‘We don't want to go back to court', says women's group over gender ruling delay
For Women Scotland (FWS) challenged the meaning of a woman in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act, with the UK's highest court ruling the definition in the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex.
The decision is likely to have far-reaching implications for transgender people in accessing services, but the Scottish Government has declined to make changes to guidance until the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issues its own guidance, which is expected to take place in the coming months.
But speaking at a fringe event at the Scottish Conservative conference in Edinburgh, FWS co-director Susan Smith said the group was considering a further legal challenge against the Government.
Speaking to journalists after the event, she said: 'We have spoken to the Scottish Government and asked them to withdraw some of this guidance, just to say that it's under review – they don't have to re-issue anything at this point – because it's clearly unlawful, we really do need some action.
'They're telling us they have to wait for the EHRC revised guidance and we don't believe this is true.'
Ms Smith added that, if a woman were to be assaulted in prison by a transgender prisoner, the Government could be taken to court by the victim.
'I think they need to step up and take a bit of responsibility because these things are under their remit,' she said.
She added: 'We don't want to go back to court, we really, really don't, but if we don't see some action that may be something we will have to consider.'
Ms Smith said the group is speaking with its lawyers but she would not say if there was a timeline for action to begin.
The co-director stressed that if ministers were concerned about a challenge to their guidance from the pro-trans rights side of the argument, they should be worried about one from FWS and other such groups too.
'They seem worried about a legal challenge from the other side,' she said.
'But my message to them would be they should be more worried about a legal challenge from the people who have the law on their side.'
Ms Smith was joined at the fringe meeting – which was hosted by Tory MSP Pam Gosal – by former foreign secretary James Cleverly.
Mr Cleverly was part of the Conservative-led government which blocked the Scottish Government's controversial gender reforms.
The Government proposed removing the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria as a requirement for obtaining a gender recognition certificate – a process known as self identification.
The move was scuppered by then-Scottish secretary Alister Jack, who used Section 35 of the Scotland Act to block the legislation.
Mr Cleverly told attendees the move showed the 'importance of the union'.
'This issue was clearly spiralling out of control, badly out of control,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
31 minutes ago
- The National
SNP policy should 'embrace the defence industry', say ex-MPs
The Scottish Government's current stance is not to use public money to fund the manufacturing of munitions. The Times reports that the First Minister has faced intensive lobbying, including from Holyrood backbenchers in the party, to relax the ban on such projects. And now, former Westminster leader Ian Blackford has called for investment in defence to 'kick-start the delivery of an industrial future for Scotland'. READ MORE: Inside the SNP's political strategy ahead of 2026 Scottish election Meanwhile, former SNP Westminster defence spokesperson Stewart McDonald branded the ban as a 'stupid policy'. It emerged in May that a specialist welding skills centre in Glasgow, planned by Rolls Royce, could be a risk after it was deemed to not be eligible for £2.5 million of Scottish Enterprise funding. UK Defence Secretary John Healy described the decision as 'student union politics', prompting a furious response from Scottish Rural Affairs Secretary Mairi Gougeon. Writing in the Times, Blackford (below) said: 'Investment in defence, though, can be a lever and transformative in itself in generating economic growth. (Image: PA) 'With the increase in defence spending requiring £60 billion-plus, it is beyond doubt that we need to make sure that Scotland gets its fair share, and I know the Scottish Government will be standing up for Scotland's interest in making it happen.' He pointed to Swinney stating that he had no objections if a company came to Scotland to set up a munitions factory, adding: 'There is a need to replenish munitions in support of the defence of Ukraine. In doing this, though, there are red lines and that means munitions supplied in the needs of strategic defence interests and never in situations such as Gaza where civilians are targeted.' 'ADS, the umbrella body for the industry, points out that the sector today employs 33,500 workers and delivers a value added of £3.2 billion, with an output per worker of £95,000,' he added. READ MORE: Home Office staff concerned over 'absurb ban on Palestine Action' 'These figures make it self-evident that there is an economic prize in attracting defence investment into Scotland.' Elsewhere, McDonald told Scotland on Sunday that the defence industry has a 'very awkward' relationship wih the Scottish Government. He branded the ban on investments relating to munitions 'a stupid policy', also criticising the restrictions in place for the Scottish National Investment Bank. 'Defence is the one industry that has enormous growth happening in it right now and that's not likely to end [any] time soon,' McDonald said. 'So why should our National Investment Bank not invest in it? 'It's entirely normal in every other country in Europe or the world for your national institutions to support your national interests, including your national security interests. "So why is the Scottish National Investment Bank not doing that? I think that's mad.' A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'We recognise the importance of the aerospace, defence and shipbuilding sectors for Scotland's economy. Together they provide high value jobs, support across the wider supply chain and make a valuable contribution to local, regional and national economies.' 'Scottish ministers have been consistently clear on the Scottish government's long-standing policy position that it does not use public money to support the manufacture of munitions,' they added.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Can anyone truly say Holyrood been a great success? I can't
The noise about which union Scotland should be in crowds out any real assessment of whether all is well within Scotland itself. The point of devolution was not to create a rival Government which could do what it liked but to create one with extensive powers over matters within Scotland which directly affect the daily lives of people here. Read More: Having a Parliament in Scotland whose job did not include things like energy policy, banking regulation, foreign policy and defence is not a weakness it is a strength. It enables the Parliament to concentrate, from a solely Scottish perspective, on things like health and education as well as dealing with issues which within a British context might not get the focus or priority they deserve such as ferries and roads. The system for electing the Scottish Parliament was designed to prevent one party gaining control and encourage consensus through a need for co-operation between parties in order to pass legislation. The Scottish Parliament was given no revising chamber but instead relied on Committees to make sure legislation proposed by the Executive was properly scrutinised and challenged. You would be hard pushed, whatever your political persuasion and view on Scotland's place in the world, to say the Scottish Parliament has been a great success. Economic growth, an essential foundation of a successful and cohesive society, has been lower in Scotland than the UK as a whole over the long term. Taxes are higher. Outcomes in health and education are poorer despite more money. Scotland specific issues such as transport links to the islands and the highlands have been - and still are - appallingly managed. Too long a domination by the SNP has reduced questioning of the Scottish Government's performance. If you don't salute the Saltire you can kiss goodbye to funding from the Scottish Government or a chance to gain a senior position in public life. Worse, we have turned in on ourselves. Scotland, which has a proud record of contribution to the world, now looks only at its own feet. Shakespeare bad, some second-rate Scottish poet good. Scottish history only. A complete unwillingness to learn anything new about the provision of public services if the source of innovation is England. There are some specific and intertwined problems. First, a misunderstanding of what democracy is. What it is not is the belief that if you get 50 per cent plus one on any vote you have a mandate do what you like. In a healthy democracy dissenting voices need to be heard, minority views respected and genuine consensus built. The SNP, especially under Nicola Sturgeon, understood none of those things. Second, the system itself has not worked as intended. Low grade people have ended up in our Parliament. Can you name any of your Region's List MSPs? How many outstanding MSP's are there? - one hand will be quite enough for the count. The parties have far too great a grip. Want to get into Parliament as a List MSP? - better toe the party line or your place in the order will be too low to have any chance. Sitting on a Committee scrutinising misguided and poorly thought through legislation? - better not challenge things as you will be moved further down the List or de-selected and be out on your ear at the next election. Occasionally there are individual heroes like Andy Wightman whose crucial vote meant the Committee investigating whether Nicola Sturgeon misled Parliament found she had, His reward? - to be hounded out of the Green Party. More recently Fergus Ewing, a delicious thorn in the side of loopy Government ministers and their daft legislation. He has left the SNP and will stand as an independent next time. Whatever your views on the Union vote for him if you can. Reform is needed to improve the quality of debate and outcome in the Scottish Parliament. The key problem - but also opportunity - is the hold parties have on their List MSP's. That control needs to be broken and two simple reforms could achieve this. First, when you cast your List vote for a party in elections for the Scottish Parliament you should then be able to rank the candidates for the party you have chosen in the order you prefer. Voters not parties should determine a candidate's place on the List. That way when voters see a candidate of real calibre they can boost their chances of being elected. This would incentivise parties to put forward capable candidates rather than idiots. Second, allow List MSP's to sit in Parliament for only one term. At a stroke the party control would be broken and List MSP's could put country before party when necessary. The more rapid turnover of people in the Parliament this would bring about would also be welcome. New people means fresh ideas. Fixing the problems is not too hard but the first step would be an acknowledgement that the problems are there and they matter. Guy Stenhouse is a notable figure in the Scottish financial sector. He has held various positions, including being the Managing Director of Noble Grossart, an independent merchant bank based in Edinburgh, until 2017
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
So Scots felt they were British centuries before the Union? Hmm
Scottish identity and a desire for independence among many Scots is also ever changing, with Oxford University professor Danny Dorling, an expert in human geography, claiming recently that a form of independence is already in progress, due to an ever increasing political and cultural divide between England and Scotland. However, new research by University of Glasgow professor Dauvit Broun surprised many people. He explores the idea of Britishness in relation to Scottish independence and identity in the Medieval period, offering a different insight into contemporary debates surrounding national identity. Broun examines the ideas of Scottish academics and historians in the 1380s and 1520s of Britain as an extension of the Scottish Kingdom. Broun makes use of a recently discovered early 16th century homemade compendium booklet of king-list, chronicles and origin-legend material. Read more He also analyses John Mair, who is often believed to be the first Unionist thinker and his belief in a Scottish kingdom which could grow to include England while being ruled by a Scottish monarch, highlighting that the idea of Britishness was based on the shared island rather than a shared Unionism. Additionally, he questions whether instead of a shared Britishness there has been unique Scottish, English and Welsh versions of Britishness for centuries. Broun argues that these new discoveries emphasise the possibility for both Scottish independence and Britishness to exist at the same time in today's national identity. He says Scottish identification with Britain exists far before the political Union of 1707, highlighting Britain is just as much a geographical concept as a political one. Broun states: 'Rather than 'banal unionism', there was 'banal Britishness' based ultimately on sharing the same island.' This new research suggests the possibility of retaining a British identity in an independent Scotland, as was foreseen in the late medieval period. This concept is not dissimilar to Scandinavia, Norway is no less Scandinavian now than it was pre independence from Sweden in 1905. It brings to mind Alex Salmond's call, during the 2014 referendum, for a social union with the rest of the UK. But could Scots, in any future independent state, still retain their sense of Britishness? The imposition of the Union of 1707 received an overwhelmingly hostile response from the Scottish public with anti-Union demonstrations being commonplace alongside riots in Glasgow and Edinburgh. This reaction begs the question how could Britain be Scottish when the majority of Scots were against this political Union and felt no identification with the label of British. P.H Scott in The Union of 1707 argues: 'England had obtained their centuries-long objective of asserting control over Scotland, not by conquest, but by intimidation and ingenious and diverse means of bribery.' The high point of the British Union and a shared British identity was in the mid 20th century with the Second World War bringing a sense of shared sacrifice and the nationalisation of key industries like the railways, coal and steel under labour. However, no one can deny these links have been taken apart one by one, ironically by the Conservative and Unionist party under Margaret Thatcher who, in selling off the UK's assets, diluted a sense of shared purpose. What shared identity is Britain left with to tie us together aside from a BBC that no one watches? There no longer remains the shared political unity of post-war support for Labour, instead Scotland and England have not voted the same way since the 1980s, with increasingly different party support and political preferences. Ultimately, we must recognise that identity changes and as Scotland and England continue to grow increasingly apart, both politically and culturally, we must consider our future. As Scotland's foremost historian Sir Tom Devine said: 'Only through sovereignty can we truly develop a truly amicable and equal relationship with our great Southern neighbour.' Isobel Scott is studying Modern History at the University of St Andrews
