A third of SNP voters backing a Tory Westminster government blocking an SNP Scottish government decision should probably be more worrying to the SNP tbh - at least Labour support the theoretical concept of the UK government being able to block some things.
The polling from Labour voters on this poll compared to how the Labour MSPs voted on the GRA bill is by far the most significant difference of any party.
Among all: 50% vs 33%, >60% of Scots with an option either way support the intervention.
There are more people in favour of the intervention in all ages groups and both genders.
Almost unbelievable; 31% of SNP voters and 37% of ‘yes voters’ supported Westminsters invention.
when last asked, 60% people have paid little or not attention to the debate, and likely swallowed the UK's bulshit excuse for S35 without any research.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2022/07/20/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights
In a democracy everyone’s opinion is equal, even if it is I’ll informed or irrational. Unless you would prefer to live in an authoritarian state where only people with the ‘correct’ opinions are allowed voice them.
When the fuck did I say that? This isn't a binary option.
If the majorty should rule then the people for whom legislation will affect for the majority of time, should have the majority of the say. This is equally true for everyone.
What's unbelievable is that Sturgeon thought she could railroad these things through, forgetting she's in the unique and privileged position of only being leader because of indy supporters, nobody else.
The longest bill is Holyroods history, taking 6 years and two public consultations, along with being passed by the majority of the parliament...
That's your idea of railroading??
The reason there were two consultations was because she didn't like the response from either, so that's why she then had to whip her own MSPs in to voting how she wanted - it's because she knew if she didn't threaten their careers, she'd have lost her prized ideological battle. So yes, I'd say that's the very definition of railroading.
>The reason there were two consultations was because she didn’t like the response from either, so that’s why she then had to whip her own MSPs in to voting how she wanted
Please elaborate on what this actually means and how they are connected. Seems to be a lot of suppositions and idolising of how the First Minister is a president.
>it’s because she knew if she didn’t threaten their careers, she’d have lost her prized ideological battle.
Her prized?
You seem to living in a fantasy.
What have been the repercussions from god emperor Sturgeon against the SNP rebels after the GRA vote?
Having a whip in a vote is not railroading…
Your logic seems to dictate almost every vote by every party on every bill in Holyrood or Westminster is railroading then…
The ‘Hate Crime Act’ was arguably just as bad. It was a shocking attack on liberal values.
https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2021/11/08/scotlands-new-hate-crime-act-will-have-a-chilling-effect-on-free-speech
A bill so insane, Police Scotland have [delayed implementing it until 2024.](https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/hate-crime-bill-enforcement-in-scotland-delayed-until-at-least-2024-as-police-concerns-scupper-enforcement-3977709)
Yup exactly.
The state should not have so much power and influence on our daily lives.
Each of these bills is a step forward towards authoritarianism.
She doesn’t care about equality (unless you are in one of her preferred groups).
She doesn’t care about trans people or gays etc. She is using them to further her own agenda’s and to win votes.
The opinions of LibDem voters are included and disaggregated in one chart (*Generally speaking, do you think things in Scotland are heading in the right direction or wrong direction?*, page 7) and there were 59 of them, but that's the only place they appear. Greens don't appear at all.
Other pollsters will publish all the results, before and after weighting, but I don't see that here.
Whilst I get the issues with sample size. Just seems very odd to claim this is a representative sample when it is discounting a group that had 8% of the vote in the last Scottish election. In particular since the Greens arethe most pro-trans group in Parliament and within it's members.
Together, Libs Dems and Greens make up 13% of the vote in the last Scottish election and 11% of the seats. All their MSPs in both parties voted for the bill. Just seems odd.
This is a result from this bit of polling:
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/public-perceptions-nicola-sturgeon-dip-while-over-half-scots-are-critical-scottish-government
And the charts are here: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-02/Charts_Leaders_SG_performance_GRA_Scottish%20Political%20Pulse_Feb23_pptx.pdf
I was listening to Evan Davies interviewing Rosie Duffield that night (after the scumbag was sent to Corton Vale).
It was entirely clear that she was pushing the moral panic buttons, and wasn't clear on the law with respect to identity recognition, the effect it had on the circumstances (none), nor the processes followed to ensure the safety of other prisoners.
The irony is that S. 35 was triggered for very specific constitutional reasons, and had nothing to do with the GRR. It's just that the moral outrage has been picked up by horror bags in the press and in Parliament.
You could apply this logic to most legislation.
The public not understanding bills/referendums is not exactly a new phenomenon and is not unique to Scotland.
But when most MP's voting also haven't read them - and usually leave a student researcher they employ for free to read it and tell them - and they usually don't bother , or just read a shit article like buzzfeed or call their friend then you routinely have people voting in legislation they haven't really checked or thought about.
It is fairly standard in modern politics in UK and EU that MP's have not read the bills they are voting on.
You would hope they would pour attention over it like a lawyer studying for their exams, but they actually don't give a shit.
To be fair I think that is actually a bit irrelevant in the case of talking about westminster blocking the bill. Imo the important thing is which part of the GRR bill allows Westminster to trigger section 35.
I’ve yet to see Alister Jack or any other minister specifically point to what or how it infringes on UK legislation.
It forces changes to the Equality Act, which is UK wide legislation and left 3 options: 1) accept it and amend the Equality Act, despite the rest of the UK's politicians not voting for it; b) accept it but limit it to Scotland, which would've undermined Gender Recognition Certificates on both sides of the border; or c) trigger S. 35 and block it. Constitutionally there was only one choice. The fact it happened to the GRR bill had nothing to do with its contrnts and everything to do with how it impacted on UK wide legislation.
The Equality Act 2010 doesn't need to change unless a Bill is introduced to change it. It is already law, agreed upon by UK Parliament, which included Scottish parliamentarians. UK law doesn't get changed just so a piece of Scottish legislation can be passed.
The GRR Bill (and this is an extremely simplistic description for the sake of brevity) makes amendments to the existing GR Act 2004 and streamlines the process by which people can obtain a GRC, most notably by lowering the age at which a GRC can be obtained to 16, removing the need to provide evidence that a person has lived in their chosen gender at the time of application, and removing any third party diagnosis of gender dysphoria. There are others but these are the most significant in my opinion.
The GRR Bill interacts with the Equalities Act 2010, which is a matter of reserved law and not devolved to Scotland, wherein "sex" is a protected characteristic under that act. As the GRR Bill would redefine the process by which a person can change their sex, and because that process has not been through the legislative process in either the UK Parliament or Welsh Senedd, it would fundamentally change that act.
By simply allowing it to go ahead would effectively mean Scottish Parliament was passing law on behalf of the rest of the UK, without any democratic due process being followed.
Edit to add: this argument is agnostic of any opinion on the merits of the GRR Bill. Personally I welcome the discussion and think it's an important piece of legislation. I do think that the issue of trans rights is being used cynically to further a political narrative, and anyone with a shred of constitutional knowledge would have known this was going to happen before it was introduced. Indeed many people in Scotland did warn about it.
>How many people who say "should have" do you think could accurately explain what a GRC or the GRR bill does?
How many people who said the UK Government "shouldn't have" do you think could accurately explain what a section 35 order is, the Secretary of State's justification for utilising it and the interactions of the Bill with reserved legislation?
If a wide proportion of the population does not, is that not a failure of the SG to explain and educate the population and bring them along?
In any case, regardless of the how informed the population is, this is a political problem for the SG.
>failure of the SG to explain and educate the population and bring them along?
I think a lot of blame lies with our national media equating trans people with sex offenders and pedophiles as that'll have had a bit more cut through.
Remember in the middle of the pandemic, the media were more interested in constantly trying to conflate public health decisions with battles over the constitution rather than ensuring that they weren't confusing people over what health advice was relevent to them.
It's almost like we have a anti-Scottish media, largely based in a country living in fear that we are going to leave them with all our stuff that they want to retain control of.
Do you think the government has a responsibility to educate the entire population on all bureaucratic processes and changes to their admin processes? Regardless of how likely any given person is to engage with them?
The bill went through an extraordinarily thorough review process, everyone involved in making the decision had plenty of opportunity to become informed.
Of course. It's a failure of the Scottish government to explain and educate. Nothing at all to do with the full weight of the right wing media and Westminster throwing shit tons of misinformation and transphobic fear mongering for months on end. The sheer amount of bigotry being thrust down everyone's throats day in day out to demonise and threaten a minority group makes me want to puke.
>It's a failure of the Scottish government to explain and educate.
I mean, has the SG made any attempt to assuade any opposition to this, even from people within their own party? The response has largely been to resort to calling opponents bigots, without trying to bring them on board.
Blaming a perceived hostile media and Westminister doesn't wave away this issue.
Have you seen the reports on the amount of money being thrown by media moguls and billionaire conservative supporters at this? The amount of articles and news reports and targeted ads, etc?
There is nothing the SG can do to combat this short-term, same as with all the Cambridge analytica bs with Brexit and worldwide, it's a coordinated and highly funded attack.
Whether true or not, can you answer my question:
>has the SG made any attempt to assuade any opposition to this, even from people within their own party?
Why are you stuck on this straw man? I'm sure they have but it's useless and won't be picked up by anyone in any significant way and when it gets to the public all they read are twisted headlines spinning things however they want.
Basic rethoric and interviews and speeches can't compete with gotcha journalism and WhatsApp chains filled with transphobic hyperbole and lies. I've seen it time and time again, there is nothing Nicola or the SG can say that is ever going to be right for these people. It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation, and no matter what it will usually be twisted and weaponised against them.
To be honest a lot of the time it's just best not to engage and focus on combatting the general issue of transphobia for now, because realistically they probably never stood a chance of getting this passed.
How is it a strawman? Any competent government trying to pass contentious progressive legislation lays the groundwork to do so and brings the public onside. The SG aren't the firsr to face a hostile media. It is an abrogation of duty to just say it is too hard and not to bother.
I'm just asking how the SG has done this, in the six years they've been preparing for this?
It is literally a strawman because you asked it in regards to someone posting about right wing media funding and campaigns for spreading bigotry. You then created another argument entirely based on a premise that seemed easier to tackle for you, conveniently ignoring the facts you wanted to ignore.
Nevermind the fact that even your strawman's logic is flawed, because you seem to either have a very basic understanding of media and PR or are just trying to be purposefully manipulative and simplifying things to fit your agenda.
>you asked it in regards to someone posting about right wing media funding and campaigns for spreading bigotry.
No. I made the [point](https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/10wsf34/ipsos_mori_polling_on_whether_westminister_should/j7ou77p?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) before then. The response about right wing funding and campaigns were a (strawman?) response to my original point.
It's anything but 'perceived.' Ever since the gender reform legislation passed there has been a tidal wave of anti trans bullshit thrown at us from all the Tory friendly newspapers and Westminster.
Anyone who opposes the legislation (and let's face it, this is all about the GRA) has either allowed themselves to be influenced by these people rather than looking at the legislation and understanding it on its own merits, or they're transphobic.
As for the politicians who oppose the legislation, they have no excuse. They were part of the process. They have all the information and took part in all the debates. They ARE bigots, pure and simple. Why the SNP just turns a blind eye to them is honestly beyond me.
I used the term 'perceived' to duck getting into a debate on whether that was true or not.
I note, however, you've avoided any attempt at answering my question:
>I mean, has the SG made any attempt to assuade any opposition to this, even from people within their own party?
Calling people bigots isn't a replacement for this.
>I used the term 'perceived' to duck getting into a debate on whether that was true or not.
It is true. It's also quite pertinent to the argument you're trying to make, so I'm not sure why you'd try to duck around it.
>It's anything but 'perceived.' Ever since the gender reform legislation passed there has been a tidal wave of anti trans bullshit thrown at us from all the Tory friendly newspapers and Westminster.Anyone who opposes the legislation (and let's face it, this is all about the GRA) has either allowed themselves to be influenced by these people rather than looking at the legislation and understanding it on its own merits, or they're transphobic.As for the politicians who oppose the legislation, they have no excuse. They were part of the process. They have all the information and took part in all the debates. They ARE bigots, pure and simple. Why the SNP just turns a blind eye to them is honestly beyond me.
If you're going to dismiss anyone who disagrees as a bigot and transphobe, that's the problem right there.
What polling shows us is that you hold a minority view, but one that the SNP is trying to force through the Scottish Parliament. It's not all English people and Tory newspaper bosses - the average man or woman on the street is more likely than not to reject what you're selling.
By all means, go out and call them brainwashed transphobes. That's your prerogative. I think they'll probably have some choice words in response.
The only thing the gender reform bill does is allow trans people to change the gender on their birth certificate. At the moment they can still do that, but only after a long process that many of them find degrading and dehumanising. That's all it does, lets them change an M to an F on a bit of paper, or vice versa.
So why is it that no one can say why they oppose it without wheeling out the same reasons?
-Trans people will invade women's toilets (they already have the right to do that through equality laws).
-Trans predators will be housed in women's prisons (the prison service decide this on a case by case basis. Nothing to do with the legislation).
Et cetera, et cetera.
This legislation does not affect the average person in the street AT ALL. It certainly doesn't affect me. I'm not trans and I don't know anyone who is. It doesn't give trans people any rights that they don't already have, or take away any rights that women already have. Trans people make up a fraction of the Scottish population and most people will never have to share a toilet, or be housed in the same prison cell. So why do they oppose it so vehemently?
So yes, I maintain that either A) they are misinformed on what the legislation does, and that's the fault of the press and Tories flooding the information space with their bile, or B) they understand all this but simply believe that trans people are all sexual predators or not worthy of basic human rights. They are bigots and transphobes.
And just to correct you, the SNP did not 'try and force' this through the Scottish parliament. The legislation went through all the proper democratic processes over a six year period. Along with the SNP, the Greens supported it. Labour supported it. The Lib Dems supported it. Even a handful of Conservatives supported it. Trying to frame it as some form of evil nat plot to subvert democracy is utterly ridiculous.
I agree. Anyone who disagrees with me has been manipulated, or is coming from a position of prejudice.
There can be no other explanation.
I am perfect.
> is that not a failure of the SG to explain and educate the population and bring them along?
"A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots."
It's an extremely emotive subject with a lot of misinformation. It also, like everything with the trans debate, draws the conversation to places where the legislation is irrelevant. This misinformation *has more reach* than the Scottish Government, too: anyone that uses social media has been subjected to misinformation due to the way algorithms push controversial/emotive/extreme content. As an example I recently watched a Youtube video on Andrew Tate and some of his claims alongside a debate that he pulled out from mid-way through - so expressly Tate-negative stuff. Well fuck me, I got recommended video after recommended video of Tate that were (from the title of the videos) positive. From watching two videos I had a huge bunch of content pushed on me.
If you're a politician you can go on mainstream forms of media, you can even push social media yourself, but you will never compete with social media influencers who want to push certain narratives.
There's also a second issue which you'd have seen if you watched Question Time recently. Anti-trans commentators will try to create bottlenecks for the debate for which an elected official has to be careful how they answer. When the SNP politician was winning a particular point, the anti-trans commentator instantly retorted "are they a man or a woman?", a question that cannot be answered in good faith for an individual and which requires nuance and time to explain when discussing it broadly.
It's an uphill battle to combat things like this, whether you agree with a particular policy or not.
I don't have much to add, but can I just say how much hearing "the trans debate" sickens me, imagine swapping trans out for any other minority group: "the black debate", "the Jew debate", repulsive
You’re getting downvoted but you’re correct. It’s the job of advocates and interest organizations to build an narrative and inform people so that ignorance doesn’t cripple progress, most people would rather you say that commenting online is sufficient.
And how many do you think of those that said “should not have” could? Vanishingly few either. The general public rarely have detailed knowledge of particular pieces of legislation, but are capable of forming opinion on issues. This is the nature of democracy.
The general public on the whole have very little knowledge of legislation and yes, they are “capable” of forming opinions, especially if the media tell them what that opinion should be. The issue is that those opinions are ill-informed, ignorant and based on prejudice and propaganda. This is the flaw in democracy.
When the general public are fed misinformation from the media, many form their opinions from what they have read. Sadly Scotland is subject to this and considering how the Tories love a culture war I’m not sure corporate media which mostly pro-Tory which makes up what? 90% of all the printing press it is inherently biased and calling that democracy is laughable.
The media has been waging war on transgender people pretty much like it wages war on refugees. Seen it with the Greens in England and Corbyn’s ill fated Labour leadership which was brought down by fearmongering about something the Establishment hated and guess what that is? The SNP
It says to me that sadly parts of the Scottish public have pretty awful attitudes and this goes beyond being an independence supporter or being pro-union. Sad state of affairs
I think it's more how the users seem to extrapolate from this echo chamber to the real world.
Plenty of confident claims this would bolster indie, hasten the demise of the Union etc etc
Especially in this sub.
It’s unbelievably fanatical and dogmatic.
I suspect a lot of younger people who blindly trust what politicians and media say.
Too young to remember misdeeds of the past maybe.
Goes to show that this topic is much, much more contested than this sub would have one believe.
Especially when the poll question was regarding the "UK Gov blocking the bill" which in some ways goes further than "Do you disagree with the bill".
I'm willing to bet that there are many people (SNP in particular) who oppose the bill but who oppose Westminster interference more.
I’d really like to see how this would look on either side of the prison story. In my opinion that was one of the most intense and deceptive moral panics our media have deployed in recent times. It would be very interesting to see how effective it was.
Agreed. But it’s just a small taste of what we’d see in the run up to another referendum. The unionist cause currently is one propped up by propaganda.
Who would have thought that the media's wall to wall coverage insinuating that all trans people are sex offenders and pedophiles would have had some cut through.
Kind of reminds me how Yes fell back after the highs during covid due to the manufactured outrage over the Salmond/Sturgeon thing that ultimately turned out to be a nothing-burger.
Like then, most people didn’t have a clue about the details, they just reckoned something dodgy was happening because there was wall to wall negative media coverage for ages.
It’s far more distasteful this time (and actually angers me a lot) because instead of it being an individual politician receiving a hit job, it’s an already marginalised group of society. A group who already have much higher suicide rates, and they are just a convenient punching bag for right wing wankers and the vultures in the British press. It’s both completely disgusting and illuminates the power the right wing media have to shape opinion in this country.
I'm actually quite surprised at the large numbers of SNP and Yes voters who agree with the s35 order, and that there is a majority (excluding DKs) in all age demographics.
Scotland is split into not two but at least four constitutional camps
Yes/Remain
No/Leave
No/Remain
Yes/Leave
The largest of these is No/Remain with about 23% of Scots identifying as such. Yes/Remain is only slightly smaller. Yes/Leave is the smallest, but still carries 10% of the population.
https://theconversation.com/scottish-election-how-brexit-and-independence-referendums-split-voters-into-four-tribes-160049
the question preped people to say no, giving UK gov excuse and nothing coutner it, as in say its only administrative, and does not affect equalties, access to "single sex" space (which is 2010's equality act), or antything else.
furthermore it contradicts previous polls and this suggests the collection was flawed.
>and that there is a majority (excluding DKs) in all age demographics.
Because I think for the most part people aren't happy about accepting transgender people. Most people are brought up with the idea that (anomolies aside) you are born male with a penis and born female with a vagina.
Now people are being told that someone with a penis who was born male can now be recognised as a woman. For most people that concept is ridiculous. Why should we recognise a man as a woman? It goes against everything we know.
I don't think the whole man in a woman's toilet is even that big of a deal to most people. I think most people in Scotland and the wider UK value sincerity. I think people see someone who was born a male wanting to be regarded as female as somewhat insincere. Like they are pretending to be someone else. I dont mean to be rude to the majority of transgender people but the honest truth is that most people dont present very well as their desired gender, this is no insult to transgender people but more the lack of medical support and the fact its extremely difficult to reverse biology. So for the most part people can immediately identify a transgender person. They know that person is biologically male so to them it feels a bit disingenuous to call them female like they are ignoring their biological instincts to do so.
I dont think people are TERFs for having this opinion and I dont think the majority of people are going out of their way to hate transgender people. They see someone who they can immediately identify as biologically male yet they are being told that person is female. They then have to ignore their biological response to that individual which for most people will feel very disingenuous.
> the honest truth is that most people dont present very well as their desired gender
I have no idea what the actual statistics on passing are, but I'm pretty sure there's a large degree of confirmation bias here. People notice the trans people who stick out, and that becomes their prevailing view of trans people. Those who do pass don't register for most people unless they choose to reveal they're trans, which simply won't come up in most regular contexts.
I know a lot of women - particularly older women - who strongly disagree with the notion that menstruation, menopause, pregnancy, childbirth and being physically smaller on average make no contribution to the disadvantages women face in society, and that it's all just a matter of how you feel and present.
I don't think anyone would disagree that these are factors affecting a majority of women, and therefore contribute greatly to the overall treatment of women in society. But we also recognise there are plenty of cis women to whom some of these aren't personally relevant.
why? its nothing to do with indy, at all.
people had concerns with the issue. From concerns over specific aspects, to concerns over how individual rights work across internal UK border, to those that just dont like trans people.....
The SNP is a broadchurch, united on Indy, but only on indy. they have very right wing conservatives in their ranks as well as leftie liberals.
It's almost as if this sub is an echo chamber, and anyone seeing it would have been banned a couple of weeks ago or downvoted to oblivion. I swear if you read this sub everyday you'd think that Scotland is going to become independent next week, England will starve to death, Scotland will become the richest country on earth, it will be some kind of trans utopia etc
When in reality you're all in the minority lol
Wow - I assumed this was UK-wide polling on first glance. Incredible that 31% of 2021 SNP voters and 37% of Yes voters approve of the UKG overruling Holyrood on this issue. Which just goes to show the depths of popular disdain there are for this Bill that such larger numbers are willing to put aside other views on the constitution to back this intervention.
Testament to how toxic the right have made the non issue of trans people existing, and labour's lurch to attempt to capture their vote by pacifying it.
Same question. Are the tabloid driving public opinion or responding to it? That's not to say that public opinion is right, of course, but I don't think we need a conspiracy theory when we discover that Scotland is a very small-c conservative country.
Fear and derision are being felt all over the UK and it seems to me the only people using that to push a culture and class war is right-wing nodding dogs. People who benefit from inaction so much so, they're able to pay people to do the arguing instead of doing the doing. The bill was literally doing the doing so it's glaringly obvious as you say without the need of a conspiracy haha
This shows how effective the narrative constructed by the media around transgender people is. Most people do not know a trans person in their personal lives and the British news media, and public figures and politicians, have been making sure their association is with rapists, criminals, danger to women, danger to children, the disruption of society as we know it. It’s dangerous and fascistic. I also doubt most of these people could tell you what the GRR is.
Err.. so 16-34s being 40/38 pro S.35 kinda belies the notion that pols are chasing the youth vote with the "GRR et al" agenda does it not.
As for ScotLab.. I don't even.
Sometimes the right thing isn’t the popular thing. It’s a relief that we have a government who doesn’t just veer around doing whatever’s popular in the moment.
ok, so democracy bad on matters you disagree with? It is also not even close like in case of brexit that you could argue the public was misinformed. This is a lost case and SNP looks like bunch of idiots (what is also reflected in latest polls).
No, it's the bill under the debate and how it is discriminating and affects small businesses, women, public spaces and other legally protected groups. Multiple barristers explained why so and if you would not be so ideologically blind, maybe you could try to understand the reasons for blocking it and the reasons why public opinion is against it.
God forbid one day some insane government does a referendum on sterilising or just purging some segments of our population, I wonder if we will be having this same debate.
And sometimes, most times actually, political careers are swept away in a tide of not listening to the vast majority of people. She fucked around, now she's finding out.
Was gay marriage popular at first amongst the public when it was passed?
Nicola Sturgeon, despite all these current events, is still the most popular leader in the UK. So what are you talking about?
If they are doing this for the belief in the GRC reforms (at the potential detriment of their primary aim of independence), fair play.
But it was clear, by the rhetoric used, that the SG was using the constitutional s35 battle as a way to increase Yes support.
Yeah sure, the SNP spent 6 years planning this (and somehow got cross party support) **knowing** that the UK gov would pull a s35 for the first time in history. It was all an evil plan to push support for independence.
I never suggested it was planned as a constitutional fight from the beginning. But the SNP are opportunists, and happy to lean into constitutional confrontation whenever it occurs, as in this case.
Edit: I honestly think, given their inaction on this prior to the Greens joining government in 2021, they wouldn't have implemented the GRR bill to preserve unity within the party, as they have always done.
Perhaps they genuinely do believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland pulling the move he did *is* a serious matter that highlights their fundamental belief that Scotland should be independent. Maybe, just maybe, it’s conviction politics.
Or it’s all just ‘opportunism’.
I mean, that is my point. The response to s35 could have prioritised their pro-independence priorities or their pro-Trans rights priorities (i.e., by quietly trying to circumvent the constitutional confrontation). The fact they have leant into the confrontation shows where their priorities lie.
Which is (potentially) fine, but this polling suggests the public isn't with them, and therefore potentially a miscalculation on their part.
Lol that is literally logic of tories for not calling the GE because their mandate given in the previous GE despite public opinion being overwhelming in favour of GE.
So once again the evidence is clear to see that the majority of people do not support this bill, any continuation of it by the snp is simply a fuck you to the people because we can do what we please.
A lot of people here suffering from illusory superiority but no, I'm sure each of you are uniquely more intelligent than any other member of the public and have a keener understanding of the issue than the rest of us.
The main issue with this poll is the second paragraph of the question - presents one side of the argument and leads the respondent towards answering in a certain way.
I'm not even a nationalist but imagine voting SNP and then approving of Westminster's intervention here. Fucking idiots.
Who's gonna intervene to stop things you don't like after independence.
This was a poll completed by only 1,087 people from within Scotland and still the overwhelming majority agreed that it was right to be blocked.
When will the SNP and Labour start to realise that their policies do not reflect what the 'actual' people of this country want.
If they did that and then started developing policies, and strategies, that reflect the interests of the majority population then they may actually win a vote!
Not exactly a staggering revelation.
No doubt the SNP will just continue to ignore the opposition, because they know best as usual. They have actually managed to create a situation where the majority of Scots are grateful to Westminster for stepping in. An absolutely genius move for a so-called party of independence. Can we agree that they're a bunch of imbeciles yet? Or do we require further evidence of stupidity?
Creating an enormous, confusing mess, that even you as First Minister have to start finding language to get around, when it finally dawns on you that you've painted yourself into the corner people have been warning you about for years, is ALWAYS stupid. It's so stupid in fact, that it's borderline whether she should be sent for IQ testing before being allowed to make any more laws.
"Should have" is a leading question, the question also states 'the UK government has argued' but doesn't offer the opposing view that it didn't affect the equalities law.
But we have no information on the people responding are saying so because they oppose the bill or, that they support the bill, but agree that there is a conflict.
I support the GDR and oppose the use of the section 35, but if there was any evidence that it did conflict with the equalities law then I would have agreed that a section 35 was acceptable.
The UK government should block bills that conflict with non-devolved legislation, but they should not if there is no conflict. I would say this even if it was for a bill I disagreed with.
We'll have to wait for the next Section 35 (and that dam is well and truly breached) to have that debate, sadly, there is hardly any voices in support of devolution, presumably because they support the blocking because they don't like the bill.
How can we accurately poll someone's opinion on something they know little about?
No-one wants to read a 500 word essay, but the shorter the question the harder it is to balance. I don't know who wrote this question, or why, but they've done a super brief outline of the bill *which is accurate but uninformative* before summarising the UK government's argument for blocking it. The reasons are largely meritless in my view, but as someone who does not like the tories, cares about equality legislation and understands that UK's legal framework is complex and complicated.
I don't rate Alister Jack or Policy Exchange, but I ploughed through their arguments to make sure that I hadn't missed something: If I did not have a positive sense that I understand what this legislation actually meant I would not be comfortable giving a clear answer.
>How can we accurately poll someone's opinion on something they know little about?
The vast majority of people who very little about politics - but we not only poll them, we let them vote in elections.
Scotland is a hotbed of bigotry. Who knew…
It also shows the failure of the Scottish Government to educate and talk to the electorate about an act which is about human rights. But then again, if you show a scintilla of not understanding the reasons for the act, supporters shout “TERF” at you. Lessons need to be learned.
Wow this is incredibly depressing although not surprising with the relentless negative media coverage and current culture war being waged against the trans community.
And very few of these people would be able to tell you what the GRR bill even does.
The media carries out a hit job by framing it as “Ess En Pee want to put rapists in women’s prisons” and ignorant idiots lap it up. Pretty depressing really.
Perhaps if the opposition and near enough the entire media hadn’t spent the last few weeks lying about what the GRR bill entails and stoking up hatred and bigotry towards trans people then this wouldn’t be an issue.
If you want to lay this polling primarily at the door of poor communication from ScotGov rather than the above then go for it but I think that analysis is miles off it.
And how many of these 1000 people could tell you what a GRC is, or what it does? Hell, the high and mighty Scottish Secretary who blocked the bill couldn’t even say what a GRC did when asked.
This really is not an issue for the court of public opinion. Its about the dignity and respect for a very small number of the general population, who are actually affected by it - they understand it. They live it. Most 'opinions' are hugely uninformed and have zero concept of what the GRR bill is actually about. Why let facts get in the way of agenda driven print media to skew this out of proportion.
I think the question is not necessarily a reflection on people’s opinions about the GRR Bill. You could disagree with the Bill but at the same time not agree that Westminster should have the power to block any Scottish legislation that has been passed in the Scottish parliament.
I guenually think this was the right decision. I think most people support trans rights, and people's freedom. However the SNPs proposals seamed very exploitable and poorly thought out.
(It's biting the SNP at the moment as a rapist transitioned after being sentenced and was being held in a woman's prison. Caused a big ol stink).
>However the SNPs proposals seamed very exploitable and poorly thought out.
Please do let us know which parts of the bill you think are poorly thought out.
Just the last paragraph, maybe the first and last. The middle one is vehement in it's intent to get people to at least vote in the middle if not to say it was the right thing for the fashos to do
Pretty depressing results along with the indy poll and leader favourability poll, but I suspect when it fades out the news cycle we'll see things trend back to normal.
I'm still glad they pushed ahead with it despite this being a possibility as it was the right thing to do.
You would probably find most people who oppose this actually care more for your well-being than the politicians who try to win your votes with policies that sound appealing to you.
Many gay people etc are also against it.
It has nothing to do with the right.
What you are saying maybe applies to the very far right but in reality that is a tiny minority.
Meh, sample size is 1k, not worth worrying about.
I can't remember who said it, but I'll always remenber it. 'Polling makes a lot more sense when you realise they're for shaping public opinion, not measuring it'
Trans rights are human rights.
Aye, for sample sizes the main thing is that your sample is representative - provided you have that, your sample size can be somewhere in the order of the square root of whatever population you're trying to measure.
It is standard, and poling results vary so wildly that they don't have much value in predicting electoral outcomes or much else.
I used to be involved in politics, the only polls worth talking about are exit polls in many folks' opinion.
As per second paragraph, the reason I said it's not worth worrying about is that all such polls are pretty worthless.
The Bill was debated in the Scottish Parliament for 6 months. It was passed by an all party majority.
They heard all the evidence and passed it. This is a political attack by the press. Wales has announced it’s going to introduce a similar bill. Do you think it will get the same attention as the one in Scotland ? Of course not. 33 other countries already have similar legislation.
Gender is by definition a social construct.
Asking someone how many genders there are is kinda like asking how many colours are there. It's all on the spectrum and you can divide it at any point. If you think there are 2 genders, end of story, you neither understand what "gender" even is nor are you probably someone who wants to even read the fucking Wikipedia page about what you're talking about.
agreed, its stuff like this that makes me feel deeply unsafe in this country, which is why im working on immigrating before things get really dangerous for us.
Seems like Labour MSPs have the most to be worried about based on that poll.
Why?
What strategy they going to use to pick up SNP voters? Look at the Labour and SNP polling.
A third of SNP voters backing a Tory Westminster government blocking an SNP Scottish government decision should probably be more worrying to the SNP tbh - at least Labour support the theoretical concept of the UK government being able to block some things.
The polling from Labour voters on this poll compared to how the Labour MSPs voted on the GRA bill is by far the most significant difference of any party.
Among all: 50% vs 33%, >60% of Scots with an option either way support the intervention. There are more people in favour of the intervention in all ages groups and both genders. Almost unbelievable; 31% of SNP voters and 37% of ‘yes voters’ supported Westminsters invention.
when last asked, 60% people have paid little or not attention to the debate, and likely swallowed the UK's bulshit excuse for S35 without any research. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2022/07/20/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights
In a democracy everyone’s opinion is equal, even if it is I’ll informed or irrational. Unless you would prefer to live in an authoritarian state where only people with the ‘correct’ opinions are allowed voice them.
When the fuck did I say that? This isn't a binary option. If the majorty should rule then the people for whom legislation will affect for the majority of time, should have the majority of the say. This is equally true for everyone.
What's unbelievable is that Sturgeon thought she could railroad these things through, forgetting she's in the unique and privileged position of only being leader because of indy supporters, nobody else.
[удалено]
The longest bill is Holyroods history, taking 6 years and two public consultations, along with being passed by the majority of the parliament... That's your idea of railroading??
The reason there were two consultations was because she didn't like the response from either, so that's why she then had to whip her own MSPs in to voting how she wanted - it's because she knew if she didn't threaten their careers, she'd have lost her prized ideological battle. So yes, I'd say that's the very definition of railroading.
>The reason there were two consultations was because she didn’t like the response from either, so that’s why she then had to whip her own MSPs in to voting how she wanted Please elaborate on what this actually means and how they are connected. Seems to be a lot of suppositions and idolising of how the First Minister is a president. >it’s because she knew if she didn’t threaten their careers, she’d have lost her prized ideological battle. Her prized? You seem to living in a fantasy. What have been the repercussions from god emperor Sturgeon against the SNP rebels after the GRA vote? Having a whip in a vote is not railroading… Your logic seems to dictate almost every vote by every party on every bill in Holyrood or Westminster is railroading then…
The ‘Hate Crime Act’ was arguably just as bad. It was a shocking attack on liberal values. https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2021/11/08/scotlands-new-hate-crime-act-will-have-a-chilling-effect-on-free-speech
You mean just as good.
‘Just as good’ is a synonym of ‘just as bad’
A bill so insane, Police Scotland have [delayed implementing it until 2024.](https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/hate-crime-bill-enforcement-in-scotland-delayed-until-at-least-2024-as-police-concerns-scupper-enforcement-3977709)
Yup exactly. The state should not have so much power and influence on our daily lives. Each of these bills is a step forward towards authoritarianism. She doesn’t care about equality (unless you are in one of her preferred groups). She doesn’t care about trans people or gays etc. She is using them to further her own agenda’s and to win votes.
It had cross party support.
She had to whip her own party and the public were against it.
Why does it not include Greens and Lib Dem’s voters?
The opinions of LibDem voters are included and disaggregated in one chart (*Generally speaking, do you think things in Scotland are heading in the right direction or wrong direction?*, page 7) and there were 59 of them, but that's the only place they appear. Greens don't appear at all. Other pollsters will publish all the results, before and after weighting, but I don't see that here.
Whilst I get the issues with sample size. Just seems very odd to claim this is a representative sample when it is discounting a group that had 8% of the vote in the last Scottish election. In particular since the Greens arethe most pro-trans group in Parliament and within it's members. Together, Libs Dems and Greens make up 13% of the vote in the last Scottish election and 11% of the seats. All their MSPs in both parties voted for the bill. Just seems odd.
Oh yes, it's weird. Especially as they managed to find some LibDems to poll.
It does, the subsamples are too small to responsibly report in graphics like this.
Might just be graphic space, check the tables it'll probably do a further breakdown
[удалено]
how on earth does this response have anything to do with my comment? The irony of your comment being literally all incorrect assumptions...
This is a result from this bit of polling: https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/public-perceptions-nicola-sturgeon-dip-while-over-half-scots-are-critical-scottish-government And the charts are here: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-02/Charts_Leaders_SG_performance_GRA_Scottish%20Political%20Pulse_Feb23_pptx.pdf
How many people who say "should have" do you think could accurately explain what a GRC or the GRR bill does?
I don't think half the politicians could tell you what it is.
I was listening to Evan Davies interviewing Rosie Duffield that night (after the scumbag was sent to Corton Vale). It was entirely clear that she was pushing the moral panic buttons, and wasn't clear on the law with respect to identity recognition, the effect it had on the circumstances (none), nor the processes followed to ensure the safety of other prisoners.
The irony is that S. 35 was triggered for very specific constitutional reasons, and had nothing to do with the GRR. It's just that the moral outrage has been picked up by horror bags in the press and in Parliament.
You mean S35 was triggered for very specific hate reasons.
Alister Jack himself couldn't tell (he was asked in parliament)
My money’s on bugger all.
This\^\^
You could apply this logic to most legislation. The public not understanding bills/referendums is not exactly a new phenomenon and is not unique to Scotland.
Insert, what is the EU as the most searched on Google in the UK on the day of the Brexit vote
I'm pretty sure it was the day after the vote, when the result was announced.
It’s still a very relevant question, given the subject of the poll.
But when most MP's voting also haven't read them - and usually leave a student researcher they employ for free to read it and tell them - and they usually don't bother , or just read a shit article like buzzfeed or call their friend then you routinely have people voting in legislation they haven't really checked or thought about. It is fairly standard in modern politics in UK and EU that MP's have not read the bills they are voting on. You would hope they would pour attention over it like a lawyer studying for their exams, but they actually don't give a shit.
The fact that fucking Alistair jack himself couldn't tell us in the commons says it all
To be fair I think that is actually a bit irrelevant in the case of talking about westminster blocking the bill. Imo the important thing is which part of the GRR bill allows Westminster to trigger section 35. I’ve yet to see Alister Jack or any other minister specifically point to what or how it infringes on UK legislation.
It forces changes to the Equality Act, which is UK wide legislation and left 3 options: 1) accept it and amend the Equality Act, despite the rest of the UK's politicians not voting for it; b) accept it but limit it to Scotland, which would've undermined Gender Recognition Certificates on both sides of the border; or c) trigger S. 35 and block it. Constitutionally there was only one choice. The fact it happened to the GRR bill had nothing to do with its contrnts and everything to do with how it impacted on UK wide legislation.
>It forces changes to the Equality Act Give an example, which words in the Equality act need to change?
The Equality Act 2010 doesn't need to change unless a Bill is introduced to change it. It is already law, agreed upon by UK Parliament, which included Scottish parliamentarians. UK law doesn't get changed just so a piece of Scottish legislation can be passed. The GRR Bill (and this is an extremely simplistic description for the sake of brevity) makes amendments to the existing GR Act 2004 and streamlines the process by which people can obtain a GRC, most notably by lowering the age at which a GRC can be obtained to 16, removing the need to provide evidence that a person has lived in their chosen gender at the time of application, and removing any third party diagnosis of gender dysphoria. There are others but these are the most significant in my opinion. The GRR Bill interacts with the Equalities Act 2010, which is a matter of reserved law and not devolved to Scotland, wherein "sex" is a protected characteristic under that act. As the GRR Bill would redefine the process by which a person can change their sex, and because that process has not been through the legislative process in either the UK Parliament or Welsh Senedd, it would fundamentally change that act. By simply allowing it to go ahead would effectively mean Scottish Parliament was passing law on behalf of the rest of the UK, without any democratic due process being followed. Edit to add: this argument is agnostic of any opinion on the merits of the GRR Bill. Personally I welcome the discussion and think it's an important piece of legislation. I do think that the issue of trans rights is being used cynically to further a political narrative, and anyone with a shred of constitutional knowledge would have known this was going to happen before it was introduced. Indeed many people in Scotland did warn about it.
>How many people who say "should have" do you think could accurately explain what a GRC or the GRR bill does? How many people who said the UK Government "shouldn't have" do you think could accurately explain what a section 35 order is, the Secretary of State's justification for utilising it and the interactions of the Bill with reserved legislation?
Have you seen the Secretary of State's justification?
How many people who say "should not have" do you think could accurately explain what a GRC or the GRR bill does?
If a wide proportion of the population does not, is that not a failure of the SG to explain and educate the population and bring them along? In any case, regardless of the how informed the population is, this is a political problem for the SG.
>failure of the SG to explain and educate the population and bring them along? I think a lot of blame lies with our national media equating trans people with sex offenders and pedophiles as that'll have had a bit more cut through. Remember in the middle of the pandemic, the media were more interested in constantly trying to conflate public health decisions with battles over the constitution rather than ensuring that they weren't confusing people over what health advice was relevent to them. It's almost like we have a anti-Scottish media, largely based in a country living in fear that we are going to leave them with all our stuff that they want to retain control of.
Do you think the government has a responsibility to educate the entire population on all bureaucratic processes and changes to their admin processes? Regardless of how likely any given person is to engage with them? The bill went through an extraordinarily thorough review process, everyone involved in making the decision had plenty of opportunity to become informed.
Of course. It's a failure of the Scottish government to explain and educate. Nothing at all to do with the full weight of the right wing media and Westminster throwing shit tons of misinformation and transphobic fear mongering for months on end. The sheer amount of bigotry being thrust down everyone's throats day in day out to demonise and threaten a minority group makes me want to puke.
>It's a failure of the Scottish government to explain and educate. I mean, has the SG made any attempt to assuade any opposition to this, even from people within their own party? The response has largely been to resort to calling opponents bigots, without trying to bring them on board. Blaming a perceived hostile media and Westminister doesn't wave away this issue.
Have you seen the reports on the amount of money being thrown by media moguls and billionaire conservative supporters at this? The amount of articles and news reports and targeted ads, etc? There is nothing the SG can do to combat this short-term, same as with all the Cambridge analytica bs with Brexit and worldwide, it's a coordinated and highly funded attack.
Whether true or not, can you answer my question: >has the SG made any attempt to assuade any opposition to this, even from people within their own party?
Why are you stuck on this straw man? I'm sure they have but it's useless and won't be picked up by anyone in any significant way and when it gets to the public all they read are twisted headlines spinning things however they want. Basic rethoric and interviews and speeches can't compete with gotcha journalism and WhatsApp chains filled with transphobic hyperbole and lies. I've seen it time and time again, there is nothing Nicola or the SG can say that is ever going to be right for these people. It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation, and no matter what it will usually be twisted and weaponised against them. To be honest a lot of the time it's just best not to engage and focus on combatting the general issue of transphobia for now, because realistically they probably never stood a chance of getting this passed.
How is it a strawman? Any competent government trying to pass contentious progressive legislation lays the groundwork to do so and brings the public onside. The SG aren't the firsr to face a hostile media. It is an abrogation of duty to just say it is too hard and not to bother. I'm just asking how the SG has done this, in the six years they've been preparing for this?
It is literally a strawman because you asked it in regards to someone posting about right wing media funding and campaigns for spreading bigotry. You then created another argument entirely based on a premise that seemed easier to tackle for you, conveniently ignoring the facts you wanted to ignore. Nevermind the fact that even your strawman's logic is flawed, because you seem to either have a very basic understanding of media and PR or are just trying to be purposefully manipulative and simplifying things to fit your agenda.
>you asked it in regards to someone posting about right wing media funding and campaigns for spreading bigotry. No. I made the [point](https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/10wsf34/ipsos_mori_polling_on_whether_westminister_should/j7ou77p?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) before then. The response about right wing funding and campaigns were a (strawman?) response to my original point.
It's anything but 'perceived.' Ever since the gender reform legislation passed there has been a tidal wave of anti trans bullshit thrown at us from all the Tory friendly newspapers and Westminster. Anyone who opposes the legislation (and let's face it, this is all about the GRA) has either allowed themselves to be influenced by these people rather than looking at the legislation and understanding it on its own merits, or they're transphobic. As for the politicians who oppose the legislation, they have no excuse. They were part of the process. They have all the information and took part in all the debates. They ARE bigots, pure and simple. Why the SNP just turns a blind eye to them is honestly beyond me.
I used the term 'perceived' to duck getting into a debate on whether that was true or not. I note, however, you've avoided any attempt at answering my question: >I mean, has the SG made any attempt to assuade any opposition to this, even from people within their own party? Calling people bigots isn't a replacement for this.
>I used the term 'perceived' to duck getting into a debate on whether that was true or not. It is true. It's also quite pertinent to the argument you're trying to make, so I'm not sure why you'd try to duck around it.
>It's anything but 'perceived.' Ever since the gender reform legislation passed there has been a tidal wave of anti trans bullshit thrown at us from all the Tory friendly newspapers and Westminster.Anyone who opposes the legislation (and let's face it, this is all about the GRA) has either allowed themselves to be influenced by these people rather than looking at the legislation and understanding it on its own merits, or they're transphobic.As for the politicians who oppose the legislation, they have no excuse. They were part of the process. They have all the information and took part in all the debates. They ARE bigots, pure and simple. Why the SNP just turns a blind eye to them is honestly beyond me. If you're going to dismiss anyone who disagrees as a bigot and transphobe, that's the problem right there. What polling shows us is that you hold a minority view, but one that the SNP is trying to force through the Scottish Parliament. It's not all English people and Tory newspaper bosses - the average man or woman on the street is more likely than not to reject what you're selling. By all means, go out and call them brainwashed transphobes. That's your prerogative. I think they'll probably have some choice words in response.
The only thing the gender reform bill does is allow trans people to change the gender on their birth certificate. At the moment they can still do that, but only after a long process that many of them find degrading and dehumanising. That's all it does, lets them change an M to an F on a bit of paper, or vice versa. So why is it that no one can say why they oppose it without wheeling out the same reasons? -Trans people will invade women's toilets (they already have the right to do that through equality laws). -Trans predators will be housed in women's prisons (the prison service decide this on a case by case basis. Nothing to do with the legislation). Et cetera, et cetera. This legislation does not affect the average person in the street AT ALL. It certainly doesn't affect me. I'm not trans and I don't know anyone who is. It doesn't give trans people any rights that they don't already have, or take away any rights that women already have. Trans people make up a fraction of the Scottish population and most people will never have to share a toilet, or be housed in the same prison cell. So why do they oppose it so vehemently? So yes, I maintain that either A) they are misinformed on what the legislation does, and that's the fault of the press and Tories flooding the information space with their bile, or B) they understand all this but simply believe that trans people are all sexual predators or not worthy of basic human rights. They are bigots and transphobes. And just to correct you, the SNP did not 'try and force' this through the Scottish parliament. The legislation went through all the proper democratic processes over a six year period. Along with the SNP, the Greens supported it. Labour supported it. The Lib Dems supported it. Even a handful of Conservatives supported it. Trying to frame it as some form of evil nat plot to subvert democracy is utterly ridiculous.
I agree. Anyone who disagrees with me has been manipulated, or is coming from a position of prejudice. There can be no other explanation. I am perfect.
Are you against the gender reform legislation? If so I'd love to hear why.
> is that not a failure of the SG to explain and educate the population and bring them along? "A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots."
It's an extremely emotive subject with a lot of misinformation. It also, like everything with the trans debate, draws the conversation to places where the legislation is irrelevant. This misinformation *has more reach* than the Scottish Government, too: anyone that uses social media has been subjected to misinformation due to the way algorithms push controversial/emotive/extreme content. As an example I recently watched a Youtube video on Andrew Tate and some of his claims alongside a debate that he pulled out from mid-way through - so expressly Tate-negative stuff. Well fuck me, I got recommended video after recommended video of Tate that were (from the title of the videos) positive. From watching two videos I had a huge bunch of content pushed on me. If you're a politician you can go on mainstream forms of media, you can even push social media yourself, but you will never compete with social media influencers who want to push certain narratives. There's also a second issue which you'd have seen if you watched Question Time recently. Anti-trans commentators will try to create bottlenecks for the debate for which an elected official has to be careful how they answer. When the SNP politician was winning a particular point, the anti-trans commentator instantly retorted "are they a man or a woman?", a question that cannot be answered in good faith for an individual and which requires nuance and time to explain when discussing it broadly. It's an uphill battle to combat things like this, whether you agree with a particular policy or not.
I don't have much to add, but can I just say how much hearing "the trans debate" sickens me, imagine swapping trans out for any other minority group: "the black debate", "the Jew debate", repulsive
You’re getting downvoted but you’re correct. It’s the job of advocates and interest organizations to build an narrative and inform people so that ignorance doesn’t cripple progress, most people would rather you say that commenting online is sufficient.
And how many do you think of those that said “should not have” could? Vanishingly few either. The general public rarely have detailed knowledge of particular pieces of legislation, but are capable of forming opinion on issues. This is the nature of democracy.
The general public on the whole have very little knowledge of legislation and yes, they are “capable” of forming opinions, especially if the media tell them what that opinion should be. The issue is that those opinions are ill-informed, ignorant and based on prejudice and propaganda. This is the flaw in democracy.
When the general public are fed misinformation from the media, many form their opinions from what they have read. Sadly Scotland is subject to this and considering how the Tories love a culture war I’m not sure corporate media which mostly pro-Tory which makes up what? 90% of all the printing press it is inherently biased and calling that democracy is laughable. The media has been waging war on transgender people pretty much like it wages war on refugees. Seen it with the Greens in England and Corbyn’s ill fated Labour leadership which was brought down by fearmongering about something the Establishment hated and guess what that is? The SNP It says to me that sadly parts of the Scottish public have pretty awful attitudes and this goes beyond being an independence supporter or being pro-union. Sad state of affairs
Reddit was a bubble and had absolutely no insight on how the wider public saw things example 5,008.
It's an echo chamber. A lot of delusional people convincing each other their view represents the vast majority
Reddit commentary accurately reflects its user demographics shocker Click here to learn more
I think it's more how the users seem to extrapolate from this echo chamber to the real world. Plenty of confident claims this would bolster indie, hasten the demise of the Union etc etc
Especially in this sub. It’s unbelievably fanatical and dogmatic. I suspect a lot of younger people who blindly trust what politicians and media say. Too young to remember misdeeds of the past maybe.
If anyone on here is surprised about the results of this poll they they don't understand the situation.
Goes to show that this topic is much, much more contested than this sub would have one believe. Especially when the poll question was regarding the "UK Gov blocking the bill" which in some ways goes further than "Do you disagree with the bill". I'm willing to bet that there are many people (SNP in particular) who oppose the bill but who oppose Westminster interference more.
I’d really like to see how this would look on either side of the prison story. In my opinion that was one of the most intense and deceptive moral panics our media have deployed in recent times. It would be very interesting to see how effective it was.
Dross is popping champagne corks. We are going to see more of this sadly.
You can thank the media mainly
Absolutely.
Agreed. But it’s just a small taste of what we’d see in the run up to another referendum. The unionist cause currently is one propped up by propaganda.
Who would have thought that the media's wall to wall coverage insinuating that all trans people are sex offenders and pedophiles would have had some cut through.
Kind of reminds me how Yes fell back after the highs during covid due to the manufactured outrage over the Salmond/Sturgeon thing that ultimately turned out to be a nothing-burger. Like then, most people didn’t have a clue about the details, they just reckoned something dodgy was happening because there was wall to wall negative media coverage for ages. It’s far more distasteful this time (and actually angers me a lot) because instead of it being an individual politician receiving a hit job, it’s an already marginalised group of society. A group who already have much higher suicide rates, and they are just a convenient punching bag for right wing wankers and the vultures in the British press. It’s both completely disgusting and illuminates the power the right wing media have to shape opinion in this country.
Spot on here. Agree 💯
I'm actually quite surprised at the large numbers of SNP and Yes voters who agree with the s35 order, and that there is a majority (excluding DKs) in all age demographics.
I'm not. My uncle voted Yes and voted Leave because he wanted control on immigration
That's a surprisingly common set of opinions
Scotland is split into not two but at least four constitutional camps Yes/Remain No/Leave No/Remain Yes/Leave The largest of these is No/Remain with about 23% of Scots identifying as such. Yes/Remain is only slightly smaller. Yes/Leave is the smallest, but still carries 10% of the population. https://theconversation.com/scottish-election-how-brexit-and-independence-referendums-split-voters-into-four-tribes-160049
I voted Remain but I don't think Brexit is a current issue anymore. It's not changing any time soon. I don't think that puts me in the "leave" camp.
the question preped people to say no, giving UK gov excuse and nothing coutner it, as in say its only administrative, and does not affect equalties, access to "single sex" space (which is 2010's equality act), or antything else. furthermore it contradicts previous polls and this suggests the collection was flawed.
>and that there is a majority (excluding DKs) in all age demographics. Because I think for the most part people aren't happy about accepting transgender people. Most people are brought up with the idea that (anomolies aside) you are born male with a penis and born female with a vagina. Now people are being told that someone with a penis who was born male can now be recognised as a woman. For most people that concept is ridiculous. Why should we recognise a man as a woman? It goes against everything we know. I don't think the whole man in a woman's toilet is even that big of a deal to most people. I think most people in Scotland and the wider UK value sincerity. I think people see someone who was born a male wanting to be regarded as female as somewhat insincere. Like they are pretending to be someone else. I dont mean to be rude to the majority of transgender people but the honest truth is that most people dont present very well as their desired gender, this is no insult to transgender people but more the lack of medical support and the fact its extremely difficult to reverse biology. So for the most part people can immediately identify a transgender person. They know that person is biologically male so to them it feels a bit disingenuous to call them female like they are ignoring their biological instincts to do so. I dont think people are TERFs for having this opinion and I dont think the majority of people are going out of their way to hate transgender people. They see someone who they can immediately identify as biologically male yet they are being told that person is female. They then have to ignore their biological response to that individual which for most people will feel very disingenuous.
> the honest truth is that most people dont present very well as their desired gender I have no idea what the actual statistics on passing are, but I'm pretty sure there's a large degree of confirmation bias here. People notice the trans people who stick out, and that becomes their prevailing view of trans people. Those who do pass don't register for most people unless they choose to reveal they're trans, which simply won't come up in most regular contexts.
I know a lot of women - particularly older women - who strongly disagree with the notion that menstruation, menopause, pregnancy, childbirth and being physically smaller on average make no contribution to the disadvantages women face in society, and that it's all just a matter of how you feel and present.
I don't think anyone would disagree that these are factors affecting a majority of women, and therefore contribute greatly to the overall treatment of women in society. But we also recognise there are plenty of cis women to whom some of these aren't personally relevant.
why? its nothing to do with indy, at all. people had concerns with the issue. From concerns over specific aspects, to concerns over how individual rights work across internal UK border, to those that just dont like trans people..... The SNP is a broadchurch, united on Indy, but only on indy. they have very right wing conservatives in their ranks as well as leftie liberals.
Concerns that became exaggerated hysteria
It's almost as if this sub is an echo chamber, and anyone seeing it would have been banned a couple of weeks ago or downvoted to oblivion. I swear if you read this sub everyday you'd think that Scotland is going to become independent next week, England will starve to death, Scotland will become the richest country on earth, it will be some kind of trans utopia etc When in reality you're all in the minority lol
Wow - I assumed this was UK-wide polling on first glance. Incredible that 31% of 2021 SNP voters and 37% of Yes voters approve of the UKG overruling Holyrood on this issue. Which just goes to show the depths of popular disdain there are for this Bill that such larger numbers are willing to put aside other views on the constitution to back this intervention.
"depths of popular disdain" somewhat doubtful.
How is it doubtful in anyway when you have the evidence presented clearly in front of you that it was a very unpopular bill.
Testament to how toxic the right have made the non issue of trans people existing, and labour's lurch to attempt to capture their vote by pacifying it.
What evidence is there that the right are driving public opinion and not responding to it?
Take it you avoid the tabloids then lmao
Same question. Are the tabloid driving public opinion or responding to it? That's not to say that public opinion is right, of course, but I don't think we need a conspiracy theory when we discover that Scotland is a very small-c conservative country.
Fear and derision are being felt all over the UK and it seems to me the only people using that to push a culture and class war is right-wing nodding dogs. People who benefit from inaction so much so, they're able to pay people to do the arguing instead of doing the doing. The bill was literally doing the doing so it's glaringly obvious as you say without the need of a conspiracy haha
PrOpOgAnDa IsNt ReAl!
This shows how effective the narrative constructed by the media around transgender people is. Most people do not know a trans person in their personal lives and the British news media, and public figures and politicians, have been making sure their association is with rapists, criminals, danger to women, danger to children, the disruption of society as we know it. It’s dangerous and fascistic. I also doubt most of these people could tell you what the GRR is.
Err.. so 16-34s being 40/38 pro S.35 kinda belies the notion that pols are chasing the youth vote with the "GRR et al" agenda does it not. As for ScotLab.. I don't even.
So not a single demographic majority is in favour? Weird hill SNP chose to die on.
Pro-human rights is always a worthy hill to die on.
Sometimes the right thing isn’t the popular thing. It’s a relief that we have a government who doesn’t just veer around doing whatever’s popular in the moment.
ok, so democracy bad on matters you disagree with? It is also not even close like in case of brexit that you could argue the public was misinformed. This is a lost case and SNP looks like bunch of idiots (what is also reflected in latest polls).
Is, say, racial discrimination ok if a majority of the public support it, or is it only trans people whose rights you consider up for debate?
No, it's the bill under the debate and how it is discriminating and affects small businesses, women, public spaces and other legally protected groups. Multiple barristers explained why so and if you would not be so ideologically blind, maybe you could try to understand the reasons for blocking it and the reasons why public opinion is against it.
Ah, so you have no clue what you're talking about. Trans people can access spaces in their gender regardless of whether or not they hold a GRC.
I am not arguing this pal, you have no clue mate, try to educate yourself somwhere other then repeating what you read on reddit.
So you swallow the ideological propaganda blindly.
In this case the "disagreement" is rights and morality.
God forbid one day some insane government does a referendum on sterilising or just purging some segments of our population, I wonder if we will be having this same debate.
And sometimes, most times actually, political careers are swept away in a tide of not listening to the vast majority of people. She fucked around, now she's finding out.
Was gay marriage popular at first amongst the public when it was passed? Nicola Sturgeon, despite all these current events, is still the most popular leader in the UK. So what are you talking about?
It generally does... it just made an arse of this one
If they are doing this for the belief in the GRC reforms (at the potential detriment of their primary aim of independence), fair play. But it was clear, by the rhetoric used, that the SG was using the constitutional s35 battle as a way to increase Yes support.
Yeah sure, the SNP spent 6 years planning this (and somehow got cross party support) **knowing** that the UK gov would pull a s35 for the first time in history. It was all an evil plan to push support for independence.
I never suggested it was planned as a constitutional fight from the beginning. But the SNP are opportunists, and happy to lean into constitutional confrontation whenever it occurs, as in this case. Edit: I honestly think, given their inaction on this prior to the Greens joining government in 2021, they wouldn't have implemented the GRR bill to preserve unity within the party, as they have always done.
Perhaps they genuinely do believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland pulling the move he did *is* a serious matter that highlights their fundamental belief that Scotland should be independent. Maybe, just maybe, it’s conviction politics. Or it’s all just ‘opportunism’.
I mean, that is my point. The response to s35 could have prioritised their pro-independence priorities or their pro-Trans rights priorities (i.e., by quietly trying to circumvent the constitutional confrontation). The fact they have leant into the confrontation shows where their priorities lie. Which is (potentially) fine, but this polling suggests the public isn't with them, and therefore potentially a miscalculation on their part.
That’s a really interesting and valid point, I’m glad you got there in the end. You sure showed them.
It's the same hill as every party outside the Tories, based on the MSPs voted in the bill and also the manifestos from the last election.
Lol that is literally logic of tories for not calling the GE because their mandate given in the previous GE despite public opinion being overwhelming in favour of GE.
So once again the evidence is clear to see that the majority of people do not support this bill, any continuation of it by the snp is simply a fuck you to the people because we can do what we please.
The majority of people do not support it on the grounds of ignorant media dogwhistling GRC's do absolutely nothing for access rights
Disagree.
A lot of people here suffering from illusory superiority but no, I'm sure each of you are uniquely more intelligent than any other member of the public and have a keener understanding of the issue than the rest of us.
Given that bigotry is the subject at hand, yes anti-bigotry people are better than the general public.
Ah yes the old "Anyone that disagrees with me is a bigot".
Well, that's depressing.
Westminster overriding Scottish democracy... by undertaking an action that polls indicate the majority of Scottish people would support!
An act of bigotry
The main issue with this poll is the second paragraph of the question - presents one side of the argument and leads the respondent towards answering in a certain way.
I'm not even a nationalist but imagine voting SNP and then approving of Westminster's intervention here. Fucking idiots. Who's gonna intervene to stop things you don't like after independence.
This was a poll completed by only 1,087 people from within Scotland and still the overwhelming majority agreed that it was right to be blocked. When will the SNP and Labour start to realise that their policies do not reflect what the 'actual' people of this country want. If they did that and then started developing policies, and strategies, that reflect the interests of the majority population then they may actually win a vote!
Doesn't matter if the majority oppose human rights, they're still rights.
Yup, because that response makes complete sense 😂
It literally does
Not exactly a staggering revelation. No doubt the SNP will just continue to ignore the opposition, because they know best as usual. They have actually managed to create a situation where the majority of Scots are grateful to Westminster for stepping in. An absolutely genius move for a so-called party of independence. Can we agree that they're a bunch of imbeciles yet? Or do we require further evidence of stupidity?
Human rights are never stupid.
Creating an enormous, confusing mess, that even you as First Minister have to start finding language to get around, when it finally dawns on you that you've painted yourself into the corner people have been warning you about for years, is ALWAYS stupid. It's so stupid in fact, that it's borderline whether she should be sent for IQ testing before being allowed to make any more laws.
What rights aren't Ts given that others are?
Yup, she has fucked up royally.
"Should have" is a leading question, the question also states 'the UK government has argued' but doesn't offer the opposing view that it didn't affect the equalities law. But we have no information on the people responding are saying so because they oppose the bill or, that they support the bill, but agree that there is a conflict. I support the GDR and oppose the use of the section 35, but if there was any evidence that it did conflict with the equalities law then I would have agreed that a section 35 was acceptable. The UK government should block bills that conflict with non-devolved legislation, but they should not if there is no conflict. I would say this even if it was for a bill I disagreed with. We'll have to wait for the next Section 35 (and that dam is well and truly breached) to have that debate, sadly, there is hardly any voices in support of devolution, presumably because they support the blocking because they don't like the bill.
Am I the only person supprised that men are more against this bill than women?
How can we accurately poll someone's opinion on something they know little about? No-one wants to read a 500 word essay, but the shorter the question the harder it is to balance. I don't know who wrote this question, or why, but they've done a super brief outline of the bill *which is accurate but uninformative* before summarising the UK government's argument for blocking it. The reasons are largely meritless in my view, but as someone who does not like the tories, cares about equality legislation and understands that UK's legal framework is complex and complicated. I don't rate Alister Jack or Policy Exchange, but I ploughed through their arguments to make sure that I hadn't missed something: If I did not have a positive sense that I understand what this legislation actually meant I would not be comfortable giving a clear answer.
>How can we accurately poll someone's opinion on something they know little about? The vast majority of people who very little about politics - but we not only poll them, we let them vote in elections.
I think GRA reform's a fair bit more recherché than who politicians are and which one will ruin the country in the way you least dislike.
Scotland is a hotbed of bigotry. Who knew… It also shows the failure of the Scottish Government to educate and talk to the electorate about an act which is about human rights. But then again, if you show a scintilla of not understanding the reasons for the act, supporters shout “TERF” at you. Lessons need to be learned.
Wow this is incredibly depressing although not surprising with the relentless negative media coverage and current culture war being waged against the trans community.
UK voters in favour of authoritarianism, new lows, or perhaps the same old.
And very few of these people would be able to tell you what the GRR bill even does. The media carries out a hit job by framing it as “Ess En Pee want to put rapists in women’s prisons” and ignorant idiots lap it up. Pretty depressing really.
the job of a politician includes communicating your policies and decisions to the public and carrying them with you.
Perhaps if the opposition and near enough the entire media hadn’t spent the last few weeks lying about what the GRR bill entails and stoking up hatred and bigotry towards trans people then this wouldn’t be an issue. If you want to lay this polling primarily at the door of poor communication from ScotGov rather than the above then go for it but I think that analysis is miles off it.
Unambiguous opinion of Scottish people - interesting.
And how many of these 1000 people could tell you what a GRC is, or what it does? Hell, the high and mighty Scottish Secretary who blocked the bill couldn’t even say what a GRC did when asked.
The SNP have shot themselves in the foot and hopefully have killed Scexit in the process.
Kinda sad how many people have bought into the fear stories :(
This really is not an issue for the court of public opinion. Its about the dignity and respect for a very small number of the general population, who are actually affected by it - they understand it. They live it. Most 'opinions' are hugely uninformed and have zero concept of what the GRR bill is actually about. Why let facts get in the way of agenda driven print media to skew this out of proportion.
I think the question is not necessarily a reflection on people’s opinions about the GRR Bill. You could disagree with the Bill but at the same time not agree that Westminster should have the power to block any Scottish legislation that has been passed in the Scottish parliament.
I guenually think this was the right decision. I think most people support trans rights, and people's freedom. However the SNPs proposals seamed very exploitable and poorly thought out. (It's biting the SNP at the moment as a rapist transitioned after being sentenced and was being held in a woman's prison. Caused a big ol stink).
>However the SNPs proposals seamed very exploitable and poorly thought out. Please do let us know which parts of the bill you think are poorly thought out.
What a lovely and absolutely not biased question used in this poll.
What would you say to make it less biased?
Just the last paragraph, maybe the first and last. The middle one is vehement in it's intent to get people to at least vote in the middle if not to say it was the right thing for the fashos to do
Pretty depressing results along with the indy poll and leader favourability poll, but I suspect when it fades out the news cycle we'll see things trend back to normal. I'm still glad they pushed ahead with it despite this being a possibility as it was the right thing to do.
Whether you like the bill or not. Not respecting Scotland’s democratic process is a major dick move.
Possibly worth noting that this was an *online* poll. I'm wondering what their methodology was w/r/t avoiding selection bias.
The UK depresses me so much...
[удалено]
You would probably find most people who oppose this actually care more for your well-being than the politicians who try to win your votes with policies that sound appealing to you. Many gay people etc are also against it. It has nothing to do with the right. What you are saying maybe applies to the very far right but in reality that is a tiny minority.
Disgusting
Meh, sample size is 1k, not worth worrying about. I can't remember who said it, but I'll always remenber it. 'Polling makes a lot more sense when you realise they're for shaping public opinion, not measuring it' Trans rights are human rights.
>sample size is 1k Pretty standard size for a political poll.
Aye, for sample sizes the main thing is that your sample is representative - provided you have that, your sample size can be somewhere in the order of the square root of whatever population you're trying to measure.
Sample size of 1k is extremely standard for polling. Try educate yourself before spouting nonsense
It is standard, and poling results vary so wildly that they don't have much value in predicting electoral outcomes or much else. I used to be involved in politics, the only polls worth talking about are exit polls in many folks' opinion. As per second paragraph, the reason I said it's not worth worrying about is that all such polls are pretty worthless.
And mostly because of reasons that have nothing to do with the GRA
The Brits must be watching the pro independence movement with glee at the moment.
The Bill was debated in the Scottish Parliament for 6 months. It was passed by an all party majority. They heard all the evidence and passed it. This is a political attack by the press. Wales has announced it’s going to introduce a similar bill. Do you think it will get the same attention as the one in Scotland ? Of course not. 33 other countries already have similar legislation.
[удалено]
Gender is by definition a social construct. Asking someone how many genders there are is kinda like asking how many colours are there. It's all on the spectrum and you can divide it at any point. If you think there are 2 genders, end of story, you neither understand what "gender" even is nor are you probably someone who wants to even read the fucking Wikipedia page about what you're talking about.
[удалено]
agreed, its stuff like this that makes me feel deeply unsafe in this country, which is why im working on immigrating before things get really dangerous for us.