First of all, thanks for all the kind words about the podcast with Maggie McNeill the other day. It turned out to be extremely timely, because as you may have seen in the Scotsman today, the SNP's plans to introduce the Nordic model on prostitution law may end up scuppering the proposed deal between the SNP and the Greens on a programme for government. 155 members of the Green party have written an open letter to Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater, citing the Nordic model as one of the main reasons for not pushing ahead with a deal. If you'd like to learn more about why there is such strong opposition to the Nordic model, you can catch up with the podcast HERE.
But it won't surprise you to hear that the other main objection to a deal raised in the letter is the SNP's supposed "transphobia". It's difficult to know whether to laugh or cry about this, because whatever position you take on the trans debate, it's beyond all credible dispute that the SNP leadership have come down decisively on the side of trans activism. To still accuse them of transphobia, even after Nicola Sturgeon's notorious "hostage video", even after the treatment of Joanna Cherry, smacks of zealotry and extremism. What more are they supposed to do? Are they supposed to expel or hound out of the party every single SNP member that holds gender critical views? Incredibly, it appears the answer is yes. Dare I say it, some Green members seem to be liberally partaking of the parfum d'obsession.
* * *
Over the last 24 hours or so, I've taken a complete break from moderating comments on this blog - I haven't even read the comments that have come through to my inbox, so apologies if you're innocently caught up in this and are still waiting for your comment to be approved. I've once again reached saturation point with the whole thing, this time because one of our long-term regular commenters has been having a bit of a meltdown on the basis that not all of his comments have been approved quickly enough for his liking. The nadir was reached a few days ago when he attempted to post an epic rant that literally accused me of being Stuart Campbell (!). He also sent me a long email a week or two back that was chummy in tone, but that basically tried to dictate to me what my moderation policy should be - and that just ain't on. Anyone is welcome to post comments here (well, apart from two or three specific individuals who I've told are not welcome), but whether comments are approved or not is entirely at my discretion. That's a feature, not a bug.
I probably would have responded to the email eventually, but finding the time became a bit tricky because the same person continued to attempt to post multiple War and Peace length diatribes every day, and I had to wade through those and decide what to do about them. To give you a general rule of thumb about the sort of comments that are at risk of not getting through, obviously I have to be careful about anything that may cause legal problems or that contains extreme swearing. But there's a broader category of comments that waste my time in some way or another, because the only way I can realistically publish them is if I take the time to reply. For example, personal attacks on me, attempts to troll me, or determined attempts to call into question the factual basis of the blogpost that is being commented on. It's one thing if stuff like that appears elsewhere on the internet, but if I allow it to appear here without any rebuttal, that can be taken (wrongly) as tacit acceptance on my part that the comments are valid. So a lot depends on whether I have the time to reply at any given moment, and if I don't, it's not unusual for me to keep a comment in the moderation queue in the hope that I'll have time later on. But obviously if the comment contains paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of trolling or attacks, there's a much greater likelihood that I'll never have enough time.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about. I recently wrote a blogpost that pointed out that the SNP had asked voters to use the 2017 Westminster general election to give them a "triple lock" mandate for an independence referendum. The commenter in question posted a long comment - which I reluctantly approved - that falsely claimed that the SNP manifesto did not mention anything about a triple lock mandate, and that he would not have voted SNP if it had. I politely told him to read the manifesto again - and he responded with another epic comment insisting that he had checked the manifesto and that the words weren't there. He supplied lengthy quotes as supposed 'proof'.
Here's the thing, though: I actually went to the SNP's manifesto launch for the 2017 election in Perth. Everyone who attended was given a free copy of the manifesto, and I clearly remember reading the triple lock section while I was actually sitting there. I didn't have time to set the commenter straight by searching for the manifesto and trawling through it to find the relevant passage, but nevertheless I knew for a fact that he was misleading people. Was I really supposed to approve, without rebuttal, a comment that a) was factually inaccurate and b) would have falsely left me looking either deluded or like a liar? For the record, here's what the 2017 manifesto actually said -
"Last year’s Holyrood election delivered the democratic mandate for an independence referendum. The recent vote of Scotland’s national Parliament has underlined that mandate. If the SNP wins a majority of Scottish seats in this election, that would complete a triple lock..."
However, by far the biggest problem in recent days has been the sustained attempt to propagandise away the legitimate concerns about the £600,000 that was donated to the SNP's "ring-fenced indyref fund" and that mostly appears to have been spent on other things. A recurring theme has been "if the police decide to take no action, that means the allegations are baseless and those who have made them must apologise". My tolerance for that kind of nonsense is practically zero at this stage. Not all breaches of trust reach the threshold for criminality - indeed the vast majority don't. What the police do or don't do is essentially irrelevant to the question of whether members' trust has been betrayed in this case.
James - do not take these cretins seriously or allow them even a passing thought in your psyche - it's unhealthy, just Delete On Sight. I repeat, DOS them and perhaps (if possible) consider getting a blog system that allows you to block the Brits and the gits and the tits. YOU should not have to spend a moment bothering about the internet Brit miasma - fk 'em. And maybe get some admin help in comments too.
ReplyDeleteThe site seems to have been cleansed of unionist trolls but the problem now is loyalist trolling. Not British loyalists but Sturgeon loyalists, deaf and blind to any criticism of her glacial leadership style and determined to silence any heretics who might prove sympathetic to Alba. It may not be deliberate trolling but constant assertions of Nicola's infallibility and how the devil incarnate has taken up residence in Bath do the blog no favours. (Say what you like about Rev Stu but he was ahead of the curve on the indyref fund story). Short of banning people, which James is obviously reluctant to do, I can't see things improving.
DeleteMaybe a change of platform would help WordPress has a system where you can vet each new poster once and, if approved, subsequent posts go through automatically. Of course, trust can be abused but if an 'approved' poster goes 'rogue', the site host can still delete his comments the next time he checks his replies. Not a perfect solution but it does allow the site to 'self-moderate' to some extent. Any such move need not lose you readers, you just leave a link to any new site on your 'farewell' blog. Worth considering but it depends how committed James is to this platform.
The fact we have the Greens attacking the SNP for being 'transphobes' while Alba attack them for being 'transfans' pretty much confirms that the SNP are spot on in their approach to this issue / GRA.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the whole trans obsession puts me off both the Greens and Alba. I'm just not into the whole identity politics thing that these two can't stop talking about. That and I've been called a transphobe and transfan by respective party followers, but not had any stick from the SNP for my balanced views.
Which would imply that the SNP are somehow equidistant between the Greens and Alba on this issue, but as you know that's simply not true. The leadership's position is essentially identical to that of the Greens.
DeleteThen shouldn't the complainers in the greens either attack the Green leadership (for being trasphobes like the SNP) or praise the SNP leadership (for being transfans like the greens)?
Deletehttps://www.thenational.scot/politics/19395749.155-greens-write-co-leaders-concerns-snps-record-trans-issues/
Certainly, on gender the SNP are definitely middle of the road centrist northern European social democratic. Scotland is still quite strict on transition recognition compared to Ireland and Scandinavia.
The parties with a more 'extremist' position are obvious from the fact they spend a lot more time talking about the issue, which I'd say very much applies in the case of the greens and Alba when it comes to GRA. Or at least their voters do.
I don't mean you here James, but posts about willies in dresses and ladies loos on here almost ubiquitously come from Alba backers. They seem to spend a lot time visualising these things, which is certainly worrying from males.
Meanwhile the 'transphobes!' screams do tend to originate from the Greener camp. Both it seems are much more into identity politics than the SNP.
And most SNP, from elected reps to members and voters, seem to share the party position rather than it being confined to the leadership. Of course on the wings of the party, more away from the centre, you start to get those with more Alba or Green views who sound like these on the subject.
There is virtually no gap between the Greens and the SNP on their obsession with trans rights, to the detriment of women's rights. Both take their literature and attitude directly from Stonewall who act as the gatekeepers of the debate. The most egregious thing about it all is the refusal to debate the issue, and instead immediately scream 'transphobia' at anyone with a reasonable question about the implications - not against trans rights, but regarding the consequences of legislation which may be ill thought out.
DeleteThe funny thing about it all is the factionalism which sees the Greens trying to outdo the SNP in their eagerness to toe the Stonewall line. Some of us, of course, would prefer they consider independence as seriously as their so-called 'progressive' credentials.
PS, good call on comments, much better to see a well moderated comments policy than screeds of diatribe and abuse. No-one has a 'right' to endlessly post their rants. They can always get their own blog, instead of using someone else's as a soapbox.
The SNP under Nicola Sturgeon are utterly determined to push though the GRA/Self ID reforms and still utterly determined to provide funding to Stonewall, despite Westminster rolling back their reforms and (along with 800 other organisations) withdrawing from Stonewall's schemes.
DeleteI suspect SS that your view is informed by media rhetoric alone. Have you actually examined what impact Self ID will have on girls and women. Do you for instance think it's OK that a rapist can claim to be a woman and be housed in the women's prison estate? Google the Karen White case. Only moved after sexually assaulting female inmates.
All I can say is if Ms. Sturgeon followed Liz Truss's example, this whole divisive issue would simply melt away.
Sadly there is no chance of her backing down, it isn't in her DNA- female whether she likes it or not.
"Then shouldn't the complainers in the greens either attack the Green leadership (for being trasphobes like the SNP) or praise the SNP leadership (for being transfans like the greens)?"
DeleteOh, they'll do the former if a deal is signed. Just give them time.
"Certainly, on gender the SNP are definitely middle of the road centrist northern European social democratic. Scotland is still quite strict on transition recognition compared to Ireland and Scandinavia."
Again, you're making zero sense. The SNP leadership are trying to *change* that "middle of the road centrist" position.
Scottish skier.
DeleteSorry to say I don't know what pile of sand you have stuck your head into but I'm not sure you have been paying attention.
From your reply to comments btl. you say
Scotland is quite strict on transition recognition compared to Ireland and Scandinavia.
As James has pointed out that's because the SNP/Sturgeon/Greens proposals to amend the existing 2004 GRA, means we will be exactly aligned to that model.
ie. Any man, that's any man at all can self ID as a woman without altering their appearance or physicality in any way.
Impacts on prisons, hospitals, women's sports not to mention the Girl Guides for goodness sake. The list is endless.(including loos).
You say. "concerns come from Alba voters". Actually concerns come from Scottish women (who do after all make up 51% of the population) who are now voting Alba. Or more particularly anyone who sees that under this leadership we are being railroaded into altering society to suit the Stonewall Queer Theory agenda.
"Elected reps share the party position". Really?
Just ask those few, those very few who have spoken up. The rest will not or they will end up on the hinterlands like Joanna Cherry or Joan McAlpine?
Honestly SS wake up. Once you see the agenda, you can't unsee it.
Who can forget Nicola Sturgeon's so called 'hostage video' imploring a dozen or so trans allies not to leave the SNP. Next day cross party ammendments to the Hate Crime Bill were dropped and strangely, Jo Cherry was sacked from the front benches.
Frankly this spat between the Greens and The SNP seems to me to be 'manufactured' or staged.
Expect the SNP to expedite the GRA reforms ASAP. Can't be accused of being a transphobe after all.
Never in my life do I hope I'm wrong in this regard.
But actually, is the Scottish Government faffing about, causing division to cover for the lack of movement on Independence???
People are obsessed with ladies' loos says the man who regularly regales us with tales of his latest visit to a 'gender neutral' facility so he can occupy the cubicle next to a woman. Can't someone install an irony alert for Skier's posts? I don't think my aching sides can take much more.
DeleteFelix, if you like sharing traditional 'open plan' loos / changing rooms with people of the same sex rather than having a private, disabled loo style 'gender neutral' facility all to yourself, the police should probably being having words with you.
DeleteJeez, at this rate Alba might end up getting my vote after all.
ReplyDelete