Monday, January 16, 2023

A Westminster veto on gender self-ID, combined with Starmer becoming a born-again sceptic on the issue, could be the perfect storm that radicalises the SNP and Green leaderships on independence

In a small way, I was involved in the campaign against legally-recognised gender self-ID, via the Panelbase poll I commissioned just over a year ago.  The hope was always that an opinion poll with balanced, non-leading questions would help wake some MSPs up to the extent of the gulf that had opened up between themselves and public opinion on the gender topic.  But given the scale of the pro-self-ID majority in Holyrood, which extended well beyond the ranks of the SNP and the Greens, it always seemed an extreme long shot to imagine that the campaign would end in self-ID actually being defeated.  When the GRR legislation finally passed just before Christmas, I was left (like many others) with the empty feeling that we needn't have bothered, which I suppose inevitably follows any campaign that ends in failure.  Admittedly there was still the small consolation of feeling confident that we had been (ironically) on the right side of history, and that time would eventually prove that to be the case.

Now, in the ultimate plot twist, it appears from today's Financial Times front page that our campaign may have succeeded after all, and that the legislation will not be permitted to go forward for Royal Assent - and yet that just makes me feel emptier still.  Regardless of what some people might say, it does matter how you achieve your political objectives.  For anyone using perverted logic to suggest a Westminster veto is somehow upholding the will of the Scottish people, please understand that way of thinking simply isn't consistent with a belief in self-governing Scottish parliamentary democracy.  If a mistake is made by the Scottish Parliament, no matter how grievous, the place to clear it up is in the Scottish Parliament.  The solution is not for a colonial master to intervene as some self-appointed God that enforces the will of the people as expressed in opinion polls, but only when it happens to feel like doing so.  The place-man Alister Jack acting as colonial Governor to veto a Bill of the elected Scottish Parliament by means of nothing more than the flourish of his pen will be an unprecedented tragedy for the cause of democratic Scottish self-government.

That said, there may be side-benefits, as I noted the other week.  A veto is likely to radicalise supporters of self-ID on the subject of independence.  Maggie Chapman, perhaps the very worst of the MSP zealots, is quoted in Pink News hyping up the narrative that Sunak is on the verge of triggering a constitutional crisis.  I had previously thought this effect might be tempered by the knowledge that a Starmer government is probably just around the corner and will introduce self-ID across the UK - but the ground is suddenly shifting on that point too.  Having been a fully paid up adherent of the Stonewall ideology, Starmer suddenly seems to be rowing back a little, and is giving every impression of having just been alerted to private polls and focus groups suggesting that his stance could cost him votes. His refusal to even state that he opposes a veto on the legislation is particularly astonishing given that Scottish Labour full-bloodedly supported the Bill, and given that Labour MSPs have been queueing up to state that a veto would be an attack on devolution.  Suddenly Scottish Labour looks once again like a mere branch office of the "whole party", to use Starmer's own withering words.

If Starmer no longer looks like he can be 100% relied upon to deliver full-fat self-ID, then forget about Peter A Bell - it could be Maggie Chapman who will be the keenest proponent of UDI going forward.

*  *  *

If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop continue in some form, donations are welcome HERE.

12 comments:

  1. Times reports

    Nicola Sturgeon is preparing to row back on her plan to make the next general election a “de facto referendum” on Scottish independence, but instead make it a “show of support” for a second vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is that them just catching up with the NEC resolution 48 hours later than the rest of us, or is there more to it than that?

      Delete
    2. No there isn't. It's just the Times trying to spin the NEC resolution as bad for the SNP / Sturgeon. The Times has gone completely in the tank for the Tories over the last few months since they changed editor.

      Delete
  2. There's logic in what you say James about a possible, reluctant radicalisation of the 'Sturgeon Suits' but what a lopsided campaign if, to gain our independence, we had to fight to defend a bunch of self preoccupied, political sectarians from there own selfish stupidty.

    We'd have to do it but.......

    ReplyDelete
  3. Imagine if this was the thing that galvanised Scottish Labor into supporting independence. Would never happen, but you can only dream.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Starmer does what the Red Wall focus groups tell him

    ReplyDelete
  5. James, you have more faith in the SNP radicalising its behaviour than I do - the Brit would have to be wandering about randomly shootiung people in the street for the SNP to become radical.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What sort of independence leader goes for this self ID legislation knowing the public don't want it and it only benefits a tiny proportion of trans people ( some of whom don't want it either) but even worse knows there is a good chance it will be struck down by the Britnats anyway. How on earth does this help the cause of Scottish independence? It is a very long shot that the Britnats striking down the bill will make any difference to the determination of these politicians to get independence but the whole self ID circus pisses off a lot of people reducing the vote for the SNP/ Independence.

    Maggie Chapman, the Greens MSP who stood up in the Scottish Parliament and told us sex is not binary. But if there are not two sexes just how many are there. Unfortunately, she never told us. Chapman has also expressed her opinion that the right to change your sex should be reduced from 16 ( as it is in this new self ID bill ) to six years of age. That's right 6 years - primary 2 age - and parents should have no rights to stop them - and schools can keep it secret from parents. Chapman is a dangerous bampot as are the rest of the Greens.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Still, apparently Mz S is 'outraged' at the Brits' blocking the sex-change legislation. Well, my goodness, passionate about something - maybe she should start a new political party with its sole aim being trans-legislation. She'd go to war for that. She's unforeseeable...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sturgeon seems more outraged at the 'thought' that the Britnats may strike down her self ID bill than the Britnats actually striking down her Indyref2 in October. Not a lot of outrage either from Sturgeon about the outrageous energy bills in Scotland. Maybe somebody should tell her trans people feel the cold as well. Maybe somebody should tell her trans people want independence as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said, the good news is she's burnt ou, she'll at the next AGM and most anybody would be a better indy leader her.

      Delete
  9. So the UK govt are to block the Scots Parl self ID bill! What are Scots Labour and UK going to say about it?

    ReplyDelete