never thought previously that withdrawing our M.Ps from Westminster was viable, but I am so sickened by this latest slap in the face, that I believe we should take definite action, dramatic if you like, and bring this whole farrago to a conclusion.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’ve always had mixed feelings about that, Alex.

      I’ve never wanted Scottish MPs there. They seem rather pointless to me. But I’ve always worried that simply refusing to go might not be the answer for a variety of reasons.

      You can imagine how the Tory Press would interpret it. “!SNP take the money but don’t do the work.” “Lazy SNP MPs sit at home while Conservatives serve the public”…

      The thing is that this Section 35 has never been used before despite us doing things that “they” don’t approve of.

      Now they have used it once, the party that doesn’t want the parliament to exist, may decide to interfere over and over again in our business.

      I can’t think of an alternative, but if they don’t respect the votes of our parliament (and in this matter there were MPs form every party that voted for it), I’m not sure we should be respecting their parliament. Or indeed anything else about their country.

      Like

      1. “Now they have used it once, the party that doesn’t want the parliament to exist, may decide to interfere over and over again in our business.”

        No they can’t. They can only use that section when the circumstances allow.

        “Section 35 can be used in two different situations, where the Scottish Secretary has “reasonable grounds to believe” that a Holyrood bill:

        would be incompatible with the UK’s international obligations or not in the interests of national defence
        or

        would modify the law on reserved matters in such a way as to have an “adverse effect” on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters.”

        https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/section-35-of-the-scotland-act-and-vetoing-devolved-legislation/#:~:text=Section%2035%20of%20the%20Scotland%20Act%201998%20has,as%20%E2%80%9C%20a%20matter%20of%20last%20resort%20%E2%80%9D.

        They can’t just use it willy nilly. Or rather they could but the Supreme Court wouldn’t uphold it just as it didn’t uphold prorogation.

        They CAN and have used section 33 of the Scotland Act to successfully challenge bills that Holyrood passed and those bills have not made it to law. Nor indeed has the SNP brought forward amended legislation.

        Section 35 covers areas that may well be within Holyrood’s legislative competence but adversely affect reserved matters. Section 33 challenges are for bills that Westminster states are outside Holyrood’s powers ie ultra vires. The SC agreed with them in the section33 cases and struck the bills down.

        That’s the limitations of devolution. You don’t get to act like an independent country because well, you’re not.

        You want independence, I want independence; maybe we should concentrate on getting it.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Alex Beveridge , I agree , but one fact remains , SNP is the only party that is going to get Scottish independence .It’s too late to start afresh with a new party.If the SNP can’t deliver we change those elected

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yes. I’d agree with that.

        Although I still wonder how it can be done when the Brits need us so desperately they will do anything to keep us… and while the Brits have a government that cares not for democracy or international treaties.

        You’re right about the SNP being the only party who can do it.

        No matter how good or bad the alternatives might be (and I have no idea), it would take them a long time to build a following big enough to run the country.

        Like

  2. “But she exists and she has power (limited, I accept, but some power) in Scotland.”

    Actually I disagree. Her power is not particularly limited in Scotland. The only thing she doesn’t have power over is Scottish police (devolved). All other functions of the Home Office are reserved.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You are correct, she sends Border Force operators across our border to eject asylum seekers.
      I’ve seen their vehicles and personnel in use, supported by local police.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Yes. But law and order is a HUGE thing.

      And it’s one that affects us all.

      Of course the Home Office is and has always been an utter shambles. I remember at one stage they were ranting about illegal immigrants only to find out that they were employing some of them as cleaners.

      Global laughing stock.

      Like

  3. The Tories are making it clear that they have unlimited power in Scotland and that Holyrood is just a “parish council” as was always intended by British Labour.
    Unfortunately,we can do nothing about fascist governments elected by English voters and their dominion over Scotland.
    Whether we like it or not,there is no democratic route to independence without the right to self determination and the fascists in London have decreed that we do not have that right.
    They want to retain their grasp on Scotland and are not about to let us Scots take that away from them.
    So……you’ll have had your referendum then……suck it up!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Good summation.

      What’s the answer, bringiton?

      What can we do to make life difficult for them?

      You’re right. Blair ran Holyrood from London. When his first minister was being awkward and wanting to do “Scottish stuff”, he used to send Lance Price to Edinburgh in secret, to put him back in his box.

      They thought that Labour would always run Scotland and wouldn’t be affected by the move to the right of English Labour, in order to keep the South East happy.

      Bit of a mistake that.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Tris,
        I don’t really know but one thing is for sure,we can do nothing that will be accepted internationally without the clear support of a majority of Scots.
        This has to be demonstrated openly through a plebiscite of some sort which it seems will be opposed by the fascists in London.
        Think they have been taking lessons from the Spanish.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I am sure they have

          The Madrid Establishment contains a number of Franco supporting “Families”
          Thatcher’s daughter, I think, lives in Madrid.

          Allegedly

          Liked by 1 person

    2. The GRA bill has been on the go for 6 years, but only in the last wee while has the media and pundits been giving voice on it, a negative slant in my opinion. A Westminster strategy to discredit Sturgeon and SNP? If it was it may have backfired. Firing off their big gun of a Sect35 is against all parties in Scotland, including 2 (3?) of their own.

      We need more of this, getting them to use the Sect35. The Supreme Court have shone a light on what we have to do, in the next manifesto of Alba, Green and SNP, something is included that would impinge on the UK constitutional right, but would be seen as normal democratic inclusion by EU, US and UN. Self determination?

      The geo politics have changed since 2014. Money, trade and security/ foreign policy is more important to the EU,US and UN than democracy. However democracy, the righteous cause, is always a good lever to be pulled to achieve their main objectives.

      While the UK was part of the EU I don’t think many in Europe or America gave a stuff about Scotland. Being taken out of Europe was a democratic outrage, but it offers an advantage that we can make use of.

      Getting Westminster to fire off a Sect35 to quash democratic wishes or the “righteous” will, strengthens our case internationally and, importantly, should bring more of those middle ground, yet to decide, tory targeted voters over to independence.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I think it cold be good for us, as you suggest.

        The rather stupid Brit government may decide to do it more often and sicken an ever growing part of the population here.

        I think most people in Europe and in the USA didn’t consider Scotland at all, except perhaps the other Northern countries with which our government has done a lot of work… Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Greenland and Faroes.

        Now other countries are mindful of the fact that despite a fairly good majority for staying in the EU, we were dragged out of it without any concession to our opinion.

        And while Gibraltar and the North of Ireland which also voted to remain, have got concessions, Scotland has take it or take it, because you can’t leave it.

        Hopefully the unelected prime minister, who unlike the last two initially unelected prime ministers cannot risk an election will make the mistake of chancing his mitt it again.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. What’s going on with Sunak? He presented himself as the safe pair of hands after years of madness. And now what does he do? He wades into a pointless culture war and attempts to repeal a large number of laws his own civil service cannot quantify.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. He is trying to keep the lunatic fringe of his party from ditching him and inviting back the lunatic in chief.

            They want any trace of ‘European’ removed, regardless of how much harm it does. If they could tow the Uk out into the Atlantic to get farther away from Europe they would.

            In fairness to him he “might” have been a safe pair of hands, albeit one lacking any kind of empathy or personality, if he wasn’t surrounded by the Bravermans, Foxes, Moggs, Patels and sundry other fanatics waiting to pounce on him.

            It’s madness, of course and will end up with a complete muddle… and possibly expulsion from some organisations.

            Liked by 1 person

  4. Meantime the Fantasist Government has donated 14 Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine.

    The replacement tank, Challenger 3 will be developed by
    BAE Rheinmetail and will deliver 14 by 2027.
    Existing Challenger 2 tanks will be upgraded to the 3 specification by a £1.3 billion contract with the same European partnership.

    The Ajax light tank is making progress says the junior minister, special troops are being recruited that don’t get motion sick and the gun might be able to fire when the tank is moving.
    Date into service, Unknown.

    The fantastic sunak government attacks it’s own people. The Napoleon fantasist as unelected pm.

    Well past time to leave the union.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Waste of money sending tanks to Ukraine .
        Russia don’t want to take control of Ukraine they have enough work administering Russia itself.
        Destruction is what is happening, Ukraine were told that allowing NATO missiles provided by USA to be located on the Ukraine border with Russia just 400 miles from Moscow was such a grave threat to Russia,s security given the Cold War history between Russia and USA that such a move would not be tolerated.
        I think to myself ? What if Scotland becomes independent and England tries to bully us , would we put Chinese missiles on the Scotland England border facing London and if we did what would be Englands reaction ?
        Or if Mexico put Russian missiles on its border with USA how would USA react would they do the same as they did in the bay of pigs Cuba ? INVADE .

        Liked by 2 people

  5. The chancer, hunt, says everything is fine, the Rate of inflation is falling, The Rate of Inflation.
    Unfortunately the high costs of living will remain.

    Wages have gone up by Less than the Rate of Inflation and anyway they fiddle the rate by including and rejecting items as it suits them.

    Meantime the MET has dismissed a rapist that work for them for decades, no hurry there then.
    But the speed of the S23 order is hypersonic.

    The tory party has rebels against the internet safety bill so it’s had to be changed.

    We need laws to stop strikers not producing a minimum level of service BUTT it doesn’t apply the the people with the levers of borrowing powers to also have a minimum level of service. Of course they are slowly reducing the minimum level of service by not inflating budgets to maintain service.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I don’t believe their rate of inflation.

      I accept it is hard to compute and for some people’s budgets, it is entirely different than others.

      But I find it hard to believe some of the suggestions that it is 10%, based on electricity and gas bills rising so steeply.

      The few things that I have noticed the price of in shops have risen far more that 10%.

      Tesco tonic water rose from 60p to 70p. = around 17%

      A jar of instant coffee rose from £3.50 to £5.00 = 43%

      Nothing at all seems to have cone down in price.

      And the enormous rise in costs of gas and electricity in the second half of last year, should be still in the system.

      They lie, clearly. And why would that surprise us with this government?

      Like

        1. LOL.

          Munguin wouldn’t have his gin without it.

          I got used to drinking “Schweppes” every day when i lived in France. So refreshing without the gin but with a slice of lemon.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. It’s interesting how government and the media like to make out that inflation and prices in the shops are linked closely to the extent that if inflation goes up prices go up and f inflation goes down prices come down but it’s a lie.
      Yes if inflation goes up prices will go up but not right away , it takes months to filter through.
      If inflation comes down the majority of prices will never come down , when did you ever see prices coming down in the shops , what they do instead is rake in extra profits and wait a bit longer before they inflict the next price rise.
      Inflation is simply comparing the price of something today with the price it was a year ago, price today £110 price a year ago £100 inflation therefore is 10%.

      Imposing minimum level of service on strikers is just a nonsense it will work with public service employees but not with private businesses

      Until British government legislate to reduce the profitability of landlords renting out substandard property nothing will change much in U.K.
      Climate change and government reluctance to finance the improvement of homes in U.K. that leak heat with substandard insulation substandard windows and doors and inefficient heating systems means that it is left to the private sector and as we have seen they only do what is most profitable spend small charge high they are absolutely incapable of handling what is required.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. One of the problems, at least in England, is that so many MPs are landlords, and they voted against ensuring that houses let were fit for human habitation.

        https://fullfact.org/economy/did-mps-vote-against-homes-having-be-made-fit-live-in/

        And their beloved troops get crap housing that make their kids ill…

        https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1703742/ben-wallace-british-army-accommodation

        I think the minimum level in public service is daft.

        In things like health it has always been done. Nurses don’t all go out on strike leaving people dying unattended.

        When junior doctors in England went on strike over their atrocious conditions under Hunt, they had the blessing of Registrars and Consultants who covered for them. Patients were not left unattended. Instead of junior doctors they had consultants.

        It’s the same with firemen and ambulance drivers.

        Not much of the public sector left… so if the railway workers want to go on strike, what are they going to do? Sack them?

        Brilliant. I wish them joy getting new people. Likewise posties.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. The snp havé suckled on the English teat and are now fat and content …
    It was ever thus

    You can’t have a revolution without blood 🩸 sorry but the that is the way it is ..

    I understand how Alex feels voted Labour all me life but got tired and decided to walk way … sad 😞

    Like

  7. Aye Tris but you can remove energy from the calculation because some people are getting £400 paid to their energy trader and £66 of that a month removed from the bill, if you’re on a DD.
    Hardluck if you’re on a prepayment meter or off grid, during the winter.

    Lots of people lowering house temperatures in terror of being in debt.

    Meantime the Network owner of the Grid pays out £2billion in dividends that we have to pay in higher daily connection charges.

    The house of common fools pass bills to ban plastic cutlery, ban strikes and agree to overrule the devolution.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Dave. I guess somewhere I am getting the £400, but as they only apply it to electricity, at least for the moment, my gas bills have double and I get nothing back.

      I’m sure (well, it’s the Brits, so I’m not SURE) but I expect that the rest of that money is going into my account.

      However, it’s still in the accounts of the Energy Company earning them interest and meanwhile I pay my gas bill.

      So at least for the moment that’s inflationary.

      Like

  8. Just been announced that the electric vehicle battery mega factory at Blyth has stopped employing, put in receivership.

    That’s the factory that cleverly promised government funding as it was very important for jobs in englandland.

    The money was not released, can’t blame cleverly as the new business secretary is responsible, cleverly is now off to the USA to get tanks for Ukraine.

    Wondering how far 14 old army tanks out of storage will go in Ukraine.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. a well known tory called grant shapps.
    A lightweight tory.

    Reports on the ‘news’ is that there are 40 repugrant rebel tory mps, seems to me they can’t count as there are some 360.

    See the rotal mail ceo got £140k bonus for giving shareholders more dividend, during the time he says there’s no money for extra pay for the workers.

    This is the same person that was on the board of Test and Trace with the lady jockey.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. The bonus was changed from being awarded by the business making a profit and making the commitment to the first class delivery standard to shareholder dividend.
        All agreed by the independent salary committee of directors.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Pity they don’t recognise that none of that would have been possible without the men and women who trudge the streets with heavy parcels, drive through storms and snow, to actually deliver the stuff.

          And given that they are pretty much a monopoly in the postal business, at least for letters, it would surely be hard not to make a profit.

          Like

  10. Just heard that Labour Edinburgh Central Constituency met tonight and have demanded that a robust opposition to the Westminster Tory’s stance on the GRR and a more voluble support for the trans community in Scotland. This to be made in both parliaments.

    I thought support for the Sect35 might backfire on Starmer and the tories, but not so quickly and potentially so spectacularly.

    Tomorrow listen out for, “Where’s Anas?”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Oh… LOL What a pity.

      I understand that bloke with the Union Jacket, Ian Murray, who I think is the Shadow Scottish Secretary (being the only Scottish Labour MP, they didn’t have a lot of choice…although they had an English MP when Murray thought that the duly elected leader of Labour was too Laboury) has spoken out against GR.

      I wonder if this will affect the Labour/Tory coalitions in councils. I do hope so.

      Like

      1. Almost the last thing I did tonight when I left the workshop/shed was knock my radio off the shelf.
        Radio, I think will be worth listening to tomorrow. Aye, Ian Murray and his flashy, tacky jaikit. Hope he is wearing it, looked plastic and he’ll be should sweating and squirming, the lying toad.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I think he’s pretty much a Tory. He represents a pretty well off part of Edinburgh, but in fairness to him, it is said that he’s a good constituency MP.

          Poor radio 🙂

          Like

      2. Labour abstained from the S35 vote. Says it all, really. Starmer really could not figure out what to think about it because he agonisingly triangulates everything instead of following any remaining liberal value he hasn’t yet jettisoned.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Shocking though. I wonder how much of a rift this will cause with his MSPs. He, of course, doesn’t have to worry about his Scottish MPs, what with only having one, who is a de facto Tory.

          Liked by 1 person

    1. Well said, Mark Drakeford.

      Subject apart, because I know there are conflicting views on this, if they can do it with one thing, they can do it with others.

      I’m not sure how they can say it would be a problem for England when there is a long list of countries which have it and which Britain recognises.

      https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gender-recognition-certificate-list-of-approved-countries-and-territories/gender-recognition-certificate-list-of-approved-countries-and-territories

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Quite, Tris. Someone pointed this out, such a stance makes them look silly, they would then need to refuse entry to the UK from over half of Europe, Argentina, Uruguay etc. A stance ill thought through.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Pfff, it’s the Tories. Of course it was ill-thought out.

          I wonder when Starmer is going to join the Tories.

          Maybe Labour MPs should break away.

          Like

            1. I think pretty much all Labour MSPs voted for it.

              Not all SNP did. 7, I think voted against.

              All Liberals did and their leader has criticised his beloved union government for interfering with it.

              I think there were three Tories who voted for it.
              Again, I think all the Greens voted for it.

              Like

      2. I think the problem is concocted but I believe the argument is that UK gov can recognise GRCs from other nations but Scotland is not an independent state so the mechanism used to recognise a Swiss GRC is not available to a GRC from Scotland.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Yes, I can see that.

          But, I reckon where you have two legal systems operating within the same state, you have to accept that there will be some differences.

          I imagine there are issues like this in Cantons, and in the States of USA and the Provinces of Canada.

          You have to accept that when you cross the Canton/State/Country/Provincial border, that things are different …as Dr Whitford points out in that video I posted.

          It’s always problematic, but then that’s what governance is about.

          At the moment if I drink a couple of pints in England, I may be considered safe to drive, but if I cross the border into Scotland I will be over the limit and possibly subject to a ban.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Exactly.

            The UK is far from being a true unitary state and always has been.

            They picked on this issue because wading into the culture war is the only thing they think they can do that might win votes. I really think they’ve understimated the values of the public here, who, in my experience, are really quite live and let live nowadays.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. I think their problem is that they are so far from the public, they have no idea what people think about anything.

              I know its a contentious subject. It may be that the act could have been better done, but for the likes of Jack to tell us what the public wants… Jeez

              Remember last week he told us the Scotland doesn’t want to rejoin the EU.

              Switched on to reality much?

              Like

  11. With everything going on right now, I think this story has been missed.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-64303149

    The UK and the US are digging their heels in to protect their electric vehicles manufacturers. The UK, meanwhile, has ploughed its own path in the belief that 2000s globalisation continues unchanged. Without a domestic battery manufacturer and no route to a ready supply, there is no hope to competitively build electric vehicles in the UK.

    This news is seriously baaaaaaad. I would guess that in just a few years almost all new cars will be electric and they won’t be built in the UK. All thanks to Brexit.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That is extremely bad for the area, initially, and more generally for the industry, which will, within 10 years, be reliant on batteries.

      If the need is for 5 of these factories by the end of the decade, and they will take years to build, the UK is, as usual, well behind the curve. And outside of the EU, it really can’t afford to be so.

      Can’t help feeling sorry for the people who thought they might be able to get work there in what, I imagine is a relatively depressed area.

      With so much at stake, you’d have thought too, that the magical money tree that the Tories keep for when THEY want something, might have been shaken for enough money to keep the project going at least until some investors can be found to back it.

      It’s a long term investment but will almost certainly pay off.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Brexit means that the UK has to do more by itself. That was one of the supposed advantages of Brexit: not depending on others means you can do things better. But that requires good governance to make sure that the conditions exist to enable the UK to do all those things. Instead of doing any of that, UK gov has been completely overwhelmed by Brexit for years and years. To add to the mix, it wastes most of its legislative efforts on concocted culture war arguments, the NIP bill, human rights “reform” and repealing 4000 legal instruments. Meanwhile, everyone loses their jobs, as you point out.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Their assumption that they can always do things better is somewhat mistaken.

      The truth is in an ever ‘smaller’ world we all depend on others and over the years, particularly the last 45 years, we’ve let so many skills and abilities fade away by following the “banking, insurance, finance path to prosperity. And sure it was at least sometimes, very successful, for the part of the country that they care most about.

      But it made us more dependent on other countries for so much of what we need, because now we make nothing, or next to nothing.

      If we, in our newly “independent” state, are going to start making things, we need to start training people to do that, and investing in building facilities to manufacture.

      Brexit also put up barriers, which I suspect will get bigger as Britain diverges farther from EU standards.

      Unless we want to be driving diesel cars into the 2040s, we need to get this sorted.

      I don’t see the current government able to do that. Nor do I see the next government making much difference.

      Like

      1. Do you remember after the financial crash there was constant talk about becoming more like Germany? Well, that didn’t last long. It was all just too hard for them. If they couldn’t do it then, there’s no chance they’ll manage it now because they’ve even lost the will to do it.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. The thing is that most of them have no idea what Germany is like, so being “more like Germany” wold be a pipe dream about being more successful and richer, but without the means, or the knowledge to make it happen.

          Even if there was the will to do it now, and I doubt that there is (more like people in Europe?) they don’t have the leadership.

          I’m trying to think of an actual leader in either of the main English parties, and I can’t.

          Like

  13. Viceroy Jack Boots is an impressive statesman, don’t you think? As long as you don’t put him anywhere near an intelligent person.

    Apologies for the language in the original tweet.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

The Dunglishman

The bilingual blog about all things British

STAGE LEFT

Love, theatre and ideas

Wildonline.blog

British Wildlife & Photography

scotlandisdifferent

Why Scotland should be an independent country

BrawBlether

Thoughts about Scotland & the world, from a new Scot

Divided We Fall

Bipartisan dialogue for the politically engaged

Insightful Geopolitics

Impartial Informative Always

Black Isle Media

We Provide The Facts, You Make The Decisions

The Broad Spectrum Life

Exploring Rhymes, Reasons, and Nuances of Our World

Musical Matters...

Mark Doran's Music Blog

Zoolon

Songwriter / Guitarist

Best in Australia

This site supports Scottish Independence

thehistorytwins

A comic about history and stuff by FT

My Life as Graham

The embittered mumblings of a serial malcontent.

Pride's Purge

an irreverent look at UK politics

ScienceSwitch

Your Source For The Coolest Science Stories

Mark Explores

Nature + Health

netbij.com

http://netbij.com

Chris Hallam's World View

Movies, politics, comedy and more...

%d bloggers like this: