
EUAN McCOLM: Harsh reality has failed to penetrate Swinney's armour, but it's time he reconnected with reality over gender turmoil
Having whipped his MSPs to support the SNP Government's crackpot plan to dismantle women's rights and allow anyone to enter the single-sex spaces of their choosing, the Scottish Labour leader later came to his senses.
Interviewed on the Holyrood Sources podcast in February, Mr Sarwar said that, had he known at the time of the gender reform vote in December 2022 what he later learned, he would not have backed a change in the law.
The Labour's boss's volte face coincided with public outcry over the case of nurse Sandie Peggie, who was subjected to a disciplinary procedure by NHS Fife after she complained that she should not have to share a changing room with trans-identifying doctor, Beth Upton.
After two weeks of tribunal hearings in February, Ms Peggie's claims of discrimination and harassment against the health board and Dr Upton will resume on July 16.
Former Conservative Scottish Secretary, Alister Jack, has already saved MSPs from themselves on the issue of self-ID. In 2023, he blocked reform of the Gender Recognition Act in Scotland on the grounds that such a change in the law would negatively impact with the UK-wide Equality Act of 2010.
But First Minister John Swinney remains solidly convinced that the failed law - which would have destroyed women's sex-based rights - was wise.
Appearing last week on the Holyrood Sources podcast, Mr Swinney was asked about Mr Sarwar's U-turn. Would the First Minister have supported reform of the Gender Recognition Act in 2022 if he'd known what he does now?
Harsh reality cannot penetrate the First Minister's armour.
'Yes, I would,' said Mr Swinney.
And then he used a line favoured by weasels who reject the idea that allowing men to identify as women might bring with it come complications.
The First Minister told the podcast that he was 'trying to improve the lives of a very small number of people in our society who I think have an incredibly hard time.'
Gender activists have long focused on the relatively small number of trans-identifying individuals as if this fact makes their ideology any less dangerous.
The fact is the demands of these activists impacts everyone, particularly women.
Take women's sport, for example. The entry into a women's race or boxing tournament of a biological male disadvantages every female participant.
Likewise, every time someone born male is permitted to take a woman's place on a protected short-list or to enter a single-sex space such as a changing room or a domestic violence shelter, others pay a heavy price.
But the pernicious effect of gender ideology is felt far beyond 'flashpoints' such as arguments over single-sex spaces. In fact, it has seeped into every aspect of modern life.
Organisations across the public and private sectors have ignored their legal responsibilities in order to permit self-ID, despite the law being quite clear that, when it comes so single-sex safe spaces, biology trumps all else.
The publication, today, of a new report into the impact of gender ideology on the world of academia shows just how deeply the 'trans women are women' mantra of gender activists has penetrated universities across the country.
Professor Alice Sullivan of University College London was commissioned by the UK Government to examine the effect of gender ideology on academic freedom. Her findings make for deeply disturbing reading.
Professor Sullivan's report - 'Barriers to research on sex and gender' - was commissioned by the UK Government's Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
The academic found that the last decade has seen the emergence of a culture of hostility towards anyone who shares so-called 'gender critical' views.
Across 17 categories, including 'self-censorship' and 'bullying, harassment and ostracism', Professor Sullivan found academics had been silenced on issues of sex and gender.
John Swinney may be able to content himself that to acquiesce to the demands of trans activists is to do no more than offer assistance to a few vulnerable people, but Professor Sullivan's report shatters that idea.
In the course of her research, the academic - who previously published a report exposing the damage caused by inaccurate recording of sex by UK institutions - found that vital scientific research, including studies on the effects of medical interventions like puberty blockers, and data collection on sex - has been undermined by universities' failure to address coordinated campaigns to silence academics deemed guilty of such wrong-think as 'a woman is an adult human female.'
Professor Sullivan says her research raises 'stark concerns' and highlights cases where researchers investigating vital issues have been subjected to sustained campaigns of intimidation simply for acknowledging the biological and social importance of sex.
Among the many academics interviewed by Professor Sullivan was Sarah Pedersen, Professor of Communication and Media at Robert Gordon University, who was targeted by activists after expressing the perfect rational view that biological sex is real.
Professor Pedersen says the 'cancellation' of high-profile gender-critical academics has damaged the entire higher education sector.
'My personal experiences of disruption, no-platforming and personal attacks,' she adds, 'have impacted not just my academic career but also my work for third-sector organisations, who were warned away from working with me, meaning they could no longer benefit from my expertise.'
Professor Sullivan has made a list of 20 recommendations to the UK Government and to academic institution which she hopes will defend research and protect individual academics from both professional and personal attacks.
These include such simple steps as agreeing to prioritise the search from truth over adherence to political agendas and enabling 'genuine' academic debate.
The Scottish Government should pay attention.
In a fortnight, Sandie Peggie's tribunal will recommence in Dundee. The devastating impact of gender ideology on the lives of ordinary people will, once again, dominate the news agenda.
John Swinney is a fool if he thinks voters still buy the line that reforming gender laws will impact a tiny proportion of the population. Ms Peggie's case shows clearly the harms done to women by the removal of long-established boundaries.
In workplaces across the country, the demands of trans activists have made the lives of women miserable.
Those same campaigners have been allowed to destroy the careers of dedicated academic and wreck important research, all in the name of making life easier for 'a very small number of people.'
It's time for John Swinney to reconnect with reality and stop pandering to activists whose demands do nothing but harm.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Wimbledon umpire takes action after player complains of ‘dangerous' spectator
Security at Wimbledon is 'absolutely critical', the tournament's operations director has said, after a player raised concerns about a spectator during the championship's first day. During her match on Monday, the world No 33, Yulia Putintseva, raised security concerns to the umpire about a spectator whom she described as 'crazy' and 'dangerous' and asked for them to be ejected. 'Take him out, because maybe he has a knife and he will attack after, I don't know,' Putintseva said to the umpire during her match against Amanda Anisimova. Wimbledon's operations director, Michelle Dite, said on Tuesday that if players had any concerns, they 'absolutely' should be brought to light. 'We would rather know about these things, and that is what happened yesterday, and the chair umpire then had some really good communication as planned,' said Dite, adding that it was not a stalking incident. A person present at the match told the Athletic that the spectator at issue had been speaking in Russian about the war in Ukraine. Putintseva, who was born in Russia, changed to represent Kazakhstan in 2012. A Wimbledon spokesperson declined to say if the spectator was ejected. 'Security was in the area. The issue was dealt with,' he said. The incident is the latest surrounding security measures after a man who was given a restraining order in Dubai in February for stalking Emma Raducanu was blocked from buying tickets for the championships this month in the public ballot. Dite said: 'Protocols were followed. The matter was dealt with.' On Tuesday morning, more than 10,000 spectators queued outside the grounds with fans and umbrellas to watch British players including Jack Draper, a top contender for the men's singles championship. On Monday, more than 13,000 people entered the grounds after queueing in the heat, some overnight, as opening-day attendance jumped to 42,756 from 40,514 last year. Protesters on the ground's outskirts called for a boycott of Wimbledon's banking partner, Barclays, over ties to Israel's war on Gaza. Temperatures on Tuesday reached 34.2C (93.6F) by early afternoon, as spectators frequently sought shade and were encouraged to hydrate after a woman collapsed while watching a match on Monday. Dite, discussing the incident on Monday during which Carlos Alcaraz interrupted play to hand a struggling spectator a bottle of water, thanked the returning Wimbledon champion for his support and acknowledged there had been a delay in the medical response. 'Yes, it did take a while, but this lady had fainted, so it needed to be managed very carefully. I know there was a bit of delay but we all work very hard,' said Dite. 'It takes a while sometimes to just assess the situation,' she added. 'And thanks to Carlos for his support for going to get some water.' Daniel Evans was the first British player to go through to the second round of Wimbledon on Tuesday after defeating Jay Clarke in an all-British clash. Draper eased into the second round after his opponent Sebastian Baez retired injured, while wildcard Jack Pinnington Jones completed a straight-sets victory over Tomás Etcheverry. Six Britons – Clarke, Heather Watson, Johannus Monday, Jodie Burrage, George Loffhagen and Francesca Jones – suffered first-round exits.


Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
Nigel Farage's Reform charging potential MSPs £200 to stand for party in 2026 election
Reform UK is charging Holyrood hopefuls who want to stand in next year's election - partly to fund their own vetting checks. Nigel Farage is charging Holyrood hopefuls £200 to apply to stand for his party - with some of the money funding their own vetting checks. Reform UK is asking members who want to put themselves forward for the next Scottish Parliamentary elections to pay to apply and for training. The party leader previously said Reform was sabotaged by a professional vetting firm in the general election run-up and threatened to sue. He claimed the company had been handed £144,000 to probe potential candidates and had produced nothing. A raft of negative stories later appeared about candidates, including those who made racist online posts. Despite promising to "rigorously" vet future candidates, more extremist social media posts have emerged from some of the party's 677 new councillors elected in the English local elections. Experts have said the party needs to tackle vetting and put forward serious candidates. In a recruitment email to members, Reform's head of campaigns said running for Holyrood was a "once in a lifetime opportunity" and they wanted "the best of Scotland to come forward". Those interested must "complete a short application form and pay a £50 fee to cover vetting and admin costs", and if successful they're charged £150 attendance fee for a "one-day, in-person Parliamentary Assessment Centre". It said it would "consider hardship waivers in some cases". None of Scotland's main political parties charge candidates to apply to stand. For Westminster elections, Lib Dems charge £75 for selection and assessment while the UK Tory party has previously charged £250 for an assessment centre day and £115 for "due diligence". The Scottish Tories charge a fee for attending an assessment centre day to "cover tea and coffee", according to a party source. Tom Brake, of campaign group Unlock Democracy said: "Politicians should be as representative of the population as possible. "Charging prospective candidates a fee to cover the cost of their vetting and assessment will act as a significant barrier for some, and risk reducing the talent pool of potential MSPs." Reform's application process asks candidates for details of all their social media accounts and usernames and if they have ever been members of online forums or newspaper comment sections. It also asks if they have been a "member of a proscribed organisation" such as "the BNP or Britain First" and if they have criminal convictions. After filling out the online form, prospective candidates must pay a £50 non-refundable fee to submit applications. Reform has previously come under criticism due to the way the party is structured. Unlike other major political parties, Nigel Farage registered Reform as a business in 2018 with himself, deputy Richard Tice and Zia Yusuf listed as shareholders. After complaints from members, party chiefs relinquished their shares in February, renaming the company Reform 2025 Ltd. Its overall owner is Reform UK Party Ltd, which has no controlling person, according to Companies House. Its directors are still Farage and Tice. Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. A Reform UK spokesman insisted it was normal for political parties to charge candidates and said: "All political parties charge for their parliamentary lists, we are just more honest. "If no party does it in Scotland that is just a sign that they don't treat the Scottish Parliament as seriously as they treat Westminster. The £50 covers vetting - something the other parties don't do. "The £150 is for a full day event assessment centre so we can ensure only the highest quality candidates are put forward, showing how seriously we take the Scottish parliament. "As a party we also offer hardship waivers so that anyone can apply and we are fair to all of our members regardless of their personal financial situations." "Reform are looking for those who can dig into their wallets and hand over a wad of cash."


Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
John Swinney urged not to drop Scotland's ban on cash for weapons in face of Russia threat
The First Minister said he could 'reconsider' the SNP's longstanding policy against directly funding munitions amid the threat from Putin. John Swinney is under pressure not to drop the Scottish Government ban on sending public cash to weapons manufacturing projects. The First Minister last week revealed he could "reconsider" the longstanding policy due to the threat from Russia. It follows an internal review by its business quango, Scottish Enterprise, into its funding of arms companies. Scottish taxpayers have shelled out £8million in grants since 2019 to arms dealers like Leonardo, Raytheon and BAE Systems. The money is not currently allowed to go towards the direct manufacture of munitions, but critics describe the current system of human rights checks as "inadequate". The Scottish Greens and Amnesty International say cash has been awarded to firms involved in manufacture of F-35s and other military tech in Gaza. Greens MSP Patrick Harvie said: 'Scottish tax payers' money should never go towards companies arming regimes that commit war crimes. "In recent years the UK has armed Israel as it engaged in genocide, Saudi Arabia as it pursued a brutal war in Yemen, and Hong Kong and Egypt as they attacked pro-democracy protests. 'The SNP generally falls back on the 'no manufacture of munitions' line to defend the fact that they still fund companies complicit in such crimes. 'Far from retreating from their policy, they should strengthen it by applying human rights checks that actually mean something, instead of the rubber stamp currently applied." He added: 'There are hundreds of projects across the country that provide jobs and positive, productive outcomes for Scotland that would welcome financial support from the government. "There's simply no need to give it to arms dealers and war profiteers.' Swinney had previously said the government's stance against directly funding munitions would remain, with his Cabinet minister Mairi Gougeon previously saying it was based on the party's "principles". But speaking to the Holyrood Sources podcast last week, the SNP chief said: "I'm conscious we are living in a very different context today. The Russian threat is very real. We have to consider these questions." Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. Deputy first minister Kate Forbes revealed this week a tighter regime of human rights checks for Scottish Enterprise funding of arms firms following a review, but opponents said it would effectively allow the status quo to continue. Neil Cowan, Scotland director at Amnesty International, said: 'The Scottish public must be assured that this review has not simply swept the issues under the carpet.'