The Court of Session ruling that the British government can overturn the gender reform legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament can hardly be a surprise even for those who profess to be shocked by it. Quite apart from anything directly relating to the Gender Recognition Reform Bill (GRR) surely it is now obvious to all but the most tenaciously blinkered that the British state isn’t about to pass up any chance to undermine Holyrood and/or embarrass the Scottish Government. (Not that the latter requires much effort given the SNP leadership’s propensity for embarrassing itself.)
What the ruling does, however, is prompt questions that are shocking simply for the fact that they arise. Questions such as: How did the SNP Scottish Government come to make such an unholy mess of things? How could the Sturgeon/Yousaf leadership fail to see how badly wrong things were going after they started going badly wrong even if they’d failed to foresee how badly wrong things were sure to go? How could they so stubbornly persist with a course of action which was having a massively deleterious impact on the party and the administration? What the fuck is wrong with these people?
I suspect I may speak for more than a few people when I say that what frustrates and enrages is not merely the appalling errors of judgement but the fact that Humza Yousaf and his colleagues can remain to all outward appearances oblivious to both the cock-ups and their consequences. They proceed as if nothing has happened. Or at least, nothing that can be attributed to them. It is one thing to remain apparently unflustered in the face of adversity. Quite another to be evidently unconscious. How can we possibly hope that an administration might improve when there is no sign that it is even aware of anything being amiss?
We take it for granted, I suppose, that our politicians exist and operate inside a self-satisfied, self-congratulatory bubble maintained by sycophantic aides. But we also assume – or hope – the bubble is sufficiently permeable that those politicians maintain a connection with reality, however tenuous. Over the last decade or so, it has grown increasingly difficult to discern evidence of that connection. I have no problem describing the self-ID aspects of the Green/SNP GRR as insane. Only by being totally divorced from the real world could anyone imagine that self-ID would be unproblematic. Only by denying reality could anyone suppose that such problems as did arise – such as the UK government’s Section 35 action – did not relate to the policy but to some defect in those who regard it as insane to think scientific fact might be overturned by state edict.
You know something is insane when attempting to explain it in rational terms risks being infected by the insanity. A belief that an adult human male can transform into an adult human female is delusional. A notion that this can be achieved simply by wishing it so is deranged. A proposal to have this imagined transformation given the imprimatur of the state has to be regarded as an act of madness. Not the least crazy part of the whole episode is that the proposal was blocked by the UK government not on the grounds that it is mad, but for reasons that derive from the British state’s own brand of political insanity.
Notwithstanding the threat to my own rationality that comes from trying to explain how the SNP/Green Scottish Government can be so oblivious to the insanity of its behaviour, I have a theory. Not a full explanation, by any means. But a hypothesis that might make this behaviour slightly less inexplicable.
I have previously stated with reference to the pusillanimous procrastination which has characterised the Scottish Government’s approach to the constitutional issue, that when waiting becomes the strategy, waiting comes to be all that you’re capable of as the capacity to act atrophies while all your resources are devoted to rationalising delay and postponement. Something similar may offer an insight into the strange behaviour of the SNP/Green administration. We know that pretty much anything and everything the Scottish Government does is going to be relentlessly attacked by the British state’s propaganda machine. The SNP in particular has had to be perpetually on the defensive. My theory is that this defensiveness has become so deeply ingrained that the party leadership is now incapable of not defending its behaviour no matter how self-evidently insane that behaviour may appear to observers outside the bubble of delusion. The more insane the behaviour, the greater the need for rationalisations which themselves must become increasingly in need of rationalisation. Hence, the downward spiral into insanity.
The truly scary thing about this theory is that to whatever extent it may be true, it implies that the insanity can only get worse. I’m not at all sure I want to be trying to explain it when it does.
Peter A Bell 
“I suspect I may speak for more than a few people when I say that what frustrates and enrages is not merely the appalling errors of judgement but the fact that Humza Yousaf and his colleagues can remain to all outward appearances oblivious to both the cock-ups and their consequences. They proceed as if nothing has happened. Or at least, nothing that can be attributed to them.”
I suspect that you do too.
In keeping with your Roald Dahl late 1970s themed piece the whole sorry mess created by Sturgeon-Yousaf administration is a tale of the totally predictable.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Or – it could all be quite deliberate, and chillingly consistent. Just ask yourself off the top of your head whether you can think of a policy area where they have made consistently correct decisions – no neither can I. They are absolutely perfect at taking the wrong path, so good that it has to be deliberate. I like the phrase “highly competent incompetence” – I may even have thought it up. So the policy process goes as follows, “what is the right way to run a bottle return scheme ? ok we can see that one- now apply the incompetence filter, lets complicate it a bit, make it cost several hundred million, nah – might still work, oh I know – let’s put a Green Party co-leader in charge – job done”
LikeLiked by 3 people
I was dismissive of the idea that “it could all be quite deliberate” until Sturgeon chose to refer the draft Referendum Bill to the UKSC and I realised that the only possible reason for doing so was to ensure that the Bill would not go through the Scottish Parliament.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Power devolved is power retained, we must never forget that. Not only were the UK able to strike down this piece of legislation , they are permitted to strike down any other without even giving a reason , they are sovereign, they have all the power.
If you want a theory as to why nothing has happened , let me offer you this ; Nicola Sturgeon is a coward, plain and simple. She was never up for a scrap with Westminster at any stage. An imposter by her own admission running a Fred Karno’s Army of an administration( as my old Dad used to say! ) with a coterie of weirdos and courtiers fawning on her every utterance. Unable to take criticism, she bullied her way through the last nine long years but no more, Scotland’s Witch of Oz is having the curtain drawn back on her.
Clicks heels.
LikeLiked by 4 people
“they are sovereign, they have all the power.”
That does not correspond with the articles of Union.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘“they are sovereign, they have all the power.”
That does not correspond with the articles of Union.’
Even though it corresponds to the facts?
Your claim and VfP’ s claim may not be mutually contradictory.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Relying on 400 year old pre-colonial writings are not going to be a winning strategy here. Sorry but they might give us a bit of vindication but they won’t cut any legal ice where it matters.
LikeLike
“where it matters”
Scotland’s Court of Session only exists because of the conditions in the Articles of Union, which also limits the powers of the UK parliament to legislate in Scotland.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And yet Yousaf is being encouraged to go to the Supreme Court in England to get a Scottish law passed after the Court of Session backed Westminster.
LikeLike
Take a close look at those doing the ‘encouraging’. Consider their agenda.
LikeLiked by 3 people
That’s not really the point is it? The UK (English) court can overrule the Scottish one.
LikeLike
A Scottish nationalist would not recognise the UK Supreme Court, the creation of which violates the Articles of Union. Ergo, Yousaf is not a nationalist, and the UK Supreme Court is unlawful.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I agree , Yousaf is not a Scottish nationalist, he would certainly not go to jail for the cause.
Getting bogged down with legal arguments as to whether a court is legal in Scotland isn’t going to set the heather on fire, particularly as they’ve linked it into the unpopular GRRA.
This trap was laid for them and they knowingly walked straight into it.
LikeLike
“This trap was laid for them and they knowingly walked straight into it.”
Yes, a colonial administration is ‘part of the racket’.
LikeLiked by 3 people
What’s the ‘statute of limitations’ on a constitution? Is it 400 years? Or 300? After what period of time is it acceptable to simply ignore laws and treaties?
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s not a time frame , it’s history, practicalities and events which have rendered it obsolete. If Westminster wanted to remove it , they could, but they won’t because it just adds fuel to a very small fire.
I think a good , solid modern constitution is something the Scottish people could be more motivated by.
LikeLike
What is “it”? What has been rendered obsolete by “history, practicalities and events”? What “events”? What “practicalities”? What “history”? In what way does all of this differ from a ‘statute of limitations’? Where can I find the criteria which define whatever it is that is rendered obsolete and the rules governing how much history must elapse and/or what practicalities must be considered and/or what events might trigger the obsolescence?
Your comment raises more questions than it answers.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Getting into a technical discussion of whether the Treaty of Union is extant is fruitless at this point , I’m sure the statute books are full of old laws and treaties which haven’t been rescinded but as soon as one of them was really required , they would be revised and approved by parliament and we would have virtually no say in the matter.
No matter how right you are , the might of Westminster will trump you. Hoping to get justice in a court run by your opponent is just naive.
LikeLike
There are certain fundamental conditions in the Articles of Union that the ‘creature’ we know of as the Anglo-Scottish UK Parliament created by these same Articles cannot alter and therefore must abide by.
LikeLiked by 3 people
They have been known to change the goalposts to their own advantage but there are om they cannot shift.
There are 83 Acts of the old Scottish Parliament that are still extant and they include the Claim of Right Act 1689, which is why there are 2 Crown Offices in Edinburgh and London. No doubt they would love to get rid of the Edinburgh office but that would mean the end of the Treaty because the “Crown” in Scotland is very different than that of England.
For example, to remove our oil and gas resources for their benefit they unlawfully used the English Crown to apply to Scotland’s territorial waters.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Who was talking about getting justice “in a court run by your opponent”? Certainly not me. Clearly, you haven’t read any of the material relating to #StirlingDirective or #ManifestoForIndependence or #Scottish UDI. Get back to me when you have.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Not just the SNP Government that have problems with reality. The London Government believes that, irrespective of what the rest of the world knows, if they declair a country “safe” then it is safe. I wish to adopt their policy and I declair Scotland “Independent”.
LikeLiked by 2 people