Latest news with #PatrickHarvie
Scotsman
3 days ago
- Politics
- Scotsman
Why thousands of Scots support Reform (and it's not because they're racist)
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... There have been many moments of parliamentary pantomime in Holyrood since 1999. Only two days ago, a growling Douglas Ross MSP was thrown out of the chamber for talking over John Swinney at the weekly session of First Minister's Questions. And who can forget the sight of women's rights campaigner Elaine Miller who, from her vantage point in the public gallery, lifted her skirt to expose her merkin to show her disgust at the MSPs' decision to pass the Gender Recognition Reform Bill? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad By Elaine's admittedly high standards – she is a part-time stand-up comic after all – Wednesday's urgent question by Patrick Harvie was pretty tame. There were no gasps of horror as the co-leader of the Scottish Greens got to his feet, at least none that were audible. Scottish Green MSPs Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater had urgent concerns about the Scottish Parliament's 'facilities' this week (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell) | Getty Images 'Extremist fringe' During the 15-minute debate that ensued, no MSP or disgruntled observer exposed bare flesh. No voices were raised in anger. No one was banished from the chamber. But it was a farce all the same, because Harvie's coy yet 'urgent' question was about the use of the parliament's 'facilities' by MSPs and staff. For facilities, read toilets. His concern centred round a recent edict by the parliament's Corporate Body which declared that, for the foreseeable future, 'facilities' designated as male or female will be based on 'biological sex'. There will also be additional gender-neutral 'facilities' for those MSPs, staff and public who identify as transgender or non-binary. A sensible move one might think, following the recent Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman. But Harvie was having none of it, getting up on his high horse to compare the Corporate Body – made up of the Presiding Officer and four MSPs, including his Scottish Green colleague Maggie Chapman – to the 'extremist fringe of the United States Republican Party'. A tad hyperbolic, even for him. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A handful of equally outraged MSPs chipped in, with Alex-Cole Hamilton, leader of the Lib Dems no less, demanding that no one should be asked to show their birth certificate before spending a penny. Much to my surprise, Lorna Slater, a former government minister, revealed there is a lively internet conspiracy that she is a trans woman and asked if she will require a medical examination prior to using a toilet. Education, health, cost of living Veteran MSP Christine Grahame, who was responding on behalf of the Corporate Body, kept her cool in the face of such daft questions, but an exasperated Russell Findlay took to his feet to express his impatience about this 'farcical waste of time'. The Tory leader said: 'The people of Scotland expect politicians to focus on what matters – rising household bills, their children's education, getting a general practitioner appointment, fixing the roads and keeping communities safe, yet the priority for out-of-touch SNP, Labour, Lib Dem and Green MSPs is an urgent debate about the Holyrood toilets.' If the people of Scotland had been watching Scottish Parliament TV instead of getting on with their lives, you might have heard a resounding cheer across the country at Findlay's intervention. Harvie's urgent question may have only taken up 15 minutes of parliamentary time, but it was a telling snapshot of Scotland's political class which exposed the gulf between them and the rest of us. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The cultural divide between MSPs with their lanyards and pet causes and voters struggling to cope with the economic and social upheaval of the last decade could not be more stark than it was on Wednesday. While MSPs are fretting about where they should pee, we are worrying about whether our granny will get the social care she needs or if our children will get the education they deserve. Little wonder that Nigel Farage and his Reform party have spooked every political leader from John Swinney to Keir Starmer. Farage's popular rhetoric, cynical though it is, appeals to an electorate that is disillusioned with smug politicians so immersed in their private, elitist world that they are blind to what is happening in the real one. 'Litany of failures' The majority of people who will vote Reform at Thursday's Hamilton by-election are not racists, as some would have us believe. Most will not even have noticed Reform's despicable campaign ad, which crudely argued that the Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar will 'prioritise' Pakistani people. As former Labour MP Tom Harris argued in a newspaper column earlier this week, most voters are 'simply sick of the litany of failures and disappointments which have been served up by successive governments…' He went on: 'Voters don't support Reform because of their policies; they support Reform because it is not one of the old parties.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Scotland's leading election guru, Sir John Curtice, doesn't think that Reform will win. He was reported this week as saying that while it's not impossible, it would be a 'spectacular' result if they managed to pull it off. 'I think even coming second would be quite an achievement,' he said. But he pointed out that Scotland is a different world to the one 12 months ago that saw Scottish Labour pick up 37 seats at the general election. And recent polls suggest that Reform will be the second biggest party at Holyrood after the 2026 election, with 20 per cent of the popular vote. Nearly 60 years ago, another Hamilton by-election heralded a new era in Scottish politics, when Winnie Ewing became only the second SNP MP to win a seat at Westminster. You can trace a clear path from her legendary 1967 victory to the 2014 referendum.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
How did the SNP-Green relationship go so wrong?
The Scottish government has dropped plans for a new national park in Dumfries and Galloway - the latest in a series of policies driven by the Scottish Greens to have been scrapped by the SNP. The idea was originally taken forward by Lorna Slater, when she was a government minister under the Bute House Agreement between the two parties. But since she and Green co-leader Patrick Harvie were kicked out of their ministerial offices by Humza Yousaf, the majority of policies included in the pact have been binned. From marine protection areas to climate targets, changes how homes are heated and a ban on conversion therapy, the agreed programme has mostly been torn up. Was the partnership worth it, looking back? And where does it leave the SNP and Greens heading into next year's Holyrood election? Things have changed enormously in Scottish politics since Nicola Sturgeon brought the Greens into government in 2021. She departed Bute House the following year, and her successor Humza Yousaf barely lasted a year as first minister. Ultimately, it was his decision to end the Bute House Agreement (BHA) which ended his tenure. A big motivation for the SNP in going into the pact was that it would provide stability against votes of no confidence, so it was somewhat fitting that the threat of such a vote forced Mr Yousaf out of office days after he ended the deal. John Swinney has since taken the administration off in a different direction with Kate Forbes as his deputy. The decision on the Galloway national park is just the latest in a procession of policies which underpinned the partnership to have been consigned to history. Let's take a look through the original agreement documents to check on the fate of some others. Cracks had started to appear in the pact prior to Mr Yousaf's decision to end it, particularly when the government announced it was dropping its climate targets. The BHA had called for a "credible pathway" to hitting the admittedly ambitious 2030 interim target for cutting carbon emissions. But after watchdogs underlined that this was looking increasingly unlikely, the government decided to do away with the interim goals and move to a system of carbon budgets. That wasn't the last climate measure to be scrapped either, with ministers also conceding that a target of reducing car use by 20% by 2030 wasn't going to happen. Another bone of contention at the time was Mr Yousaf's abrupt announcement of a council tax freeze - something the Greens opposed. Indeed the original agreement was that there would be a citizen's assembly on council tax reform. This has never materialised, and the longstanding promises to change how local taxation works have been kicked off into the next parliamentary term (again). One of the biggest pieces of work the Greens undertook in government was Patrick Harvie's heat in buildings bill, which aimed to move more homes to greener systems like heat pumps rather than boilers. The bill was shelved earlier this year after acting net zero secretary Gillian Martin said it would "make people poorer", voicing concerns that it could increase fuel poverty. A revised version of the bill has since been published, but it stops short of a legal requirement to replace heating systems by 2045. Mr Harvie was also the minister for tenant's rights, with the Greens central to plans to cap rents and ban evictions during the cost of living crisis. But the party takes a fairly dim view of the "watered down" system of rent controls currently being considered in the Housing (Scotland) Bill, saying they are not nearly strong enough. Another proposed bill was the ban on conversion therapy, which the Greens remain keen on - but which SNP ministers would really rather the UK government deal with. The decision to kick that into the next parliamentary term compounded the rift over gender reforms, which the two parties had cooperated over while passing the Gender Recognition Reform Bill in 2022. But Mr Yousaf decided to drop legal challenges to defend the legislation after it was blocked by the UK government, and Mr Swinney's administration have been clear that they will not be bringing it back. These policies follow a pattern of the Swinney government being happy to drop particularly controversial policies. The same thing happened with a plan to designate 10% of Scotland's waters as highly protected marine areas, which sparked opposition in coastal communities. In fairness, a few things had been delivered before the Greens left government. The new National Planning Framework had been finalised, including the BHA requirements for 20 minute neighbourhoods and greater priority for onshore wind developments. However, it should be noted that Green hopes for an energy strategy which would support offshore wind and marine renewables remain unrealised, given Mr Swinney's government still hasn't published its long-awaited energy strategy. The Scottish government also boosted the Scottish Child Payment, something enshrined in the agreement - although given it is a flagship policy for the SNP, it is likely that would have happened anyway. The same could probably be said of the £500m just transition fund for the North East and Moray, given it was in the SNP manifesto. Other successes included the Fair Work First guidance, which requires public sector bodies which get government grants to pay the real living wage, and a pledge to replace the Scottish Qualifications Authority. A National Register of Ancient Woodlands is being produced, with a target date of 2027, and the promised Natural Environment Bill – aimed at improving biodiversity - has been tabled. These do feel like relatively small wins, though, compared to what was promised and ultimately abandoned. The decision to end the partnership agreement couldn't have been much more damaging for Humza Yousaf, given he ended up quitting. It has had consequences for the party's broader policy platform too though. The SNP had also been relying on Green support for one of its flagship policies for the term, the National Care Service. The BHA committed the parties to driving forward what it called a "totemic policy", but the Greens eventually joined other opposition parties in rallying against the proposal put down on paper by ministers. A vote at the party's conference went overwhelmingly against the proposal, underlining that it could not make it through parliament - although it was already clear by then that it would be undeliverable in any case, given opposition from key partners like unions, councils and health boards. Looking back over the wreckage of the Bute House Agreement may be instructive when we think ahead to the next Holyrood election. John Swinney has sought to build bridges now, with a view to operating in a fractured parliament of minorities next term. But would the Greens work with the SNP again in future? For all that they ultimately got out of the agreement, the smaller party may reflect that they may be able to deliver more by remaining in opposition and driving hard bargains when budget votes are needed. It was a budget deal which secured one of their favourite policies which still remains – free bus travel for under-22s. The Greens may also be happy to have more clear water between the parties on policy when voters go to the polls, given they are competing with the SNP for a similar slice of the electorate. But there is one topic we know the parties do still agree on, which may remain of outsize influence. The Bute House Agreement included a pledge to secure a referendum on Scottish independence. Obviously that didn't happen this term - but depending on the result of the election, building a "pro independence majority" may well be something which puts the SNP and Greens back on similar ground next May. Scottish government scraps plan for new national park SNP's power-sharing deal with Greens collapses Why do the SNP and Greens want to do a deal?
The Herald Scotland
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Have our MSPs got nothing better to talk about than toilets?
How long before we have an urgent question on the lack of paper clips in Mr Harvie's office? Jane Lax, Aberlour. • One may be forgiven for wondering why it's supposed to be "exclusionary", "transphobic" and a "breach of human rights" when employers or public organisations provide gender-neutral toilets on their premises. Of course it's not. Yet this idea lives in the minds of Scottish Greens MSP Patrick Harvie and 16 other MSPs (out of 129) who have signed a letter in protest of the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body's decision to clarify that, in line with the recent Supreme Court judgement, men's and women's toilets at Holyrood are defined as single-sex spaces with additional gender-neutral facilities provided for the needs of everyone. On behalf of Patrick Harvie, elected representatives then had to spend precious debating time on this topic. While this may seem trivial compared to bread-and-butter issues such as the cost of living, health or education, it does matter. Loos have become the latest battleground in the pushback, driven by some trans activists, against the Supreme Court's clarification that "men", "women" and "sex" are defined by biology in the UK Equality Act 2010. For them, it seems, provision of gender-neutral facilities alongside female and male ones isn't enough and the ultimate prize appears to be the general abolition of single-sex spaces. By forcing his loo debate on Holyrood Patrick Harvie, a fierce champion of this idea, has made sure that the topic stays in the public eye. Regina Erich, Stonehaven. Read more letters UK must restore dignity Andrew Learmonth asks why public bodies are waiting for the new code of practice on equality law from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), before changing their policies on things like the use of toilets by trans people ("Why is government waiting for the EHRC after ruling?", The Herald, May 27). The answer is surely that both John Swinney and Keir Starmer were mistaken when they suggested that the recent Supreme Court judgement on this brought clarity. It has, so far, done nothing of the sort. On the one hand we have the EHRC suggesting that the judgement means that trans people will be barred from using facilities that match their gender identity. On the other hand, we have some very senior lawyers, including a former Supreme Court judge, disagreeing that that is what the judgement requires. And there is already legal action under way to challenge the EHRC's interpretation. If the EHRC's view is correct, however, two things are clear. Firstly, trans people's rights to privacy and safety will be seriously undermined – more so than in any other western European country. Cases about this will be taken through the courts, if necessary to the European Court of Human Rights. Secondly, the Supreme Court will have completely reversed the clear intention of the UK Parliament in passing the Gender Recognition Bill in 2004. The then government minister, David Lammy, and the opposition's Andrew Selous, explicitly agreed during the Commons debate on the bill that a gender recognition certificate would change a person's sex for the purposes of equality law (which includes the law governing the use of separate-sex services). The bill was passed on that basis. If the Supreme Court has decided the opposite, it has overturned the will of MPs, based on a detailed analysis of the wording of the legislation. That demonstrates that the law was, in the relevant parts, too loosely drafted to properly implement what was intended by government and Parliament. Equality law is reserved to Westminster, so the Scottish Parliament cannot fix this mess. If the EHRC is correct, the UK Government should act promptly to amend the legislation to restore the will of Parliament as agreed in 2004. Surely Keir Starmer's Government cannot intend that the UK's respect for equality and human rights should be so much poorer now than it was 21 years ago? Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh. Are the .04% more important? Following Nicola Sturgeon's recent statement in which she proposes the legalising of transgender rights to use ladies' toilets and changing facilities ("'Trans law may require a change,' says Sturgeon", The Herald, May 26), I wish to share the following facts and statistics. These are 2021figures: UK female population 35 million, an estimated 280,000 identify as transgender; 0.08% of female population. Scotland's female population of 2.9m, an estimated 19,900 identify as transgender; 0.07% of the female population. UK total population male and female 69m. These figures show the transgender population to be .04% of the UK – yet Ms Sturgeon and other politicians believe the transgender community has a status and influence, and therefore rights, higher than 99.96% of the UK population. Professor Tony Meehan, Glasgow. Farage not a true unionist Those of us who are "old lags" in Ukip Scotland remember the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary elections. Our slogan was "Sack the MSPs". We desired then, as now, the abolition of the Holyrood so-called parliament. Our national leader was a fellow called Nigel Farage and he enthusiastically embraced this message. Today of course Nigel has undergone a dramatic conversion and now presumably regards the so-called Scottish Government as a good thing. The Reform candidate in the forthcoming Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse Scottish by-election claims that he would not be standing for a parliament he does not believe in. That is exactly what Nigel and Ukip did from 1999 to 2019 as we stood for the European Parliament from which we wished to be disentangled. Nigel may have walked away from his firm unionist credentials but his legacy lives on as the true unionists in this election seek to resurrect the place of Scotland as an integral part of the United Kingdom governed by the House of Commons – the only Parliament. Donald MacKay, Blackwood. Nigel Farage (Image: Newsquest) Frigates not a valid comparison Stan Grodynski (Letters, May 27) in his own attempt at "whitabootery", intends to distract from the Scottish ferry scandal by trying to compare Glens Sannox and Rosa to cost overruns on the Type 26 Frigate contract. He unfortunately makes the rather basic mistake of not checking his facts first. The award of the Type 26 contract to BAe Systems was valued at £4.2 billion and is for extremely complex ships of 8,000 tonnes and with high levels of intricate technology. There have been cost overruns acknowledged of £233 million – equating to around 5% – with a delay of 12 months. By contrast, the Ferguson Marine ferries contract was valued at £97m, and is for two straightforward car ferries. Cost overruns amount to £650m to date – being 670%. The first ferry was delayed seven years and the second's date of active duty is not yet known; both have had their capacity cut due to design flaws, and the one that is running was planned on a scale that means she cannot fit her usual home port. Steph Johnson, Glasgow. Why should Israel surrender? What would Eric Melvin (Letters, May 29) have Israel do to defend itself against the Islamists bent on destroying it? Surrender? Cut Israel in half, hoping to placate the terrorists? Did we surrender to Germany in the Second World? No. We fought until the Nazis had enough and quit. Then we cut Germany in four, tried and hung their leaders and occupied it until we felt they had expunged the evil from their society. Only after the war did we send in aid. Israel was savagely attacked on October 7, 2023. On October 8, the Jew-haters swung into action. 40,000 dormant social media sites spewed antisemitic propaganda. Posters and flags were delivered to campuses all over the world. Hezbollah, Iran and Houthis fired into Israel. Zionism means Jews fight back. Mr Melvin should work to save the hostages, not their aggressors. Len Bennett, Ottawa, Canada.
Scotsman
5 days ago
- Politics
- Scotsman
Readers Letters: MSPs waste Parliamentary time with toilet talk
Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie felt a desperate need to discuss Holyrood toilets this week (Picture: Jeff) Is who can use which toilet really a matter for urgent debate at Holyrood, asks reader Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The Scottish Parliament sunk to a new low on Tuesday when an Urgent Question was permitted by the Deputy Presiding Officer, Liam McArthur, regarding the toilet facilities within the parliamentary building at Holyrood. This came after the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body took steps to adhere to the law regarding single sex spaces under the Equality Act 2010. As it should be, only biological women may use the 'ladies' in the parliament building. Scottish Greens MSP Patrick Harvie and 16 others signed a letter urging it to ignore the ruling by the highest court in the country, the Supreme Court. Mr Harvie submitted this Urgent Question. At a time when we have 1 in 9 Scots having to deal with long waits for planned NHS treatment, Scots anxious about the economy, parents' fears of violence in school and increasing knife crime, this 'urgent' issue was debated by MSPs, wasting valuable time where the above issues could have been discussed. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad How out of touch are these overpaid individuals who are meant to be representing their constituents on issues that matter to them, not on what toilet they have to use in Holyrood? How long before we have an urgent question on the lack of paperclips in Mr Harvie's office? Jane Lax, Aberlour, Moray No clarity Murdo Fraser asks why public bodies are not already changing their policies on the use of services by trans people (Perspective, 28 May). The answer is in part that the Supreme Court judgment on this has certainly not brought any clarity. On the one hand we have the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) suggesting that the judgment means that trans people should be barred from using facilities that match their gender identity. On the other hand, we have some very senior lawyers, including a former Supreme Court judge, disagreeing that that is what the judgment requires. And there is already legal action under way to challenge the EHRC's interpretation. If the EHRC's view prevails, two things are clear however. Firstly, trans people's privacy and safety will be seriously undermined – more so than in any other western European country. Cases about this will be taken through the courts, if necessary to the European Court of Human Rights. Secondly, the Supreme Court will have completely reversed the clear intention of the UK Parliament in passing the Gender Recognition Bill in 2004. The then government minister, David Lammy, and the opposition's Andrew Selous, explicitly agreed during the Commons debates on the bill that a gender recognition certificate would change a person's sex for the purposes of the law governing the use of separate-sex services. MPs passed the bill on that basis, by 355 votes to 46. If the court's judgment has the effect the EHRC says, the UK Government must act to amend the legislation to restore the will of Parliament as agreed in 2004. Surely Keir Starmer's government cannot intend that the UK's respect for equality and human rights should be so much poorer now than it was 21 years ago? Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh Lifeline to lifestyle Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad May I comment on Neil Anderson's letter (28 May) in which he fears for Scotland becoming stuck in a cycle of welfare dependency. I was born during the Second World War in an Edinburgh tenement. Afterwards in a one-parent family, money was tight, in fact almost non-existent on occasions, living in a two-room flat. In 1948 the government closed the workhouses, replacing them with a benefit known as National Assistance. My mother reached the point of applying for this benefit, where an official visited us to assess our situation, the end result being an award of £2 per week. This provided a lifeline but not a lifestyle. She was still expected to seek work. Ever since then, as I see the burgeoning social security bill increasing, I realise state support has gone from lifeline to lifestyle. Oh for someone to take this situation in hand and give it a good hard shake, and get back to basic principles of lifeline and not lifestyle. C Lowson, Fareham, Hants That's rich Ian Petrie almost had me falling out of my chair when I read his letter (28 May). He says Nigel Farage is a threat to democracy. Which party demanded a referendum and promised to abide by the result? The SNP. When the result wasn't to their liking, they demanded a re-run and are still asking today, and will go on asking until we give the 'right' answer. Democracy? Mr Petrie goes on to say Reform is a protest group. What was the SNP before they came to form the government, and to all intents and purposes that is still all they are. Finally, he says Nigel Farage is on an ego trip with the destination, Downing Street. Wasn't it the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon who was constantly banging on about wanting a seat at the top table in Europe – perhaps an even bigger ego than Farage? Bruce Proctor, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire Bad idea Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Jill Stephenson is right to question the benefit of schooling children displaying violent behaviour in mainstream classrooms (Letters, 28 May). The classrooms, where pupils with severe behaviour problems belong, are those in schools staffed with suitably qualified teachers and multi-professional teams where these children can learn responsible behaviour in small groups, flanked by working with the respective parents and social services. If this sounds familiar, it's because it reflects what used to be common special education practice: providing the protected learning environment of a well-run special school for pupils with profound problems, whether violent behaviour or other issues. This type of school has all but vanished from the spectrum of educational provision thanks to the 'presumption of mainstreaming' which cynics may regard as an excuse for saving money. In reality inclusion only works for children with very moderate behavioural problems. Even then teachers will still need the support of specialised colleagues. In addition, the progress of these children and the learning of their classmates depend on the absence of disruptive factors such as an accumulation of pupils with similar issues within the same classroom. A sensible, effective education system provides the appropriate place for every child and that includes special schools for those kids who won't be able to cope with the environment in mainstream schools. From a professional point of view I have long been convinced that the presumption of mainstreaming is a mistake destined to fail a whole generation of children. Regina Erich, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire Wrong solution Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ben Colburn and Joseph Millum write about concerns regarding coercion in relation to assisted suicide, saying that an evidence-based approach helps resolve these concerns (Perspective, 26 May). Yet they present as 'evidence' selective testimony from extremists who radically favour extending assisted suicide to ever-increasing increasing categories of people. That is not evidence. Absence of evidence of coercion is not evidence of absence. Evidence was lacking when Harold Shipman killed an estimated 250 people, undetected, between 1971 and 1998. Coercion is not that easy to detect in elderly people who often 'don't want to make a fuss'. Moreover, subtle coercion occurs if you divide up the population between those whose suicides we tolerate and even assist and those whose suicides we strenuously try to prevent – as both the MacArthur Bill and the Leadbeater Bill do. That devalues some lives and places subtle pressure on those who take up many health-based resources to stop being a burden. This is why every disabled group opposes legalising assisted suicide. And we do have evidence about the harms of assisted suicide and euthanasia. First, being a burden has come above pain in reasons Oregonians opt for assisted suicide in every report since 1998. We know that in Canada a veteran was offered euthanasia when they asked for a wheelchair ramp. We also know that at least nine people suffering from nothing other than autism in the Netherlands have been euthanised because they were lonely and had difficulty making friends. We know that 60 women, mostly young, have had 'assisted dying! because they suffer from eating disorders. MPs north and south of the Border need to examine the evidence for themselves in relation to this complex and troubling issue. If they do, they will reject this simple, neat but wrong solution to the problems of life. (Prof) Kevin Yuill, CEO of Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Glasgow Run for your money Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Politicians really do talk nonsense at times to suit the situation. This week it was the turn of Bridget Phillipson, who said 'a Labour government would never have introduced the [two-child benefit] cap', Is she talking about the same Labour government that unhesitatingly removed the pensioner Winter Fuel Allowance? And while on the subject of the WFA, let's not forget that Leader of the House Lucy Powell said last September that this was necessarily withdrawn to 'save a run on the pound'. What was different then that Labour now see fit to re-introduce it? Surely nothing to do with voter reactions? Restoring the WFA will cost about £1.5 billion, the two-cap benefit about £3.4 billion. Can we now expect a run on the pound or was Lucy Powell talking nonsense? Ken Currie, Edinburgh Write to The Scotsman
Scottish Sun
6 days ago
- Politics
- Scottish Sun
Trans toilet rules will not be ‘policed' by Holyrood bosses
Parliament's ruling body said it will not monitor the use of toilets NEW rules on the use of toilets at the Scottish Parliament will not be 'policed' or monitored by Holyrood's ruling body, MSPs have been told. Officials have confirmed that female and male facilities at the parly should be used according to biological sex in the wake of the landmark Supreme Court judgment which ruled sex refers to biological sex under equalities laws. Advertisement 2 Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie raised the issue at Holyrood. 2 Rule changes were made following the Supreme Court judgment in April this year. It applies to toilets, changing rooms and showers in the building, while some other existing facilities have been designated as being for gender-neutral usage. However, 17 MSPs and 29 staff at Holyrood have signed an open letter criticising the decision and to express their 'deep concern' about the changes. Raising the issue with the parliament's ruling body on Tuesday, Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie asked: 'Can the Corporate Body promise us that nobody will be required to provide birth certificates or other paperwork merely because someone intolerant suspects them of being transgender?' Responding, SPCB member Christine Grahame said: 'This is not going to be policed by the Corporate Body, but like other sector bodies, we have a complaints process which staff can advise on… for those who wish to complain and which we will consider. Advertisement "But, we are certainly not monitoring the use of public facilities as a corporate body.' Weighing in, Scottish Tory leader Russell Findlay claimed people would be 'astonished' that parliamentary time was used up to debate the issue. He added: 'This farcical waste of time confirms how out of touch these left-wing parties are from the concerns of people in the real world.'
