I AM always surprised how contributors know what the “majority of Scots” are thinking on issue they have a bee in their bonnet about. The recent comment on the Gender Recognition Reform Bill by someone who clearly thinks he is right and the “majority of Scots” agree with him is just another example of this amazing crystal-ball-gazing skill.
My guess is the “majority of Scots” do not actually give a fig about the GRR Bill or all the rammy going on around it among those who see it in black-and-white terms. Somehow the legitimate bill of the Scottish Parliament to bring Scots law into line with the EHRC guidance on “trans rights”, as has already occurred across most of Europe, ended up in a SNP NEC stushy which blew up in the media as the “special interest groups” on both sides of the NEC took ever harder positions and entered into ever more excessive rhetoric.
READ MORE: What to expect as legal challenge over gender reforms goes ahead
The actual issue is not the bill, a bill voted for by a majority of MSPs after long discussion and committee scrutiny, the issue is the use of a Section 35 order by a politician in Westminster to block a bill of the Scottish Parliament which had a majority support of MSPs, simply because he could.
Whether you like the bill or not, the undemocratic action by the Secretary of State for Scotland, with clearly malicious intent to further attack Holyrood and its powers, is why the decision must be challenged.
Peter Thomson
Kirkcudbright
OPPOSITION parties and much of the media have recently obsessed over the minutiae of the SNP’s internal finances, but it was heartening to learn that the Scottish Government will take legal action to contest the imposition of a Section 35 veto on enactment of the Gender Recognition Reform Bill.
While the Scottish Government is introducing further measures to reduce the impact of the UK cost-of-living crisis on those most in need, it is entirely logical that it take this action to prevent the further erosion of devolved powers, even if the prospects of success are not considered high. It is ironic, if not disingenuous, that some are already moaning about the cost of this action, which will require little ongoing time of government ministers, while ignoring the billions of pounds lost to the Scottish economy by remaining in a dysfunctional Union which in only a few years has managed to lose tens of billions of pounds due to gross incompetence, cronyism and fraud.
READ MORE: Ruth Wishart: The indy cause must come together if we are to succeed
Also, it seems hypocritical for those attempting to justify the unprecedented action of de facto governor Jack and the UK Tory government by claiming the GRR Bill is not supported by the Scottish public when the Tories have not won a General Election in Scotland for more than 50 years. Furthermore, four out of the five political parties elected to represent the people of Scotland to a more democratically-proportional parliament voted overwhelmingly, after listening to arguments over a period of more than six years, in favour of passing the GRR Bill.
Of course it is not surprising that the general public, who have not listened to all the differing arguments but have been subjected to a barrage of misinformation, may not yet understand the reasons why all the political parties apart from the Tories backed the bill, but it would seem safe to say that the majority wish to both see the rights of minorities, as well as women and children, protected, and wish to see a more powerful Scottish Parliament.
When SNP MP Dr Philippa Whitford debated with Conservative MSP Rachael Hamilton on this subject on STV’s Scotland Tonight, it was clear who offered the most reasoned arguments on behalf of the Scottish electorate as opposed to more spurious political soundbites.
Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian
TORIES ‘treating Scottish ministers like children’, expert says” (Apr 15). This the final stage in reducing the status of Scotland as a partner in a voluntary union, since the signing of the international agreement between the nations of Scotland and England, to a region of the UK under the control of the increasingly English parliamentary and judicial systems.
John Jamieson
South Queensferry
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel