The Scottish Politics Thread

[Tichtheid]

That's the problem, this just doesn't matter and is secondary to the all consuming wish for independence. I think the latest opinion polls show less than 25% in favour of a new referendum in the near future, as people have far greater concerns.
Sturgeon and her government seem completely unable to come up with anything to tackle the huge problems the country has got. Everything in this country is going down the shitter and all we hear from her and the group of idiots behind her is excuses, broken promises and irrelevant crap like the latest gender recognition shite.

The only thing I could find on the wish for a second referendum is 29% in favour of a referendum before the end of '23, with 60% against, presumably 17% undecided, but the article in the Scotsman from last May doesn't say so, it's in the ballpark you mention, but do you have a more up to date link?

I think support for Indy is falling away at the moment, the Institute for Government site shows a trend below 50% in favour going back to March '21, the very latest average on that site is bang on 50%. Of course there are undecided to take into consideration, but I'd want to see a clear lead of at least 15+ percentage points before feeling confident of winning a referendum

Gender recognition is only irrelevant shite to people who are not affected or who don't care, much like same sex marriage I suppose. It does get a lot of headlines despite it only affecting a tiny minority of people.

[Blackmac]

That's the problem, this just doesn't matter and is secondary to the all consuming wish for independence. I think the latest opinion polls show less than 25% in favour of a new referendum in the near future, as people have far greater concerns.
Sturgeon and her government seem completely unable to come up with anything to tackle the huge problems the country has got. Everything in this country is going down the shitter and all we hear from her and the group of idiots behind her is excuses, broken promises and irrelevant crap like the latest gender recognition shite.

The only thing I could find on the wish for a second referendum is 29% in favour of a referendum before the end of '23, with 60% against, presumably 17% undecided, but the article in the Scotsman from last May doesn't say so, it's in the ballpark you mention, but do you have a more up to date link?

I think support for Indy is falling away at the moment, the Institute for Government site shows a trend below 50% in favour going back to March '21, the very latest average on that site is bang on 50%. Of course there are undecided to take into consideration, but I'd want to see a clear lead of at least 15+ percentage points before feeling confident of winning a referendum

Gender recognition is only irrelevant shite to people who are not affected or who don't care, much like same sex marriage I suppose. It does get a lot of headlines despite it only affecting a tiny minority of people.

That's part of the problem though. What they do concentrate on has little or no bearing on the overwhelming majority of the people in this country. Yes it is important to some but sadly the majority see them being more concerned about that than the state of all the public services and health of the nation. The debate on gender recognition was a ludicrous sideshow to most and even then the arrogant disregard they have got to any opinion that is not theirs is astonishing.

[Jock42]

In other, more important than yesterdays, news (we knew that already), teachers are on strike across the country today. From speaking to a few teacher friends and my wife who works at a school but not a teacher, they are in this for the long haul and will not but greatly from 10%. A few of them have said they think 10% spread across 2 years would probably get a deal done.

All it seems the latest offer from Shirley-Anne Somerville and Cosla have done is make it worse.

My union has asked us to suspend industrial action as we've been given a new offer. Not sure if the other 2 unions (why we have 3 unions for 1 service all doing different things is a different topic) are doing the same. Still, a vote the SNP will lose is much more important than wages.

[tc27]

In other, more important than yesterdays, news (we knew that already), teachers are on strike across the country today. From speaking to a few teacher friends and my wife who works at a school but not a teacher, they are in this for the long haul and will not but greatly from 10%. A few of them have said they think 10% spread across 2 years would probably get a deal done.

All it seems the latest offer from Shirley-Anne Somerville and Cosla have done is make it worse.

My union has asked us to suspend industrial action as we've been given a new offer. Not sure if the other 2 unions (why we have 3 unions for 1 service all doing different things is a different topic) are doing the same. Still, a vote the SNP will lose is much more important than wages.

Good news is the SG had 20 million set aside for the referendum it can now use to fund teacher payrises.

[Tichtheid]

Qualified teacher salary
The pay scales for qualified teachers are split into main and upper pay ranges - after entering at the NQT/probationary starting point, teachers are promoted up the scales in line with excellent performance. These ranges, from the main rate to the highest upper rate, differ between countries across the UK:

England (excluding London) and Wales - £28,000 to £38,810
London - £29,344 to £40,083 (fringes), £32,407 to £43,193 (outer), £34,502 to £44,756 (inner)
Scotland - £33,729 to £42,336
Northern Ireland - £24,137 to £41,094.


Supply teacher salary
England and Wales offer three rates of pay for supply teachers, reflecting levels of qualification and standards of teaching. These are:

unqualified - £18,169 to £28,735
main - £25,714 to £36,961
upper - £38,690 to £41,604.

(In Scotland the rates are £21, 438 unqualified, £25,716 qualified)

Headteacher salary
The highest teaching salaries across the UK are paid to headteachers:

England (excluding London) and Wales - £50,122 to £123,057
London - £51,347 to £131,353
Scotland - £52,350 to £99,609
Northern Ireland - £47,381 to £117,497.

Average wages across the UK
https://digitalpublications.parliament. ... 2683f7e56b

Scottish teachers pay scales https://www.nasuwt.org.uk/advice/pay-pe ... cales.html


I don't think you can pay teachers enough, as the cliche goes, education is the silver bullet

[Jock42]

In other, more important than yesterdays, news (we knew that already), teachers are on strike across the country today. From speaking to a few teacher friends and my wife who works at a school but not a teacher, they are in this for the long haul and will not but greatly from 10%. A few of them have said they think 10% spread across 2 years would probably get a deal done.

All it seems the latest offer from Shirley-Anne Somerville and Cosla have done is make it worse.

My union has asked us to suspend industrial action as we've been given a new offer. Not sure if the other 2 unions (why we have 3 unions for 1 service all doing different things is a different topic) are doing the same. Still, a vote the SNP will lose is much more important than wages.

Good news is the SG had 20 million set aside for the referendum it can now use to fund teacher payrises.

Fuck the teachers I want a half decent pay rise and to reture after 30 years service.

[Big D]

Well the teachers ain't messing around. More strikes announced.

[tc27]

Blackford out as SNP Commons leader.

[Slick]

Blackford out as SNP Commons leader.

Quite surprised at that although it does seem to be getting messy down there, some really shit personalities. He was very bullish about seeing this off a couple of weeks ago.

[tc27]

Blackford out as SNP Commons leader.

Quite surprised at that although it does seem to be getting messy down there, some really shit personalities. He was very bullish about seeing this off a couple of weeks ago.

Yeah the SNP group are at each other like a nest of vipers in Westminster. A taste of whats to come up North post Sturgeon I think.

[inactionman]

Maybe not the most appropriate thread, but close enough - I'm interested in supporting rewilding and there's a crowdfunding site that's looking for support for investing in the Highlands:

https://invest.highlandsrewilding.co.uk/invest

Does this look kosher, or some kind of ponzi I should steer well clear of?

Not looking at it in terms of money-spinning, but would like to think there's some chance of seeing investment sensitively treated.

[Slick]

Maybe not the most appropriate thread, but close enough - I'm interested in supporting rewilding and there's a crowdfunding site that's looking for support for investing in the Highlands:

https://invest.highlandsrewilding.co.uk/invest

Does this look kosher, or some kind of ponzi I should steer well clear of?

Not looking at it in terms of money-spinning, but would like to think there's some chance of seeing investment sensitively treated.

Are you a member of Scottish Mountaineering? I know you like your outdoors stuff, and it is well worth joining (I made the annual subscription back on one visit to an outdoors shop with the discount you get as a member). Anyway, to the point, I was reading in their latest magazine issue last night that they have signed a strategic partnership with a rewilding group, so might be a good place to start looking into it.

[Jock42]

Are you a member of Scottish Mountaineering?

What are the benefits of that?

[Slick]

Are you a member of Scottish Mountaineering?

What are the benefits of that?

Free insurance for most stuff, discounts at loads of places, discounts off loads of accommodation. I also got a free hat. Also, the magazine you get quarterly is really quite good. There are some other bits and bobs and it's peanuts to join. Really recommend it.

[Jock42]

Are you a member of Scottish Mountaineering?

What are the benefits of that?

Free insurance for most stuff, discounts at loads of places, discounts off loads of accommodation. I also got a free hat. Also, the magazine you get quarterly is really quite good. There are some other bits and bobs and it's peanuts to join. Really recommend it.

[Slick]

What are the benefits of that?

Free insurance for most stuff, discounts at loads of places, discounts off loads of accommodation. I also got a free hat. Also, the magazine you get quarterly is really quite good. There are some other bits and bobs and it's peanuts to join. Really recommend it.

Actually, also quite a few free online courses and discounts on in person courses

[robmatic]

Maybe not the most appropriate thread, but close enough - I'm interested in supporting rewilding and there's a crowdfunding site that's looking for support for investing in the Highlands:

https://invest.highlandsrewilding.co.uk/invest

Does this look kosher, or some kind of ponzi I should steer well clear of?

Not looking at it in terms of money-spinning, but would like to think there's some chance of seeing investment sensitively treated.

My feelings about rewilding are a little bit complicated (my family are upland sheep farmers) but from looking at the website, I couldn't really work out where the promised yield is coming from.

[inactionman]

Maybe not the most appropriate thread, but close enough - I'm interested in supporting rewilding and there's a crowdfunding site that's looking for support for investing in the Highlands:

https://invest.highlandsrewilding.co.uk/invest

Does this look kosher, or some kind of ponzi I should steer well clear of?

Not looking at it in terms of money-spinning, but would like to think there's some chance of seeing investment sensitively treated.

Are you a member of Scottish Mountaineering? I know you like your outdoors stuff, and it is well worth joining (I made the annual subscription back on one visit to an outdoors shop with the discount you get as a member). Anyway, to the point, I was reading in their latest magazine issue last night that they have signed a strategic partnership with a rewilding group, so might be a good place to start looking into it.

I'm not - will take a look

[inactionman]

Maybe not the most appropriate thread, but close enough - I'm interested in supporting rewilding and there's a crowdfunding site that's looking for support for investing in the Highlands:

https://invest.highlandsrewilding.co.uk/invest

Does this look kosher, or some kind of ponzi I should steer well clear of?

Not looking at it in terms of money-spinning, but would like to think there's some chance of seeing investment sensitively treated.

My feelings about rewilding are a little bit complicated (my family are upland sheep farmers) but from looking at the website, I couldn't really work out where the promised yield is coming from.

It's not that obvious if they're being completely genuine and honest in stating there's no real market for any shares, or being a bit disingenuous by essentially completely washing their hands of liability.

In terms of the impacts of rewilding I'll admit I'm not particularly well-informed - my interest is more on the reintroduction of previously native species such as wolves and lynx, which does imply some consideration of the environment they're being reintroduced into. Aside from land use, I can imagine sheep farmers won't be thrilled with predators in the vicinity.

[weegie01]

I don't see an issue in conceding that there will be negotiating around who pays for what. There are likely to be instances where rUK continues to pay for things it has no obligation to do balanced by Scotland taking on costs it has no obligation to do.

But even pro independence as I am, I have made the same point as tc27, the starting point is rUK retains no obligation for pensions as they are strictly a current account matter.

I have said the same in the other place where advocates of Irish reunification make the same argument.

There are around a million people who have retired overseas who are receiving a UK state pension, the amount they receive is dependent on the number of years they paid NICs in the UK.
It would be difficult to argue that, post Indy, these people would be in such different circumstances from the circa 1.1M Scots of pensionable age.

There could be a collective action put forward if either/both groups were cut off.

Nothing is straightforward and simple in this matter.

A year's NIC does not give any entitlement to a benefit of any kind. That anyone receives a pension based on years contributed is irrelevant. It is just a convenient mechanism used currently to vary the amount. The Govt can vary the any of the terms of the State pension at its sole discretion (amount, how calculated, when payable as it has done recently with retirement ages, anything else it chooses) as the contributions made secure no entitlement.

Comparing what the UK currently does for its citizens who retire abroad is not comparing like with like. There is a host of detail to be worked through (e.g. what if there were those who remain in Scotland retain UK citizenship, how do we deal with the arrangements the UK Govt currently has with EEA and other countries etc), but the basic difference is that independence changes the landscape, and the rUK will pass responsibilities to the Scottish Govt for its citizens. Scots will be ceasing to be UK citizens and the functions and responsibilities currently carried out by the UK Govt in relation to them will be taken over by the Scottish Govt. So the Scottish Govt will take over responsibility for current income and outgoings, which includes current account state benefits of which the state pension is one.

[Biffer]

I don't see an issue in conceding that there will be negotiating around who pays for what. There are likely to be instances where rUK continues to pay for things it has no obligation to do balanced by Scotland taking on costs it has no obligation to do.

But even pro independence as I am, I have made the same point as tc27, the starting point is rUK retains no obligation for pensions as they are strictly a current account matter.

I have said the same in the other place where advocates of Irish reunification make the same argument.

There are around a million people who have retired overseas who are receiving a UK state pension, the amount they receive is dependent on the number of years they paid NICs in the UK.
It would be difficult to argue that, post Indy, these people would be in such different circumstances from the circa 1.1M Scots of pensionable age.

There could be a collective action put forward if either/both groups were cut off.

Nothing is straightforward and simple in this matter.

A year's NIC does not give any entitlement to a benefit of any kind. That anyone receives a pension based on years contributed is irrelevant. It is just a convenient mechanism used currently to vary the amount. The Govt can vary the any of the terms of the State pension at its sole discretion (amount, how calculated, when payable as it has done recently with retirement ages, anything else it chooses) as the contributions made secure no entitlement.

Comparing what the UK currently does for its citizens who retire abroad is not comparing like with like. There is a host of detail to be worked through (e.g. what if there were those who remain in Scotland retain UK citizenship, how do we deal with the arrangements the UK Govt currently has with EEA and other countries etc), but the basic difference is that independence changes the landscape, and the rUK will pass responsibilities to the Scottish Govt for its citizens. Scots will be ceasing to be UK citizens and the functions and responsibilities currently carried out by the UK Govt in relation to them will be taken over by the Scottish Govt. So the Scottish Govt will take over responsibility for current income and outgoings, which includes current account state benefits of which the state pension is one.

A few assumptions in there. In particular citizenship. The UK doesn’t take citizenship off people very often, so it’s unclear whether it’d be removed as you assume - it wouldn’t have been after the 2014 referendum for example, when people would generally have been eligible for joint citizenship.

[weegie01]

A few assumptions in there. In particular citizenship. The UK doesn’t take citizenship off people very often, so it’s unclear whether it’d be removed as you assume - it wouldn’t have been after the 2014 referendum for example, when people would generally have been eligible for joint citizenship.

Of course there are assumptions in there, partly because I can't be arsed trawling back through everything on citizenship.

But none undermine the basic fact that Scottish independence is fundamentally different from UK citizens moving abroad in that there is a new entity being created that will replace the UK Govt and its functions for the Scottish population.

[Biffer]

A few assumptions in there. In particular citizenship. The UK doesn’t take citizenship off people very often, so it’s unclear whether it’d be removed as you assume - it wouldn’t have been after the 2014 referendum for example, when people would generally have been eligible for joint citizenship.

Of course there are assumptions in there, partly because I can't be arsed trawling back through everything on citizenship.

But none undermine the basic fact that Scottish independence is fundamentally different from UK citizens moving abroad in that there is a new entity being created that will replace the UK Govt and its functions for the Scottish population.

I know that, but the amount of pensions each government will end up paying is a big unknown. As you mention, people who want to remain UK citizens not Scottish citizens might have a different arrangement, and the older generation is more attached to the UK, so there may be more people who want to do that than we might assume. Or are we going to force people in their eighties to change their nationality and take the Scottish pension? I just think that anyone who assumes there is a simple and straightforward answer to the question surrounding pensions is deluding themselves.

[Blackmac]

Looks like Sturgeon's divide and conquer plan didn't work. The RCN in Scotland have overwhelmingly rejected the pay offer and are proceeding with strike action.

I can never understand this plan to narrow the pay gap between less qualified staff and trained nurses. It hardly persuades people to join/stay in the profession when they could work for slightly less money without the stress/responsibilities/student debt that they have as trained nurses.

[Jock42]

Looks like Sturgeon's divide and conquer plan didn't work. The RCN in Scotland have overwhelmingly rejected the pay offer and are proceeding with strike action.

I can never understand this plan to narrow the pay gap between less qualified staff and trained nurses. It hardly persuades people to join/stay in the profession when they could work for slightly less money without the stress/responsibilities/student debt that they have as trained nurses.

My union voted to accept as did unison. GMB rejected it so fuck knows what we'll do

I'm assuming we'll be with the rest of the NHS.

[tc27]

A few assumptions in there. In particular citizenship. The UK doesn’t take citizenship off people very often, so it’s unclear whether it’d be removed as you assume - it wouldn’t have been after the 2014 referendum for example, when people would generally have been eligible for joint citizenship.

Of course there are assumptions in there, partly because I can't be arsed trawling back through everything on citizenship.

But none undermine the basic fact that Scottish independence is fundamentally different from UK citizens moving abroad in that there is a new entity being created that will replace the UK Govt and its functions for the Scottish population.

I know that, but the amount of pensions each government will end up paying is a big unknown. As you mention, people who want to remain UK citizens not Scottish citizens might have a different arrangement, and the older generation is more attached to the UK, so there may be more people who want to do that than we might assume. Or are we going to force people in their eighties to change their nationality and take the Scottish pension? I just think that anyone who assumes there is a simple and straightforward answer to the question surrounding pensions is deluding themselves.

Frankly you are deluding yourself if you think there's any scenario where if the UK treasury loses 8% of its tax base but it keeps paying pensions for that 8%. Effectively this would be £8.3 billion* PA given to another country - if the Union goes so does the moral, political and legal imperative to make fiscal transfers.

I think the 2014 SG white paper was a load of guff but even it did not claim this.

I cant see why anyone would make this claim other than to try and obfuscate the dire economics of independence and possibly mislead one of the most vulnerable groups in the country (specifically older people who rely on the state pension).

*https://www.gov.scot/publications/gover ... 0/pages/5/

[Biffer]

Of course there are assumptions in there, partly because I can't be arsed trawling back through everything on citizenship.

But none undermine the basic fact that Scottish independence is fundamentally different from UK citizens moving abroad in that there is a new entity being created that will replace the UK Govt and its functions for the Scottish population.

I know that, but the amount of pensions each government will end up paying is a big unknown. As you mention, people who want to remain UK citizens not Scottish citizens might have a different arrangement, and the older generation is more attached to the UK, so there may be more people who want to do that than we might assume. Or are we going to force people in their eighties to change their nationality and take the Scottish pension? I just think that anyone who assumes there is a simple and straightforward answer to the question surrounding pensions is deluding themselves.

Frankly you are deluding yourself if you think there's any scenario where if the UK treasury loses 8% of its tax base but it keeps paying pensions for that 8%. Effectively this would be £8.3 billion* PA given to another country - if the Union goes so does the moral, political and legal imperative to make fiscal transfers.

I think the 2014 SG white paper was a load of guff but even it did not claim this.

I cant see why anyone would make this claim other than to try and obfuscate the dire economics of independence and possibly mislead one of the most vulnerable groups in the country (specifically older people who rely on the state pension).

*https://www.gov.scot/publications/gover ... 0/pages/5/

Didn't say the full amount. Maybe try understanding the nuance before getting shouty

[Slick]

Beginning of the end for Sturgeon?

[Biffer]

Beginning of the end for Sturgeon?

?

[Tichtheid]

Beginning of the end for Sturgeon?

?

I assume it's the UK Gov's attempts at firing up the Culture Wars Quatro in an attempt to gain some ground.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

Beginning of the end for Sturgeon?

?

I assume it's the UK Gov's attempts at firing up the Culture Wars Quatro in an attempt to gain some ground.

It was interesting that Sturgeon didn't seem to be defending the new law or arguing how it doesn't affect the UK human rights position - just claiming it's outrageous that the UK government is using section 35 to over-rule democracy.

But I'm also certain that the UK gov't sees an opportunity to damage the SNP through (what they see as) a legitimate legal route. It's not really about protecting the law in the rest of the UK.

I suspect that, in Scotland at least, Sturgeon's position ("UK government is outrageous") will gain more traction than the UK government's position ("this law presents a risk to the rest of the UK population").

[Slick]

?

I assume it's the UK Gov's attempts at firing up the Culture Wars Quatro in an attempt to gain some ground.

It was interesting that Sturgeon didn't seem to be defending the new law or arguing how it doesn't affect the UK human rights position - just claiming it's outrageous that the UK government is using section 35 to over-rule democracy.

But I'm also certain that the UK gov't sees an opportunity to damage the SNP through (what they see as) a legitimate legal route. It's not really about protecting the law in the rest of the UK.

I suspect that, in Scotland at least, Sturgeon's position ("UK government is outrageous") will gain more traction than the UK government's position ("this law presents a risk to the rest of the UK population").

There is just an unprecedented amount of public disagreement and pushback within the party and supporters that seems to be weakening her.

Losing her man at Westminster to a group who are much more critical

Backtracking on the GE referendum because of dissent from inside and outside the party, on top of the fact that most people on either side think it's a crazy idea.

The batshit net zero and anti hydrocarbons policy is having some serious consequences inside the party and externally

Then this whole gender thing. There seems to be a huge amount of dissent from indie supporters that was largely kept in check while it was shoved through Parliament but has come out in the open now that HMG has stepped in. It seems to have emboldened particularly the female support that they don't have to just sit back and take this through loyalty to the SNP/Sturgeon and actually this is a battle that should and can be fought.

As I say, it's unprecedented and history tells us that one crisis can be handled but once you are fighting on multiple fronts it's pretty impossible to stop.

[Slick]

?

I assume it's the UK Gov's attempts at firing up the Culture Wars Quatro in an attempt to gain some ground.

It was interesting that Sturgeon didn't seem to be defending the new law or arguing how it doesn't affect the UK human rights position - just claiming it's outrageous that the UK government is using section 35 to over-rule democracy.

But I'm also certain that the UK gov't sees an opportunity to damage the SNP through (what they see as) a legitimate legal route. It's not really about protecting the law in the rest of the UK.

I suspect that, in Scotland at least, Sturgeon's position ("UK government is outrageous") will gain more traction than the UK government's position ("this law presents a risk to the rest of the UK population").

I'm not sure about that to be honest. I think HMG have actually laid out their concerns well and it has resonated with a lot of pro independence folk. Alastair Jack (an absolute tosser otherwise) has emphasised they want to work with SG to find an acceptable alternative and I don't think the usual stamping of the feet is going to go down as well as usual.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

I assume it's the UK Gov's attempts at firing up the Culture Wars Quatro in an attempt to gain some ground.

It was interesting that Sturgeon didn't seem to be defending the new law or arguing how it doesn't affect the UK human rights position - just claiming it's outrageous that the UK government is using section 35 to over-rule democracy.

But I'm also certain that the UK gov't sees an opportunity to damage the SNP through (what they see as) a legitimate legal route. It's not really about protecting the law in the rest of the UK.

I suspect that, in Scotland at least, Sturgeon's position ("UK government is outrageous") will gain more traction than the UK government's position ("this law presents a risk to the rest of the UK population").

There is just an unprecedented amount of public disagreement and pushback within the party and supporters that seems to be weakening her.

Losing her man at Westminster to a group who are much more critical

Backtracking on the GE referendum because of dissent from inside and outside the party, on top of the fact that most people on either side think it's a crazy idea.

The batshit net zero and anti hydrocarbons policy is having some serious consequences inside the party and externally

Then this whole gender thing. There seems to be a huge amount of dissent from indie supporters that was largely kept in check while it was shoved through Parliament but has come out in the open now that HMG has stepped in. It seems to have emboldened particularly the female support that they don't have to just sit back and take this through loyalty to the SNP/Sturgeon and actually this is a battle that should and can be fought.

As I say, it's unprecedented and history tells us that one crisis can be handled but once you are fighting on multiple fronts it's pretty impossible to stop.

The 'de-facto referendum' flip-flopping does look particularly weak.

Interesting observation on opposition to the gender bill within Scotland - let's see how that plays out. It's the most toxic of subjects (to some) and has the potential to blow up spectacularly if she's misjudged it. I'm sure she's hoping she can turn it into argument about Westminster vs Holyrood though. Which plays to the SNP core support.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

I assume it's the UK Gov's attempts at firing up the Culture Wars Quatro in an attempt to gain some ground.

It was interesting that Sturgeon didn't seem to be defending the new law or arguing how it doesn't affect the UK human rights position - just claiming it's outrageous that the UK government is using section 35 to over-rule democracy.

But I'm also certain that the UK gov't sees an opportunity to damage the SNP through (what they see as) a legitimate legal route. It's not really about protecting the law in the rest of the UK.

I suspect that, in Scotland at least, Sturgeon's position ("UK government is outrageous") will gain more traction than the UK government's position ("this law presents a risk to the rest of the UK population").

I'm not sure about that to be honest. I think HMG have actually laid out their concerns well and it has resonated with a lot of pro independence folk. Alastair Jack (an absolute tosser otherwise) has emphasised they want to work with SG to find an acceptable alternative and I don't think the usual stamping of the feet is going to go down as well as usual.

On reflection, these are actually fair observations (bolded). However, I still pretty cynical about Westminster's motives - Conservative governments of late do not have a good record of doing the right thing for the right reasons.

[westport]

I don't have a dog in this current fight, because all Politian's no matter what party, to put it politely, are a waste of space. But when the former deputy president of the Supreme Court says the Scottish legislation "most certainly does" impact on the Equality Act 2004 and the existing Gender Recognition Act 2010, which currently apply across Great Britain, then I will go along with that. He believes It would therefore be a "mistake" for the Scottish government to go to court, wasting time and more importantly money, that they keep saying they don't have any.

So they have a choice, sit down together and amend of the contentious bits or spend loads of money that could be used for the many other things that desperately need addressing.

[Biffer]

I don't have a dog in this current fight, because all Politian's no matter what party, to put it politely, are a waste of space. But when the former deputy president of the Supreme Court says the Scottish legislation "most certainly does" impact on the Equality Act 2004 and the existing Gender Recognition Act 2010, which currently apply across Great Britain, then I will go along with that. He believes It would therefore be a "mistake" for the Scottish government to go to court, wasting time and more importantly money, that they keep saying they don't have any.

So they have a choice, sit down together and amend of the contentious bits or spend loads of money that could be used for the many other things that desperately need addressing.

SO it should be done under section 33 of the scotland act, where legal position is sought through the court, and made legitimate in a proper constitutional manner. Not by just Westminster deciding under section 35.

[westport]

I don't have a dog in this current fight, because all Politian's no matter what party, to put it politely, are a waste of space. But when the former deputy president of the Supreme Court says the Scottish legislation "most certainly does" impact on the Equality Act 2004 and the existing Gender Recognition Act 2010, which currently apply across Great Britain, then I will go along with that. He believes It would therefore be a "mistake" for the Scottish government to go to court, wasting time and more importantly money, that they keep saying they don't have any.

So they have a choice, sit down together and amend of the contentious bits or spend loads of money that could be used for the many other things that desperately need addressing.

SO it should be done under section 33 of the scotland act, where legal position is sought through the court, and made legitimate in a proper constitutional manner. Not by just Westminster deciding under section 35.

Couldn't tell you and don't really care.

[Biffer]

I don't have a dog in this current fight, because all Politian's no matter what party, to put it politely, are a waste of space. But when the former deputy president of the Supreme Court says the Scottish legislation "most certainly does" impact on the Equality Act 2004 and the existing Gender Recognition Act 2010, which currently apply across Great Britain, then I will go along with that. He believes It would therefore be a "mistake" for the Scottish government to go to court, wasting time and more importantly money, that they keep saying they don't have any.

So they have a choice, sit down together and amend of the contentious bits or spend loads of money that could be used for the many other things that desperately need addressing.

SO it should be done under section 33 of the scotland act, where legal position is sought through the court, and made legitimate in a proper constitutional manner. Not by just Westminster deciding under section 35.

Couldn't tell you and don't really care.

So far as I understand it, the way they've done it sets a precedent where the UK government can just strike down whatever the hell they like, and it's their decision, not guided by the legislation. That's probably something to be concerned about.

[westport]

SO it should be done under section 33 of the scotland act, where legal position is sought through the court, and made legitimate in a proper constitutional manner. Not by just Westminster deciding under section 35.

Couldn't tell you and don't really care.

So far as I understand it, the way they've done it sets a precedent where the UK government can just strike down whatever the hell they like, and it's their decision, not guided by the legislation. That's probably something to be concerned about.

What is more concerning is when a MSP says eight year old should decide - FFS they can't decide if they want beans or spaghetti

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politic ... e-chapman/