SNP, LGBT YOUTH SCOTLAND, STONEWALL SCOTLAND, AND IGLA ARE NOT TRYING TO LOWER THE AGE OF CONSENT

There have been several questionable comments which have come from the recently-formed Alba Party concerning gender. However, few can be more contentious than claims around the Alba Women’s Conference on Saturday, 10 April 2021, which claimed that the SNP were planning to reduce the age of consent in Scotland to 10 years old, and that this was at the behest of LGBT Youth Scotland and Stonewall Scotland.

Denise Findlay, an Alba candidate, posted on Twitter, “Margaret Lynch on queer theory – the next move is to reduce the age of consent to 10 years of age. LGBT youth and Stonewall Scotland have signed up to this and have received over 1 million pounds of Scottish Government funding.”

Margaret Lynch, who apparently originated this comment is another Alba candidate, and one who in the blog Wings Over Scotland on 31 March referred to transgender women as, quote, “crossdressers – but not real women”. Denise Findlay later deleted her Tweet, but not before she had managed to set the heather on fire among the transphobic Twitterati.

What Lynch and Findlay are alluding to is a declaration read out in the United Nations on 9 March 2020 by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA), which adopted the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, 25 years after their declaration, commonly known as “the Beijing Declaration”. The declaration, which it’s critics have been very careful to omit it’s origins lie with the UN, has some paragraphs which have been carefully cherry-picked, and taken completely out of context, to claim that the IGLA are promoting paedophilia.

When one looks at these paragraphs, and takes them in context, we can see that far from harming children and adolescents they in fact aim to protect them and to further their individual rights. The passages come from clause 14 in the declaration, with the critics very carefully picking out 14a and 14g, as follows:

14. Respect the rights of all individuals to exercise autonomy over their lives, including their sexualities, identities and bodies, desires and pleasures free from all types of discrimination, coercion and violence, and fully realize sexual and reproductive rights, and ensure bodily autonomy, integrity and sovereignty, by taking the following actions:

a. Eliminate all laws and policies that punish or criminalize same-sex intimacy, gender affirmation, abortion, HIV transmission non-disclosure and exposure, or that limit the exercise of bodily autonomy, including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents, people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex or sexual and reproductive health services or laws authorizing non-consensual abortion, sterilization, or contraceptive use;

g. End the criminalization and stigmatization of adolescents’ sexuality, and ensure and promote a positive approach to young people's and adolescents’ sexuality that enables, recognizes, and respects their agency to make informed and independent decisions on matters concerning their bodily autonomy, pleasure and fundamental freedoms;

Now, let’s go through this carefully.

“Respect the rights of all individuals to exercise autonomy over their lives, including their sexualities, identities and bodies, desires and pleasures free from all types of discrimination, coercion and violence”

That statement right there speaks of the right to bodily autonomy, and that everybody should be free of, quote, “coercion and violence”. That right away tells us that nobody has the right to coerce or force anyone else against their will, and that includes over their sexualities, identities (which can include gender), and their bodies (which of course can include gender corrective surgery). The declaration goes on to state that it is their aim to “fully realize sexual and reproductive rights, and ensure bodily autonomy, integrity and sovereignty” This again is about autonomy over ones life and body; with the goal being that everyone has the sexual and reproductive rights, which no other person has any right to dictate.

So we come to the part the transphobes are pouncing upon;

“Eliminate all laws and policies that punish or criminalize same-sex intimacy, gender affirmation, abortion, HIV transmission non-disclosure and exposure, or that limit the exercise of bodily autonomy, including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents, people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex or sexual and reproductive health services or laws authorizing non-consensual abortion, sterilization, or contraceptive use”

Those who are trying to play “GOTCHA!” with the SNP are concentrating upon that line, “including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents, people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex” to try to make out that this means a lowering of the age of consent – when it does no such thing.

Their argument is that the United Nations defines adolescence being from between 10 to 19 years of age, and there is where the “reduce the age of consent to 10 years of age” claim comes from. In fact, under the UN definition, one may already be classed as an adolescent, but still be beyond the age of consent in many countries, including Scotland, where the age of consent is 16. Can we assume then that if Margaret Lynch and Denise Findlay do not want ‘adolescents’ being able to consent to sex, that while falsely claiming that LGBT Youth, Stonewall Scotland, and the SNP seek to lower the age of consent to 10, they would in fact like it raised to 20 years old? Or would it be farcical of me to make any such claim? As farcical as them attempting to smear two vital LGBT charities and the democratically-elected Scottish Government? Indeed, could it be I’m taking them out of context? Hey, I’m merely playing their game, and they can hardly blame me for jumping the shark and making false accusations in exactly the same way they are.

So we come to paragraph g.

“End the criminalization and stigmatization of adolescents’ sexuality, and ensure and promote a positive approach to young people's and adolescents’ sexuality that enables, recognizes, and respects their agency to make informed and independent decisions on matters concerning their bodily autonomy, pleasure and fundamental freedoms”

Again, here the transphobes are concentrating upon “End the criminalization and stigmatization of adolescents’ sexuality” and are trying to claim that this means removing the protection in law for children, when again, it is saying no such thing. In fact, all this paragraph does is recognise that adolescents do indeed have attractions and sexual longings. Yes, that’s right, Missus, they do – as most parents of teenagers, particularly teenage boys, will tell you. Trust me, that funk you smell in the bedroom of any teenage boy is not just from dirty socks. I sincerely doubt that I was alone when I was a teenager of turning my bedroom into some sort of ‘masturbation furnace’.

You’ll notice that the transphobes are very careful to ignore the rest of paragraph g; the part that averts their rights to make “informed and independent decisions on matters concerning bodily autonomy, pleasure and fundamental freedoms”. I hate to inform the doubters, but your teenage daughters and sons do indeed have sexual longings and fantasies, and they do indeed, gasp, masturbate. Quick! Someone pass Margaret and Denise the smelling salts. They and others can live in ignorance in Gumdrop Castle in Lala Land, and do a Helen Lovejoy by throwing up their hands in horror and shouting “Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children?” all they want, but that does not and never will alter the fact that each and every one of us is a sexual being from puberty onwards – get used to it. Of course, it may be that Margaret Lynch and Denise Findlay never had sexual longings as teenage girls, and never masturbated. To use a well-known Scots phrase, “Aye! Right” (actually, if they didn’t that may explain a lot).

As every adolescent is indeed a sexual being, as you and I are, and were from puberty (deny it all you want – you know I’m telling the truth), they should not be at all stigmatised for that, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity, and they should be accorded the freedoms to explore those aspects of their personalities, free of interference, free of shame, and free of governmental legislation preventing them doing so. This is all the declaration is saying, nothing more.

It most certainly not the “paedophiles charter” some are making it out to be. And actually, by levelling claims of paedophilia, the panic merchants are wrong again. Paedophilia refers only to the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. The term for sexual attraction to underage pubescent adolescents is hebephilia.

The Beijing Declaration absolutely does not propose lowering the age of consent, and it does not remove the protections in law for children, whether adolescent or prepubescent. In fact, in averring the rights of bodily autonomy, it underlines the right of children to protection from those who would form them. Consider that the overwhelming majority of children who are victims of sexual abuse have no bodily autonomy; they are almost always coerced or forced into sexual activities. In law, those under the age of consent are deemed incapable of consenting to sexual activities, so the onus is always upon the adult concerned, and that is why child sexual abuse is always deemed to be statutory rape.

There are of course a tiny, tiny number of adolescents who do indeed initiate sexual congress, either with another underage person, or with an adult, and guess what? The adult is still to blame, and is still committing statutory rape. Why? Because the adult is supposed to be the responsible one, who should know better, and if they give into the demands of child, they are still the ones to blame. So another aspect of the declaration is that children who do initiate sexual contact should not be stigmatised or blamed for that, because guess what? Children often make mistakes, and get themselves into situations they think they can handle, but realise too late that they are in way over their heads. I like the way sexologist Roy Eskapa put this in his book, Bizarre Sex; that a child may think they can drive a car, but if you were to put a child behind the wheel of a car in traffic, they would be horrified (or at the least would very quickly discover they had got themselves into a situation they could not handle).

Child molesters, be they paedophiles or hebephiles, are among the most manipulative of people in the world. They tend to be inadequate adults who seek control over others. There is certainly a sexual aspect to their actions, but this is allied to a need to assert authority over those less able to defend themselves. In this aspect we can see that the child molester, like all abusers, is a bully, and in the nature of the bully, a coward at heart. Needless to say, vulnerable children, perhaps those who lack confidence, or who already suffering some other kind of abuse, are a magnet to such individuals. They will hone in on them, pretend to love them, and then make their move. The Beijing Declaration in fact seeks to protect adolescents and children from such perverts by asserting that they, and they alone, have autonomy over their own lives and their own bodies.

But hey, the Beijing Declaration, in asserting that bodily autonomy is also stating that no-one has any right to dictate the sexual or gender identities of adolescents and children; that no-one has the right to tell them, “You’re NOT trans” or “You’re NOT gay”, or to threaten or coerce them, or indeed subject them to violence. It seems to me that those against the Beijing Declaration have much more in common with child molesters than the very children they claim to be protecting. If they are denying the gender and sexual identities of young people, they are certainly abusing them.

And this is one aspect of this latest rhetoric which I do find disturbing. I have been saying since their formation that the Alba Party is full of transphobes. This I have come to expect. I never for one moment suspected them of also being homophobes, particularly as there are some lesbians in the party, but in attacking LGBT Youth Scotland and Stonewall Scotland in making false claims about IGLA, the attackers are partaking in one of the oldest homophobic tropes going. The argument is that because LGBT Youth Scotland and Stonewall Scotland signed up to IGLA, both of these charities must be in some great conspiracy to lower the age of consent, and make the molestation of children legal.

Should anyone doubt this, I would point them to the Wings Over Scotland blog of 10 April 2020, The Paedophile Charter. In this odious title (with an incorrect title – see point above about hebephilia), the originator of ‘Wings’, Rev Stuart Campbell, makes the point that both LGBT Youth Scotland and Stonewall Scotland are indeed signatories to the IGLA Charter. He then points to a Guardian story from 2009, telling how a then Chief Executive of LGBT Youth Scotland was one of a paedophile ring convicted of 50 charges of sexually abusing young boys. Campbell states, “LGBT Youth Scotland was at the centre of Scotland’s biggest ever paedophile scandal” Not so. The then Chief Executive was, but not the charity. This is putting two and two together to get five. If LGBT Youth Scotland had been at the centre of a paedophile ring, they would have been closed down long ago.

And in case you missed it, the conviction of the men concerned had absolutely nothing to do with gender identity. None of them identified as transgender. They did indeed molest little boys, and the inference here is that they did so because they are gay. Actually, as any sexual therapist who deals with paedophiles will tell you, even those men who prey upon little boys are almost always heterosexual, and many have expressed horror and even anger when a sexual encounter with another adult male has been suggested to them. Note the point again about paedophilia having a control / power dynamic.

But not happy with thus trying to smear two charities, Campbell jumps the shark even further, and makes the point that until 2017, one of LGBT Youth Scotland’s directors was openly gay SNP politician Alyn Smith, MP for Stirling. Campbell, in totally homophobic language even refers to him as ‘Alyn “Daddy Bear” Smith’. Alyn Smith had no part in the 2009 convictions, has never been involved in any criminal case involving children, but the inference here is that because he was a LGBT Youth director, he somehow must be involved.

How Campbell gets away with these vile accusations is beyond me, and it would give me the greatest of pleasure to see LGBT Youth Scotland, Stonewall Scotland, the SNP, and Alyn Smith sue the socks off him.

Margaret Lynch, Denise Findlay, Rev Stuart Campbell and others are trying to build a conspiracy out of nothing, in much the same way that there are people who try to claim that global finance is controlled by the Jews, or that Bill Gates is trying to depopulate the world. And we could just as easily laugh at them and the rest of the Alba Party, were they not so bloody dangerous. They already have followers believing them, and who are attacking LGBT Youth Scotland and Stonewall Scotland. This could do enormous damage to LGBT people – all LGBT people – in Scotland. I tried to warn people for years that the independence movement had a disturbing number of transphobes. Seems I should have been warning them about homophobia as well.

I’m not even convinced that those named above, and others making these false accusations do not know what they are doing, or the potential for damage it has, and in fact, I don’t think they even care. They claim to want to ‘help’ the SNP to get a supermajority, and to work with the SNP, but they seem intent on attacking the SNP at every turn, even if that means throwing Scotland’s LGBT people under the bus.

The twisting of the IGLA / Beijing Declaration seems to say that they want to deny adolescents their right to bodily autonomy, or that any mention of such should never be heard. It’s not unlike the hugely damaging law of Section 28, which outlawed the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality in schools, which made any mention of being gay illegal, and which led to gay / lesbian young people being stigmatised, bullied, made to feel ashamed and guilty for their sexuality, and did indeed destroy many lives. And if they are seeking to deny young people access to sexual / reproductive health and birth control, well we have already seen the effects of that in some ‘abstinence only’ states in the USA, and some other countries; they end up having the highest incidence of teenage pregnancies, and of teenagers contracting STDs.

All in all, it smacks a bit like some authoritarian, right-wing state, which seeks to enforce sexual and gender laws under some religious pretext, that they know what’s best for children and young people, and anything LGBT is ‘sinful’. Is there any proof for this? Well, we are talking about the Reverend Stuart Campbell – that is a ‘reverend’ of the Universal Life Church; an internet organisation with no legal recognition as an official church – so we may be seeing yet another religious bigot appointing himself moral guardian, and trying to enforce his beliefs upon all of us.

Stuart Campbell does not even live in Scotland, but rather Bath, England. It is true that as a supporter of Scottish independence, I do not want legislation in my country dictated from London – and I don’t want it from bloody Bath, or anywhere else outwith Scotland, either.

And if we ever get independence, but that independence ignores the rights of LGBT people, and castigates them, then I should want no part of that. Any independent Scotland must be just and equitable for all who live here. If we leave one person behind, then we fail as a movement, as a people, and as a nation, and that would be a free Scotland not worth having.

As the song goes, “One of us are chained? None of us are free.”

By the way, when asked why she removed the Tweet, Denise Findlay claimed she was the one being bullied.  You couldn't make this shit up.

No People are Beneath Dignity - Except the Scots

I'll make a confession here.  I like LBC host, and founder of the Quilliam Foundation, Maajid Nawaz. On many subjects he is one of the clearest commentators and best minds I have ever encountered.  I like his tenet, "No idea is beneath scrutiny, no people are beneath dignity."

But when it comes to Scotland and Scottish politics?  Dear, oh dear.  Maajid does not know the first thing he is talking about, and often falls into the trap of accepting everything he reads about the Scottish independence movement at face value, while not scrutinising the facts, and adding his own sensationalist and inaccurate claims to stoke the fire.

So it was when he published an article on Unherd, he fell into exactly the same trap as other London-based commentators who understand neither Scotland nor the Scots, and demand a right to reply.

"the coronavirus is putting strain on the UK, as it is on other federations like the United States and Belgium"

Watch that word, "federation".  It will become important later.

"Yet it cannot be right that the Scottish National Party should subject the good people of these Isles to yet another nationalist, divisive, separatist “little Scotlander” referendum"

The view of most supporters of independence has never been a divisive one, but rather one which seeks to live side by side with England, with neither country interfering in the affairs of the other.  The word "separatist" is a deliberate smear, and one which Maajid should realise was first used by the Tories against the SNP.  As to "little Scotlander", nothing could be further from the truth.  There is an English Scots for Independence group, a great many English living in Scotland support and even campaign for English independence, and a great many people in England actually support an independent Scotland.  Are all these English people then "little Scotlanders"?

"kicking off a new round of an entirely unsolvable political bun-fight that will tear our country apart even further."

Firstly, it is not unsolvable; independence is the key.  And it will not tear "our country" apart, because the United Kingdom is not a country, but rather a collection of countries.  It is in fact a political federation.

"We’ve had the “once in a generation” referendum and the nationalists lost."

The "once in a generation" comments from Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon were their own personal opinions, nothing more.  There is nothing in legislation to set a time limit on any future referenda.  Besides which, the situation changed in 2016, when England voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU, and Scotland voted almost completely as one voice to stay in the EU, but is now being dragged out of the EU against our will.  Perhaps Maajid would like to explain how, when we won that particular referendum, it is in any way democratic that we are being pulled out.

"Should the SNP succeed next May, Westminster — Parliament for all the United Kingdom — should simply refuse to authorise it."

And I say if Westminster does that, you will never see a faster road to independence.  If there is one thing that Scots cannot abide, it's being pushed around and told what to do.  Besides, while the Westminster parliament is indeed the UK parliament, Maajid is patently unaware that in Scotland sovereignty rests solely with the people.  Therefore, if the SNP are successful next May, that would be the sovereign voice of the people of Scotland, and any attempt to ignore that voice would indeed be an imperialist move.

"Despite being a Remain-voting liberal, my views on a second referendum have attracted the sort of racism — from Scottish nationalists — that you would usually expect to receive from the far-right. In many exchanges with SNP supporters, I have learned that that Left-wing racism against people of colour is apparently acceptable, if we veer off an approved script."

Maajid supplies links to comments on Twitter, many of which are racist, which he claims to have come from SNP and independence supporters.  Some are indeed racist, and some are not.  And not all of them come from the Indy camp.  In fact, a search of those making the comments did show some were Scots.  And some were in fact English.  And some of them showed no evidence of being independence supporters.  See for yourselves:

https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1183798073300008962

I'll be the first to admit that some of the statements were indeed odious, and indeed racist, such as "trading on his religion and colour of his skin", "two bob arab" and "Uncle Tom" - and these rightly deserve to be condemned.  However, one person commented "go back to your cave", which Maajid is painting as a racist slur towards him.  In fact, the person who made that comment was replying to another Twitter user who calls themselves CaptCaveManPete.  References to Maajid being a terrorist, while inaccurate, are not racist, but rather are comments upon his own past, which he freely admits, when he was an Islamist extremist.  One person complaining that Maajid "slanders Corbyn" is hardly likely to be an independence supporter, as Labour were a unionist party under Jeremy Corbyn, and remain unionist to this day.  And references to imperialism are not racist either; by asserting that Westminster should refuse Scotland another referendum, I would suggest that Maajid Nawaz has indeed shown himself to be an imperialist.

"But, then, as surprising as English liberals may find it, Scotland is not the progressive paradise they like to believe — and  my anecdotal experience is borne out by wider concerns. Last year more than 80 public and professional figures signed an open letter warning that the struggle against racism in Scotland is “rolling backwards”, creating a climate of “resentment towards frank discussion of race and racism” that is threatening to undo progress on race equality.

It is significant that the signatories also highlighted a trend to “silence the voices of people in Scotland who face colour-based racism”. This letter came less than two months after Scotland’s national poet laureate Jackie Kay warned openly  that Scotland had to “grow up” as it was “decades behind” in its treatment of black and ethnic minority people."

There are actually few thinking people in Scotland deny we have a racism problem.  In fact, many of us in Scotland, both within and outwith the independence movemnt, have warned that the claim that Scotland "isn't a racist country" is dangerous.  And it is important to state this exists outwith the independence movement as well.  Maajid Nawaz tries to paint this as an SNP / Independence problem, when nothing could be further from the truth.  We in the Indy movement are ever cautious about bigotry, be it racism, anti-English bigotry, sectarianism, homophobia, transphobia, or whatever it may be, and contrary to what Maajid Nawaz claims, we act upon it quickly.

Take the example during the 2014 referendum campaign, when openly-gay Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson came under attack from an anonymous Twitter user with a tirade of homophobic abuse.  Despite the fact that many of us in the Indy movement disliked the politics of Ruth Davidson, we identified that individual within 24 hours, had him thrown out of both Yes Scotland and the SNP, and shamed him into phoning Ruth to apologise.  The message then was clear; we in the Indy movement do not approve of playing the man, not the ball, and we will act quickly to shame and distance ourselves from anyone who displays bigotry.

"Too often, when minority voices such as mine — children of the colonies, born in Britain — oppose the break-up of what we now consider our country, Scottish nationalists too readily seek to silence our voices by accusing us, instead, of being English “colonists”."

But as I have illustrated above, very few actually do so, and there is no proof that all of those making those accusations are SNP / Indy supporters.  For Maajid to generalise the entire Indy movement by a tiny minority is sensationalism worthy only of gutter press red top newspapers.

"Such rhetoric is not only overly antagonistic, it also displays a fundamental ignorance about why most ethnic minorities in Britain have expressed a preference for calling ourselves British over English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish."

And that is Maajid's choice.  Just as it is the choice of any ethnic minority person.  But there are equally a number of BAME people in Scotland who will call themselves Scots first.  And interestingly enough, Jackie Kay, whom Maajid mentions above, is one of those.  But another important point here is that even if Scotland were independent, he could still call himself "British", for in the broadest of terms, we are all "British", just as we are all "European".  Herein lies another important point; despite the 2016 EU referendum, despite Brexit being triggered, I still call myself a European, I always shall do, and I am proud to be such.  No referendum shall ever strip me of my right to call myself such.

"And while I embrace being both a non-Anglo-Saxon Englishman and a Brit, it is not easy for many of us to forget the nationalist-inspired violent racism levied against us growing up, and still present today."

Here Maajid Nawaz tries to equate the passive, nonviolent movement for civic nationalism to the aggressive, often violent nationalism of the political extreme right.  Trying to paint any such parallels is an absurdity.  If Maajid were to do his homework, he would actually find that those on the racist, nationalist extreme right are actually unionists, deeply opposed to Scottish independence, and have in fact at times used violence against peaceful Indy supporters.  Ask the 80 year old man who was pushed to the ground while campaigning for Yes, breaking his arm.  Ask the Bikers for Yes, who had tin tacks thrown across their route.  Ask the homeless woman in Glasgow who was kicked in the stomach by a Better Together speaker, who had ties to the BNP - while she was pregnant.  Ask the elderly man in a Yes cafe near to my home who had a bottle thrown at his head.  There are many, many more such stories of violence from the unionist far-right, which make ignorant comments on social media from a minority of Indy supporters pale into insignificance.

"For ‘progressive’ Scottish Nationalists to draw an equivalence between ethnic minorities who oppose their separatism and British colonialism, smacks of the very colonial privilege they seek to denounce."

Well, for a start the important phrase Maajid Nawaz uses here is "British colonialism", for Scotland is not a colony of England, and never was.  Scotland and England entered into an all-encompassing union of two nations in 1707, which was supposed to be a union of equals.  However, when one nation is much larger than the other, that was never going to be equal.  And for Maajid to use that phrase highlights his own ignorance of history and the constitutional position of Scotland within the union.  But then, so does his assertion that Westminster should refuse the sovereign voice of the Scottish people.  Whether he likes it or not, Maajid Nawaz has indeed condemned himself as a UK establishment imperialist.

"The fact of the matter is that Scottish colonists profited greatly from the creation of the British Empire. Scotland’s debt to Empire is her dirty little secret, seldom acknowledged but ever-present. The “tobacco lords” of Glasgow were enriched by slavery in the Americas and Africa, while a quick visit to the former North British Rubber Company in Edinburgh serves to disabuse most naysayers suffering under such a false sense of righteousness."

Actually, those of us within (and outwith) the independence movement in Scotland are painfully aware of the part that Scots played in the building of the British Empire.  But note here that the history mentioned by Maajid has absolutely nothing to do with the call for independence, and never did.  When Glasgow was the shipbuilding centre of the world, it was known as "The second city of the Empire" (after London).  I sincerely doubt that the rich and the gentry who ran those businesses would have ever wanted an independent Scotland, as it would have meant their gravy train hitting the buffers.  So for Maajid to labour this history is absolutely pointless.

Plus, let's add where the Scots suffered under the British Empire.  Before the Battle of Quebec in 1759, General Wolfe rode up to the only Scots regiment there, and stated, "We'll send you in first.  If you fall, it's no great loss."  There are many would argue that in most cases of conflict, Whitehall ever since has adopted a "General Wolfe mentality"; sending the Scots into battle situations first.  This is why you find evidence of Scots regiments all around the former British Empire.

"The pernicious narrative peddled by Scottish nationalists that England colonised Scotland, and then the rest of the world — and so England must even now be resisted in Scotland — sounds suspiciously like an act of whitewashing Scottish culpability, at least to the ears of this descendant of a former colony."

Except that nobody in the independence movement has ever said such, and if they have, I invite Maajid Nawaz to supply the evidence for such.

"This is not something SNP supporters like to hear, but SNP supporters have gained a reputation for intimidating critics."

A reputation which has been overplayed by the London-based media, which has generalised us all on the actions of a tiny minority.

"Recently, BBC News Scotland Editor Sarah Smith learned the hard way why Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has earned the nickname “Nippie Sweetie” for adopting the  “aggressive and adversarial approach of male politicians” early on in her career."

Maajid Nawaz supplies a link to a column in The Scotsman here, and had he chosen to read it, he would have found Nicola Sturgeon explaining why she adopts such an attitude; it is because she is a woman in politics, and as such has had to adopt a strong line to make herself heard.  Is Maajid perchance suggesting that Nicola Sturgeon, as a woman, should be subdued and passive?  Sexist much?  Maajid?

"Ms Smith had made the admitted error of accidentally describing Sturgeon as  “enjoying the opportunity” to shine during lockdown, instead of saying that she was “embracing” the challenge. Ms Sturgeon’s supporters were not happy to say the least, and an online pile-on inevitably ensued. Ms Smith, though, was quick to push into reverse gear, her resultant climbdown being perhaps the swiftest and most complete of any journalist in recent years, to my mind. Scotland’s BBC chief was so remorseful, in fact, that she felt the need to issue no fewer than four swift back-to-back apologies online to Ms Sturgeon, with one of them remaining pinned to her profile page for days. Ms Sturgeon regally confirmed that she accepted her apology."

Actually, what we objected to was yet another BBC reporter using biased, innacurate language, when the BBC is supposed to be unbiased.  It was not at all helped by Sarah Smith changing her wording from "enjoying" to "embracing", as that was no apology at all.  Nicola Sturgeon herself said she neither "enjoyed" nor "embraced" reporting the deaths of people on a daily basis.  And contrary to what Maajid Nawaz is suggesting here, when Sarah Smith did apologise properly, it was then, the same day, that Nicola Sturgeon tweeted that she accepted the apology, and for her the matter was closed.  After that it was only a tiny number of hotheads who tried to keep it going, but it fizzled out within days.

"So wouldn’t it be lovely if Nicola Sturgeon also apologised for, and investigated, the racism present among all too many of her online supporting trolls?"

Actually, the SNP and the wider Indy movement do in fact often expose bigots, and Nicola Sturgeon and others in the SNP have stated, many times, that there is no room for it.  It is the London-based media, including Maajid Nawaz and LBC, who fail to highlight or publish that fact.

"While it is true that Ms Sturgeon is not personally responsible for the behaviour of her supporters, such racism appears not to be a mere bug for the SNP, but may well be a feature. Indeed, just because a nationalist party identifies as being on the Left, it does not mean that an undercurrent of racism cannot be found beneath all the cuddly talk."

Indeed.  And were it actually a serious undercurrent, which drove the movement, then I would be first to condemn it, and would even stand against it.  But this is not the case.

"Historically, many nationalist parties and nationalists have started on the Left, from the French Revolution onwards; indeed one of the most famous of 20th century nationalists, Benito Mussolini, was on the National Directorate for the Italian Socialist Party, before he turned rightward to fan the flames of nationalism."

Here Maajid Nawaz tries the old trick of trying to equate the political left with the far right, and you'll notice he again tries to condemn nationalism, and thereby equate civic nationalism with racist nationalism.  I have heard him do the same on LBC, pointing out that the Nazis were "National Socialist", and that Oswald Moseley left the Labour Party to form the British Union of Fascists.  It is a disingenious distinction, worthy only of those with a childish grasp of political theory, which is completely unworthy of comment.

"Violent hostility to outsiders and critics is in the DNA of nationalists, whether on the Left and Right, as anyone who has debated with SNP can testify to. When that outsider has different colour skin the rage seems to be heighted."

But that is not the case in civic nationalism, and to try to equate us with the very people who are violently opposed to us, extreme right nationalists, simply does not hold up to one moment's scrutiny.  It is a derisory attempt to smear us along with the far right as "all nationalists are the same".  Would Maajid not agree that one of the biggest causes of bigotry is making sweeping generalisations - as Maajid has just done here?

"As party leader, it is Nicola Sturgeon’s duty — not mine — to make minorities feel safe from the racism of too many of her supporters. And until she can do so, do not be fooled by the progressive overtures of this SNP. For too long commentators of all persuasions have harboured a policy and ethical blindspot for Scotland’s nationalists, viewing them as polar opposites to English nationalists, rather than their counterparts."

There is a dictum which I embrace in my life, and that is that the burden of proof lies upon the claimant.  Maajid Nawaz has made claims here that minorities are not safe in the SNP, or by extension Scotland, and that we in the Indy movement are no different from extreme-right English nationalists.  Yet he offers absolutely not one shred of evidence to back up those claims.  And no, I don't mean a few hand-picked Tweets, not all of which came from Scots Nats, not all of which were racist, and not all of which in fact came from Scots.

"We should beware the kid gloves with which metropolitan opinion formers treat the SNP. Their party machine is curiously similar to Momentum, and much of what we would never tolerate from Corbyn now rules in Edinburgh. As such, they are riddled with all the trappings of power, while harbouring a nasty, illiberal and authoritarian streak."

I live in Edinburgh.  Essex boy Maajid Nawaz does not. The SNP are nothing like Momentum, and they are neither illiberal nor authoritarian.  The fact is the only reason that the SNP have been in power in the Scottish Parliament since 2007 is because the people of Scotland have voted consistently for them.  Just as out of the 59 MPs Scotland sends to Westminster, 47 of them are SNP, and of the six Scottish MEPs, 3 of them are SNP - because the Scottish people voted for them, which is their sovereign right to do so.  It's not Nicola Sturgeon's fault, not mine, and not through "a nasty, illiberal and authoritarian streak" that Maajid's party, the Lib-Dems, was beaten into fifth place, behind the Scottish Greens, at the last Scottish Parliamentary election.

"Alarm bells should be ringing now, lest after lockdown we enter blindly into yet another experience like the three years before the virus struck.

And if you thought Brexit Britain got bad, just wait until Scexit."

Except that Brexit was deliberately planned to create discord between people by Brexit supporters, and did indeed create a lot of ill feeling - even among families.  The 2014 independence referendum did not create the same sort of division, no matter what the London media would have you believe.  I have friends and even family members who are unionists, and the fact that we have differing political viewpionts does not stop me loving them any less.  In fact, if anything there is a much greater acceptance and tolerance of differing viewpoints here in Scotland.

And if Maajid Nawaz lived in Scotland, rather than bumping his gums from his home in London, he would know that, and a great deal more about things he patently had no idea of which he is talking about.

No people are beneath dignity, Maajid - including the people of Scotland.

Link to Maajid's article below:

https://unherd.com/2020/05/the-racism-lurking-behind-scottish-nationalism/

When Will Unionists Take Ownership of Their Behaviour?

Unionist snatching flags

Does someone have to die before anyone takes notice?

An All Under One Banner (AUOB) march for Scottish Independence took place in the Borders town of Galashiels on Saturday, 1 June 2019.  Sadly, I could not be there, but the marchers were blessed with a sunny day, and there was apparent good cheer as approximately 5000 people took part.

But the day was almost seriously marred by the actions of a few unionists, including one incident that could very easily have ended in a serious, possibly even fatal accident.

As the Yes Bikers, a motorcycle group of independence supporters, approached Galashiels, they encountered a line of screws deliberately laid out across the road, on the A68 near Earlston.  Some of the bikes suffered punctures, but the bikers, some of whom were carrying children, managed to get through.  Only one bike was stopped.

This follows on from incidents in at the Glasgow AUOB March in Glasgow in May, where Yes Bikers had traffic cones and other objects thrown at them, and one person standing in the middle of the road was trying to snatch flags from the backs of bikes, which could have resulted in bikes being toppled, or the man responsible being injured in a collision.  Another unionist stood in traffic, removed his trousers and underpants, and slapped his buttocks towards the bikers.  Thankfully, both these individuals were arrested.

While the mainstream media is quick to jump on and sensationalise minor wrongdoings by a tiny minority within the Independence movement, such as alleged abusive comments on social media by “cybernats” (many of which are not actually abusive), there is a violent element within the unionist camp which is rarely reported, if it does warrants a small column inside a newspaper and has never been front page news, and which the unionist camp never seem to condemn nor take ownership for.

Incidents by unionists since 2014 have included;

• An 80-year-old Yes supporter knocked to the ground, breaking his arm, by a woman who was a member of both the Labour Party and Better Together.
• A 5-year-old boy narrowly missed when a unionist pushed a chair out of an upper storey window, aiming to hit a Yes stall, and former SNP deputy leader Jim Sillars.
• A pregnant homeless woman kicked in the stomach by a Better Together speaker, who had links to the extreme-right British National Party.
• A Yes stallholder headbutted by one man, while two other men overturned his stall.
• Yes/SNP campaigners being verbally abused, threatened, and even spat upon – myself included – in public.
• Several Yes cafes and hubs being vandalised, some with their stock destroyed.
• Excrement smeared on the door handles of Penicuik Yes Café.
• Peaceful independence supporters, despite being defeated in the 2014 referendum, being beaten up by gangs of unionist thugs in Glasgow’s George Square.
• Cars with Yes / SNP stickers being keyed, and / or their windows smashed.
• Houses displaying Yes / SNP stickers or logos, or flying the Saltire, having them vandalised, and in some cases their windows broken.
• An elderly man in Edinburgh South Yes Hub recently having a bottle of water thrown at him; not over him, the actual plastic bottle was deliberately aimed at his head.

 In every single one of these incidents, nobody from any of the unionist organisations, and no high-profile individuals within the unionist movement have spoken out to condemn them.  Quite the opposite, whenever they have happened there have been unionists congratulating the perpetrators, and some saying they wish it had been worse.

I am not saying for one moment that everybody in the independence movement is an angel.  Far from it, every political movement has its hotheads and dangerous elements.  The big difference is that whenever anyone in the independence movement has done something really wrong, the vast majority of us have condemned their actions, and they very quickly find themselves ostracised by most within the movement.  This is precisely what happened when Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson was subjected to a tirade of homophobic abuse by one individual using a false name on Twitter.  Within 24 hours the said individual had his identity made public, was suspended from Yes Scotland and the SNP, and was shamed into phoning Ruth Davidson to apologise.  Ruth later Tweeted “I feel I have been treated with chivalry.”  She is welcome.  No one in this movement believes in playing the man and no’ the ball.

But there are unionists who persist in abusive and increasingly violent actions, and nothing is said or done about that.

I am not for one moment castigating all unionists as violent and abusive.  I happen to know for a fact that the vast majority are not, but most are capable of reasoned debate, or who at the least will walk away from the argument.  But at the same time, the unionist movement are not taking ownership of those within their movement who are now presenting a danger to life and limb.

And notice my language here; “taking ownership”.  For make no mistake about it, unionists, you own these actions, and by ignoring them, or claiming it’s nothing to do with you, you merely bring dishonour to your own movement.  At the worst, you are risking a serious incident where someone could be seriously hurt, or even killed.

What will it take for you to take responsibility, unionists?  A death?

In the spirit of democratic and reasoned political debate, I sincerely hope not.

Our Need for the Serpent's Cunning

A mild example from a well-known Indy blogger

No room for online abuse which only harms the independence movement.

Senior figures within the Scottish National Party (SNP) have called for a crackdown on online abuse, and for independence supporters to call out and distance themselves from those who engage in such behaviour.  Alyn Smith MEP, Stewart McDonald MP, and Angus Robertson, former SNP Depute Leader have called out online abuse that may harm the independence campaign.

In an interview, Alyn Smith told the Herald on Sunday (5 May 2019), “in the same way the Tartan Army had to clean up its act in the 1980s and then became a massive ambassadorial source for Scotland… …We all need to step up. This is allowing us to be portrayed in a certain way that's damaging… …call them out and send them to Coventry. Make them persona non grata forever - off you pop, you aren't one of us if that's how you behave”.

Angus Robertson stated, "I'm expressly underlining the fact that this is an issue for both sides of the constitutional argument in Scotland, and more generally internationally where on social media, often because of anonymity, some people think that they can insult, attack and offend with impunity… …I think these people are cowards and wouldn't be prepared to continue posting in the same way if they were identifiable, quite often because what they're saying and doing would be considered illegal. We need a cultural change… …There's been reticence by senior Yes supporters to call out abuse for fear of undermining the more general debate about Scotland's constitutional future, and rather than highlight the levels of abuse they received by unionist trolls to let it slide, or to avoid criticism because one is wanting to protect the reputation of public discourse more generally.  This can't go on. People can't go on thinking they can sit in front of their keyboards and do nothing but send abuse to people they don't agree with. You wouldn't do it in public, you'd be thrown out of a pub for doing it, you'd never do it at a family event, why on earth would you do it online?"

I have seen angry responses from some in the Indy camp, who somehow feel betrayed by these comments, but the fact is that the SNP trio are absolutely correct, and I applaud all three for calling out those who are potentially damaging the independence cause.  And those angered may have missed the point that the three actually called out those on the unionist side who partake in the same behaviour.

What does Internet abuse achieve?  Does it change the hearts and minds of the people who are being attacked?  Does it make salient political points that the opponents are likely to take on board and consider carefully?  Or is it just an excuse for at the least a slanging match, or to rant at someone, which may make the person doing so feel good at the time, but which ultimately reflects upon all of us in the independence movement, and has the potential to damage our campaign.

I saw one typical example on Facebook just today.  A friend posted screenprints from a private messaging conversation with a unionist woman, who was not abusive, but really was just mistaken in many of her comments.  There were comments below this of people saying they were going to go to her Facebook timeline to “put her in her place”, “give her a piece of my mind”, etc.  One person who had previously been blocked by the said woman stated that they intended to set up a fake Facebook profile to troll her.  Why?  The woman in question is a diehard unionist who will listen to no reason.  What does attacking her achieve?  What would it help?  Just how does it further the cause of independence to hurl abuse at someone who is so stuck in their views that you will never change their mind?  It does not. And it was not lost on me that some of the comments called her “cow”, “old bag”, and various other sexist and ageist insults.  Well done, guys.  Is there any other way you’d like to damage the Indy movement?

Cyber abuse cannot be ignored.  It takes many forms and it can be extremely damaging, and potentially dangerous.  SNP MP Joanna Cherry recently had call to have police protection at her weekly surgery, due to what was seen as a threatening message posted on her Twitter account.  This comprised of a meme of a masked figure with a gun, and the words “Just do it”, alongside details of Ms Cherry’s surgery.  This came in the wake of Ms Cherry campaigning against the SNP administration’s adoption of gender self-ID for transgender and non-binary people.  As a firm trans ally, I find Joanna Cherry’s stance on transgender people to be deeply offensive, and I feel she has hardly covered herself in glory.  But all that apart, while Ms Cherry’s stance may be offensive to some, it does not warrant any response may incite violence and threatens her or anyone else’s well-being.  If I can strongly disagree with Joanna Cherry without resorting to abuse or threats, so can anyone.  Let us not forget that it is less then 3 years since Labour MP Jo Cox was murdered by someone who often tweeted hate messages, and inciting anyone to similar actions, over any issue, is simply deplorable.

And Joanna Cherry is not alone in this.  Nicola Sturgeon, Mhairi Black, and other women SNP politicians have reported having sexist and threatening comments and messages online.  But it is not reserved to the SNP.  Openly lesbian leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson, has often come in for homophobic, sexist, and threatening messages online, and on one infamous occasion in the wake of the 2014 independence referendum, one such perpetrator subjected her to a tirade of online abuse of a homophobic nature.  The comments quite rightly disgusted many of us, his true identity were made public, and both the SNP and Yes Scotland were quick to dismiss him, and shamed him into phoning Ruth to apologise.  Ruth Davidson later tweeted that she felt she had been treated by “gallantry” by the independence movement.  And for that, she is welcome.  As much as I dislike Ruth Davidson’s politics, and I probably wouldn’t get along with her on a personal level, to attack anyone for their sexuality is about as low as it gets, and I was never prouder of the Indy movement for acting so quickly in condemning the homophobe responsible.  On that occasion, we got it exactly right.

I can almost hear some reading this shouting “What about the abuse from unionists?”  Yes, they the unionists do indeed involve themselves in cyber abuse of Scots Nats, and sometimes much worse.  I could recount a number of incidences of actual violence carried out by unionists in the run-up to the 2014 independence referendum, and even one in which an elderly man in a Yes hub not far from my home was attacked just recently.  I have personally been threatened and even spat upon by unionists.  I keep my Facebook account set to “Friends” for many reasons, one of which being that I think out my arguments and check my facts very carefully before posting anything.  I am not about to leave that open to some knuckledragger who has taken a nanosecond to come up with their unintelligent response.

It is no use playing “whataboutery”.  We know what the unionists are capable of and that they often go off in tirades of online abuse towards Scots Nats, and indeed, others.  I have personally read and heard unionists come out with racist, xenophobic, sexist, sectarian, and religious abuse.  I am not for one moment saying that all unionists are bigots, I know for a fact they are not.  But I would say they have more than their fair share of such.  That such do indeed make abusive and threatening comments is absolutely no excuse to sink to their level.

We would do well to remember that not all unionists are abusive or bigoted, and I once saw a comment that made me want to cry.  On a friend’s timeline, someone commented that she had voted No in 2014, now realised her mistake, and stated that she would vote Yes in any future independence referendum.  This was immediately followed by a comment from a supposed independence supporter (actually someone I unfriended quite a while) in which he lambasted the woman for “subjecting Scotland to four years of Tory rule”.  Oh, well done.  That’s really going to win hearts and minds, isn’t it?  There are many who voted No in 2014, for many reasons, and it is precisely those people we need to engage if we are ever going to gain a free Scotland.  Abusing them is never going to convince them to vote Yes in the future, it is far more likely to cause them to scurry back to the No camp, and to remain firmly there.

It is also worth mentioning that the above abuser often comes out with openly anti-English statements, which was the very reason why I unfriended him.  While anti-English sentiments are not so prevalent in the Indy movement as they once were, they are still there nonetheless, they need to stop, and those who resort to such need to be called out and ostracised by the movement.  We can make comments about London rule and Westminster all we want.  We can make the point that all the unionist opposition parties are London-based.  But the moment that we blame the ordinary people of England for our woes, we are on a hiding to nothing, and worse still, it abuses many of those who may actually be on our side.  I have a few English friends living in Scotland, and all but one of them is pro-Independence.  One woman in particular campaigns long and hard for independence, which being disabled, is not easy for her.  She certainly does a lot more than the trolls who set out to abuse unionists, and throw in anti-English sentiments to boot.  Likewise, of my online English friends south of the border, most of them support an independent Scotland.  Go look through Nicola Sturgeon’s Twitter feed any day, and you will find English people asking for the SNP to field candidates in England, and how much they wish they had a leader like her in Westminster.  I will never tire of saying this; we in the Indy camp have much more in common with the working class of England than we shall ever have with our own Scottish landed gentry.

These things are indeed important because of the opponent we face.  We are taking on the British establishment, a particularly powerful animal, and it is they who have the media at their back.  We all know that the moment any person purporting to support independence puts a foot wrong, it will be jumped upon by the media, in an attempt to lambast us all, even if we do not agree with the person in question.  The attack on the elderly gentleman I mentioned earlier got about two column inches inside a newspaper.  Compare that to the front-page headline stories and the centre spreads that newspapers have given to a few abusive comments by what is in reality a small minority of people.  Look at the many times that the main TV broadcasters have misreported a story about the Indy camp, or deliberately misrepresented us.   Look indeed at how the media hijacked the term “cybernat”, to claim it represents all independence supporters who use the internet to abuse others.  In fact, if you stand for independence and your main medium for making the arguments for such is online, then you are, like me, a cybernat.  And if people have the time and resources to abuse people on line, then they have the time and resources to put forward positive arguments for independence to those who may be wavering, which is where their energies would and should be better spent.

”We need the cunning of the serpent to deal with money and power.” wrote the socialist Scots poet Naomi Mitchison in her 13-part pro-independence anthology, The Cleansing of the Knife.  And what Mitchison penned in 1941 was never more relevant in the internet age of the 21^st century.  We not only must be squeaky clean, we must be seen to be squeaky clean, especially in the face of the money and power which the unionists have at their resource.

I fully realise that online abuse in the Indy movement is but one symptom of a wider disease.  Politics are becoming increasingly polarised, and there appears to be a belief nowadays that throwing insults and even threats about is somehow valid.  This is not however the case, and if you believe at all in reasoned and democratic debate, then you will have no part in such.  Your right to freedom of speech does not extend to abusing and threatening your opponent.  It never did, it never shall, and neither should it be so.  Therefore, we should call out online abuse because it is the right thing to do.  Whenever and wherever we encounter personal attacks upon and threats or incitement to violence towards those who oppose independence, it needs to be nipped in the bud, and the perpetrators named, shamed, and made pariahs within the independence movement.  Particularly if the abuse is based upon sexuality, gender, ethnicity, race, age, religion – or lack thereof, or any other personal attribute.  Where any online messages contain threats, or incitement to violence, not only do we need to distance ourselves from such, they should be reported to the police as soon as possible.

In the final instance, whenever someone purporting to be pro-independence makes comments online which abuse, threaten, or incite violence, then that can only be harmful to our cause.  If anyone is going to play the man and not the ball, then they do not speak for me, they do not speak for Scotland, they do not speak for the independence movement, and that needs to be made very plain, in loud and clear language.

Our Scotland, and the vision we share for her future, is far too important to allow anyone or anything which harms that to continue.

Gender Self-ID is happening - and it is important to Scotland

This year the Scottish Government shall implement changes to the Gender Recognition Act, 2004, under which transgender and non-binary people in Scotland shall be able to self-identify as transgender, and this right shall be extended to 16-17 year olds, who will be able to self-identify without parental consent.  This has been a long time coming.  The initial moves towards this began in 2016, and it has been progressing through the Scottish Parliament, where it had cross-party support, and has gone through the mandatory consultation period, where 60% agreed to the proposals.

Although the change to legislation has the support of many LGBT, family and youth organisations and charities, and other austere bodies, it has nonetheless come in for severe criticism from some others.  Many of those objecting are either at best misinformed, or at worst openly hostile towards transgender people.

Contrary to what many in society think, our gender is not determined by our biological sex; that is the sexual organs we are born with.  And what is more, as contradictory as this may seem, sexual genitalia in itself does not have a gender.  Most people identify as the gender they are assigned at birth, pertaining to their biological sex according to their sexual organs; these people are ‘cisgender’, from the Latin word cis, meaning “on this side of”.  However some others do not identify with the gender they are assigned at birth, but identify with the opposite side of the traditional gender binary, and are therefore ‘transgender’, from the Latin trans, meaning “on the opposite side of”.  Then there are people who can identify with both sides, and are thus ‘non-binary’, those who do not identify with any fixed gender and are thereby ‘genderfluid’, those who can identify with all genders who are ‘pangender’, and even those who do not identify with any gender, and are thereby ‘agender’.

I have only mentioned a few genders above, but the fact is, as absurd as some think it is, science is just discovering that there are a great plethora of genders.  This supports the science as we understand it, that biological sex does not and never has determined gender.   It is not yet known if we are born identifying with any particular gender, or whether it is environmental, emotional, and other factors which determine such, but there is one thing which is irrefutable; gender is decided by the mind.  As a transgender man friend of mine put it simply, “Sex occurs between the legs.  Gender occurs between the ears.”

Those who do not identify with their biological sex / birth gender are identified as having gender dysphoria; a recognised medial / psychological condition whereby “a person experiences discomfort or distress because there’s a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity.” (NHS).  This condition is most notable in transgender people, but is also often prevalent among non-binary and genderfluid people, as well as those of other genders.

Gender diversity is never easy to understand.  Far from it, it can be a minefield, and I may even make mistakes in this article.  But the facts remain that we are not all either male nor female, and certainly not determined by what dangly bits we may or may not have, and to identify with another gender is not an illness, it is not a crime, and it certainly does not invalidate anyone’s identity.

Under the law as it stands, if a transgender person wants to officially change their gender on official documentation, which starts with their birth certificate, then they must apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).  To do so is a lengthy process.  Firstly they must live under the gender they identify as for at least two years, and this is only recognised for those aged 18 or over.  The applicant then must undergo examinations by a (usually cisgender) medical professional to diagnose gender dysphoria, and must then make their application, including their diagnosis, to a (usually cisgender) panel in London for a GRC, along with their payment for a GRC.  This panel usually grants a GRC, but it is worth noting that it is equally within their power to refuse them.

The current system is thereby deemed by transgender people to be unfair and deeply intrusive into private lives, where government has absolutely no business being, and where cisgender people – mostly men – can rule over the gender of others, and charge for that privilege.  No wonder that some transgender people call the GRC a “Trans Tax”.  Where younger transgender people are concerned, we can immediately see how the law is deeply skewed against them, and that they cannot actually outwardly display their identified gender until at least the age of 20.  These faults with the GRC are precisely why self-ID is so badly needed, and why Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland, has promoted it to bring Scotland into line with “international best practice”.

While the majority of respondents to the consultation period were in favour of self-ID, it has nonetheless had its detractors, some of whom have been very vocal in their opposition.  One of the greatest concerns is that self-ID may lead to sexually predatory men dressing as women to gain access to female “safe spaces”, such as public toilets and changing rooms.  I am not for one moment going to dismiss this, or pretend that it does not happen.  But I would ask those with such concerns to look at those countries that already have self-ID.   Canada, Ireland, Portugal, Malta Belgium, Norway, and Denmark have all had Self-ID for some time, and with no significant increase in sexual assaults.  This is because far from being just ‘men in dresses’, transgender women are to all intents and purposes women, and just like women, merely want to pee.  What is more, given that women’s toilets have stalls with locking doors, the chances are that many detractors probably have already shared a toilet with a transgender woman, and never known it.  Spare a thought for transgender men who have not had gender reassignment surgery, and who using a public toilet, will be faced with one locking stall, which could be occupied, and a row of urinals.

Add to this that the vast majority of sexual assaults in toilets are already carried out by cisgender men, and far from being carefully planned, are mostly on the spur of the moment.  Strange as it may seem, a little silhouetted sign of a figure in a dress (why is she bald?) is no deterrent to predatory men.  The men who carry out these attacks tend to be full of toxic masculinity – many are in fact downright misogynists with a pathological hatred of women – and to imagine that such ‘macho’ men would even consider dressing as women to gain entry to toilets is to stretch credulity to its limits.  So, while the vast majority of those carrying out sexual assaults upon women in toilets are cisgender men, who do you reckon make up the second highest offenders?  Other cisgender women, that’s who.  Are we then to allow only one woman into a public loo at a time?

The issue of changing rooms, particularly in schools and colleges, particularly in schools and colleges, is admittedly more complex, not least because not all have cubicles for changing.  According to the National Education Union (NEU), who advise educational establishments on transgender-inclusive policies, the best policy is to provide alternative or gender-neutral facilities when there are no cubicle facilities available, but that “It is not necessary to make all toilet facilities gender neutral however, because some students will prefer single-sex toilets.” and they add “The young person should not in any case be told that they must use the changing rooms that correspond with the gender they were assigned at birth.”  Should anyone think this unfair, then consider how you would react if you, or your child, were told you could not use a shared changing room because of some aspect of your personality.

Where there are still schools and colleges where changing rooms do not have cubicles, this therefore has to change.  Creating separate facilities for transgender and non-binary individuals is in itself not an answer, because that only further marginalises those use them, and identifies them as targets for attacks.  Likewise, making everything gender-neutral is not an answer either, as far from deterring predators, such facilities would only exacerbate the problem.  There are those who try to argue that refurbishing or rebuilding current changing rooms would be costly.  The simple answer to that is creating separate or gender-neutral facilities would cost even more.  Of course, there are some who will completely disregard the latter argument, because they simply don’t want to acknowledge the existence of transgender people.

Some who object to self-ID are quick to point to the case of Karen White, a transgender woman (and yes, she is transgender) sexually assaulted two women in New Hall Prison in England.  However, Karen White was already a known paedophile and rapist, who had been jailed for grievous bodily harm, multiple rapes, and other sexual assaults against women, and placing her with cisgender women was wholly the fault of the prison authorities.  White was moved to a men’s prison in Leeds, and underwent gender reassignment surgery.  So yes, Karen White is a transgender woman, who is also a sexual predator.  This no more makes all transgender people sexual predators than it makes all cisgender men such, despite the fact that cis men carry out the vast amount of sexual assaults.  But then compare that to Scotland, where the Scottish Prison Service already assign places according to self-ID, have done since 2010 – almost 10 years – and with no reported sexual assaults by men ‘pretending’ to be women.  Hmm.  I don’t hear the detractors being so loud about that little fact.

Therefore, one case in England of a transgender woman who is a known sexual predator that women and children are not safe from does not outweigh the many transgender prisoners in Scottish prisons who have never presented any problems.  The problem here is not with gender but rather with sexual assault, which is no respecter of gender boundaries.  There is not the room here to go into them in detail, but there are more than plenty case studies of homosexual assaults in prison by male cisgender prisoners, and indeed, by cisgender women prisoners on other prisoners.

Despite all these arguments, there are still people, mostly but not always women, who still stand against self-ID.  But then these same people seek to deny the very existence of transgender people in the first place.

The biggest mistake that most of them make is to wrongly equate gender with biological sex, when the two are clearly not one and the same thing.  Many are quick to state, “XX equals female, and XY equals male”, as if their high school biology is the be-all and end-all of gender identity, or even for that matter, of biology.  In fact, this “gender binary” is not always the case.  There are in fact many human beings who do not have the standard number of chromosomes.  Some have more, others have fewer.  “XXXY Syndrome”, otherwise known as “Third Gender” effects one in 50,000 males, whereby they are born with two extra X chromosomes. 

Some will go further and flatly state, “If you have a penis you are male, and you have a vagina, you are female.  It’s simple as that.”  Again, wrong, as the very existence of intersex individuals – those born with sexual organs of both sides of the gender binary – clearly illustrates.  A 2015 study by Eric Vilian of the Center for Gender Based Biology at UCLA found a great number of “Differences of Sexual Development” (DSD), which included a 46-year-old woman having her third child, whose cells were found to carry 50% male chromosomes, and a 70-year-old father of three, undergoing a hernia operation, who was found to have a uterus.  Dr Vilian’s study have estimated that those with DSDs could be as high as 1in every 100 people.

So much for the biology we all learned in school.  But even if the detractors were correct, this still does not get away from the fact that biological sex does not constitute gender.  And how do these transphobes – let’s call them what they are, as much as they deny it (in the same way some people say “I’m not a racist, but…”) – respond to these facts?  Some will state that those with less or more chromosomes are a “minority”.  So therefore they don’t count somehow?  And 1 in 100 is some “minority”.  Some will outright deny the science, some will reply – and I have actually more or less read this – “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?”   And some will more or less shove their fingers in their ears and shout “LA, LA, LA, LA , LA!  I’M NOT LISTENING!”

Really?  Is that your reply to reams upon reams of peer-reviewed scientific research, now going back decades?  To deny it, say minorities don’t matter, make out it’s a conspiracy, and/or simply not listen?  If that’s your view, then you may as well go and join the young earth creationists who say their god created the Earth 6000 years ago, the evolution deniers, the anti-vaxxers, the climate change deniers, and the flat earthers, because you are demonstrating precisely the same level of wilful ignorance (aka “stupidity”) as all of the above do.

The main thing that worries me about the whole self-ID debate is the way it has been hijacked by outright transphobes, who not only do not want self-ID, but completely deny the very existence of transgender people.  I have seen Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) use a dictionary definition of “female” in a feeble attempt to back up their argument; “belonging or relating to the sex that gives birth to young, produces eggs, etc”.  Yet the same women using such a narrow definition conveniently ignore an alternative definition under the same heading in the dictionary; “belonging or relating to, or characteristic of, a woman”, and that definition could very easily pertain to transgender women.  But even then, in using the first definition, the TERFs automatically discount women who for medical reasons cannot give birth or produce eggs.  Are they not “real women”?   Or don’t they count because they are a minority?  Even if that were the case, such a definition must also discount every woman who reaches the age where they can no longer procreate.  Are even they, once they stop menstruating, no longer “female”?  See the dangers of attempting to define gender purely on biological sex?

A side note here.  I have been told that I should not use the term “TERF” nowadays, as it is apparently ‘derogatory’ (for… …reasons).  Well, tough titty.  The fact is that the term was started by women who self-identified as TERFs, and given that I am talking of people who show extreme prejudice towards one of the most vulnerable sections of society, do excuse me for not sparing a thought for their hurt feels.

I have made mention throughout this article to those opposed to transgender people, but one may notice that the emphasis has been upon transgender women.  There is a very good reason for this.  Mostly it is transgender women and girls which transphobes target.  Rarely you will find them making any reference to transgender men.  There are some who do so however.  I have read and seen videos of TERFs who claim that transgender men who are not at all transgender, but that they are in fact lesbians who have been conditioned to think as men by “the patriarchy” (because of course, we men – who are supposedly all sexual predators – obviously want a planet completely inhabited by men).  Again we see this instance of denying the very existence of transgender people.

Gay men in a Nazi concentration camp

When any society dismisses one section within that society, because they are ‘merely a minority’, when they persecute that section because they do not fit in with their mindset, and worst of all, when they deny their very existence, that society is going down a very dangerous road indeed.  And we need not look very far to see the end result of what happens in those circumstances; we need only look to Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.  Indeed, even in the modern day, we need only look to Chechnya, Uganda, Saudi Arabia, Brunei, and many other countries, where LGBT people are openly persecuted, often to death.

And yes, transphobes and TERFs, I did just liken you to Nazis, and I make absolutely no apologies for doing so.  For when you treat transgender people as any less than human, when you attempt to strip them of their identity, of their dignity, and their basic human rights, then you are behaving in precisely the same way the Nazis did to the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, the mentally disabled, and of course, among others, LGBT people.

Not that I am calling everyone worried about self-ID a Nazi.  My vitriol is not for those with genuine concerns, and / or who are willing to learn, but those who despite all the evidence, absolutely refuse to learn, but are only intent on spreading their own hatred.  And it pleases me to say to such that self-ID is a reality, and it is happening this year, and nothing they say or do is going to stop that.   Get used to it.

Nicola Sturgeon

But I feel that there is something bigger at play here.  Self-ID is yet another step in a plethora of positive moves by Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP Scottish Government which have enhanced the lives of women, the elderly, the young, children, LGBT people, the disabled, the poor, and many more.  I believe that Nicola Sturgeon has a vision of a Scotland yet to come.  An independent Scotland which as fair and equitable for all, where the value of all are recognised, and where none are left behind.   It could be argued, and I believe, that the First Minister is laying the groundwork for that independent Scotland.

I share that vision, as I think the vast majority of the independence movement do.  And it is an achievable vision, but one which neither Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP can deliver alone.  It will take us, all of us, to play our part and help create the fully integrated Scotland which we all seek.  We are not only parts of the jigsaw, we are the jigsaw; all of us are integral parts of the bigger picture, which would not be complete without even one of us.  As Blair Jenkins, the former Chief Executive of Yes Scotland once said that we would get whatever independent Scotland we choose.

If it were ever to happen that we had an independent Scotland where one demographic, or even any individual, were persecuted, maligned, and denied basic human rights purely for being who they are, where even one person is left behind, that in my view would be a free Scotland not worth having.  For as the song goes, "If one of us is chained, none of us are free.”