Holyrood governing body defends 'unfair' trans toilet ban
Following the ruling, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issued interim guidance that banned transgender people from using the bathroom of their acquired gender.
READ MORE: John Swinney tears into 'weak man' Anas Sarwar at FMQs
The move led to MSPs and staff writing to Holyrood's governing body expressing 'deep concern' over the decision, but the policy has remained in place.
Westminster, Stormont, and the Senedd have not changed their polices and allow transgender people to use the toilets of their acquired gender.
On Thursday, Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie raised the issue during SPCB questions.
He noted that the SPCB previously said it 'remains committed to providing an inclusive environment' at Holyrood.
(Image: Scottish Parliament) Harvie pointed to letters written to officials from LGBT+ groups the Equality Network and Scottish Trans which demonstrated 'the opposite is the case' and the changes will make trans people feel 'less welcome' at the Scottish Parliament.
'I am also aware that the response to colleagues in the staff union, representing staff in the Scottish Green parliamentary group, has also not addressed the substantive points they raised.
'They say it didn't address the lack of initial consultation, specific negative impacts on trans staff members or on gender non conforming people, the violation of privacy and dignity, criticism the EqIA [Equality Impact Assessment] and other points.
READ MORE: Protesters take to Holyrood amid 'deadlocked' Ardrossan Harbour deal
'Given that the corporate body is now well aware that it has not achieved its intention of an inclusive workplace, surely it is time for the corporate body to think again and rescind this unclear and unfair interim position until a full position can be consulted on.'
Responding on behalf of the SPCB, Scottish Tory MSP Jackson Carlaw insisted the governing body had 'legal responsibilities'.
'Our job, even though we are politicians, is not to debate the politics of an issue, but to ensure that we are implementing the law as the law is communicated to us,' Carlaw told MSPs.
(Image: Scottish Parliament) 'Now having said that we recognize the interim stance to fulfill those legal responsibilities is a change. So let me acknowledge on behalf of the SPCB and Mr Harvie that for some this has proved both upsetting and a cause for anxiety and concern for their own wellbeing.
'With this in mind, managers were asked to immediately engage with their teams to discuss the interim stance, to identify any concerns about its impact and to support individuals who may be personally affected.
'This is an ongoing process, and we are committed to the wider wellbeing of our staff, which is embedded in a number of our policies and our management approach.'
Carlaw added that the Scottish Parliament was working to 'improve inclusivity' and any further policy changes would take into account the EHRC statutory code 'once it is finalised'.
READ MORE: 'Impossible to say' when MV Caledonian Isles will be fixed, says CalMac
Scottish Labour's Carol Mochan asked Carlaw to explain why the SPCB chose to introduce changes now before the EHRC's full guidance was published.
'Officials took urgent steps following its publication to review the judgment in detail and consider its implications for services and facilities at Holyrood,' he replied.
'Now this is in line with the EHRC statement that those duties under the Equality 2010 act need to comply with the law and should be urgently reviewing what changes need to be made to their existing policies and practices. It's a matter for others to determine how they address their responsibilities.'
Scottish Tory MSP Pam Gosal noted that anti-trans campaign group Sex Matters have 'warned they will come after organisations refusing to follow the ruling' and a challenge would leave 'taxpayers footing the bill'.
(Image: Scottish Parliament) 'Therefore will the Parliament commit to following and implementing the interim update issued by the EHRC on the protection of single sex spaces,' she said.
'It is the responsibility of the corporate body to implement the law and the advice that we receive. That is what the corporate body's duty is.
'I've said, of course, that it's an interim position, and that there's a consultation taking place.
'That we remain committed to inclusivity, and that that is the primary objective of the work that we are doing.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Why two justices could hand Republicans their own ‘Ginsburg moment' next year
Are conservatives headed for their own 'Ginsburg moment'? That could be the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections if Democrats have any say in the matter. With next year's congressional elections still on the horizon, the first glimpses of the political dynamics that will shape 2026 are coming into view. Even as Donald Trump and his administration remain this week consumed by an uproar among the MAGA base over the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, issues like inflation and the White House's mass deportation raids continue to retain salience quietly in the background — quietly, but not with diminished importance, as they'll likely remain the top factors driving Americans to the polls. Then, there's the Supreme Court. It remains a sore point for liberals who watched Republicans lock Barack Obama out of the discussion over a vacant seat in 2016 and then, in 2020, watched Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death just two months before a presidential election notch a second rightward shift for the court in less than a decade. Justice Clarence Thomas, 77, is the oldest member of the bench. Some conservatives have privately begun to fret that the right-leaning justice or his 75-year-old colleague, Samuel Alito (whose wife hung a symbol honoring the January 6 conspiracy after the attack) could cause another 'Ginsburg moment' by refusing to resign while Republicans control the Senate, allowing one or both seats to fall into liberal hands. Legal commentators are somewhat torn over whether either will retire this term. Mike Davis, a former Senate GOP staffer on Supreme Court nominations and current 'viceroy' of Trumpworld, wrote that Alito was 'gleefully packing up his chambers' after the 2024 election. Ed Whelan, the Antonin Scalia chair in constitutional studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, also predicted in 2025 that Alito would retire in 2025, and Thomas in 2026, according to the American Bar Association Journal (ABAJournal). Others are less certain, and a source close to Alito tried to tamp down on that speculation earlier this year. "Despite what some people may think, this is a man who has never thought about this job from a political perspective," they told the Wall Street Journal. "The idea that he's going to retire for political considerations is not consistent with who he is," the source added. David Lat, who founded his own blog reporting on gossip surrounding the Court and broader legal world, also noted to ABAJournal that both justices have hired full rosters of clerks for the upcoming two terms, the latter of which will end in 2027. Under Donald Trump's first term, three Supreme Court vacancies were filled by conservative justices. Ginsberg's refusal to retire at multiple points when multiple factors were clear, including how her health challenges were affecting her work and the likelihood that Republicans would bend the rules (or shatter them) to see her seat filled with a conservative, is still looked by many as a failure of not just the justice but those liberals around her who allowed the octogenarian's desire to stay on the job conflict with political realities. Her defenders insisted that the justice's deliberations about retiring did not factor in politics at all. Critics of the Court see the justices' shroud of apoliticism as an excuse that does not match their rhetoric or actions, either on the bench or in public. The efforts by Alito's allies to dissuade speculation echoed those same defenses and rang especially hollow for the conservative justice who has shmoozed with a conservative billionaire with cases before the court and who reportedly authored his own blueprint for the eventual overturn of Roe vs Wade as far back as 1985. Thomas, meanwhile, reportedly sparked fears among conservatives that he would resign from the Court on his own way back in 2000 as he complained about the job's pay. But there's been no such murmuring as of late. If the claims are true and both justices are set on remaining on the bench, they could put Republicans in an awkward spot. The GOP's chances of protecting their newly-acquired Senate majority remain strong but have grown noticeably weaker in the past six months. The announced retirement of Thom Tillis in North Carolina puts his purple-seat state decidedly in play. Maine's Susan Collins is up for re-election, as is John Cornyn in Texas; Cornyn faces a hyper-MAGA primary challenger whom the senator has said could give up the seat to Democrats in November of 2026 if his primary challenge is successful. Rumors also continue to swirl about the possible retirement of Joni Ernst, the senator from Iowa, and her partner in the Senate delegation from the state, Chuck Grassley, is a staggering 91 years old himself. Several factors could force the Senate back into Democratic hands next year, and if the party's discussions over countering GOP redistricting in Texas by 'going nuclear' and following suit across a range of blue states is any indication, the party's members have learned not to give Republicans an inch and could block any of Trump's SCOTUS nominations going forward. In the end, the same shaky apoliticism that the justices cling to when facing any criticism from Congress or the Executive Branch could swing back to help the left, after causing so much damage at the end of the Obama era. It would be up to Democrats in the Senate to decide whether they are truly willing to take a page from the GOP's playbook.
Scottish Sun
5 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Moaning Scot Gov civil servants in fresh quit threat over working in office just TWO DAYS a week
Scroll down to read some of the civil servants' moans SHIRKING FROM HOME Moaning Scot Gov civil servants in fresh quit threat over working in office just TWO DAYS a week Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) WHINING civil servants have threatened to quit and boasted about being able to pet their cat amid moves to cut working from home. The fresh round of moaning comes as Nats chiefs demand they return to the office for just two days a week. Sign up for the Politics newsletter Sign up 3 Workers shared their gripes in messages unearthed by Scottish Tories from the Scottish Government's internal messaging site Viva Engage. Credit: Getty 3 Some claimed that coming back in to work could hamper them having a family or getting a pet, Credit: Getty Grumbling penpushers also raised concerns about staff who had moved to England thanks to work-from-home rules. They also highlighted the benefits of being able to stand up and smell the fresh air. Just weeks ago The Scottish Sun revealed how civil servants demanded the reopening of a long-shuttered swimming pool at a government office and a pay rise over cutting their days at home. Others claimed coming back in to work would hamper them having a family or getting a pet, while others suggested their human rights may be breached. In new messages, unearthed by Scottish Tories from the Scottish Government's internal messaging site Viva Engage, officials continued griping. One bragged not being in the office allowed their 'furry little HR advisor' to 'check in on me in the morning' — attaching an image of their cat. 3 New messages reveal the whinges of civil servants Another said: 'I know some colleagues who don't actually live in Scotland any more, so are they going to still be WFH full time? 'They are not going to travel up from England a few times a week to come into the office are they?' Stephen Kerr, employment spokesman for the Scottish Tories, slammed the fresh batch of complaints. He said: 'Hardworking Scots will give short shrift to civil servants throwing their toys out the pram about having to go back to the office. 'If that is all it takes for some to say they will leave, then you question what value they were adding to workforce productivity anyway.' Woke Scottish Government staff demanded POOL & pay rise to return to office for just TWO days a week We told earlier this month how top civil servant Joe Griffin - now on a £180,000 salary - was blasted for moaning about his long working days He also joked to a colleague about being distracted from playing the video game Tetris.
The National
7 hours ago
- The National
Westminster will never feel any heat from the FM's hot air and bluff
A credible plan that adds up and includes answers to the currency question and real figures for an independent Scottish budget. Is that too much to ask? READ MORE: Mike Small: I pored over John Swinney's strategy – here's what we must do now If this three-point plan is all we are to get from the SNP and its leadership between now and May 2026 then we are, at best, looking at ten or more years of trying, and increasingly failing, to make the devolution settlement add up. Scotland free by 2033, perhaps. Council Tax will be unaffordable for many households while radical and practical solutions like Annual Ground Rent will continue to be ignored. Jobs in vital industries will continue to be lost and the wind turbines which increasingly dominate our landscapes will continue to export their electricity to our southern neighbours. READ MORE: SNP must realise Yes groups aren't rivals – they're reinforcements John needs to wake up and smell the Scottish political coffee. It has gone well off the boil in the past 10 years. SNP support is falling well behind support for independence and this latest three-point plan will do nothing to close that gap. Apparently John is ready to 'turn the heat up on Westminster'. The last time I looked, [[Westminster]] had a massive Unionist majority – it always has and always will. They will never feel any heat from John's hot air and bluff. It is clear that the SNP's message is "keep the faith and vote for us in May so that we can just keep on doing the same as we have been doing for the past ten years for another ten years at least." John Baird Largs FRIDAY'S National devoted two full pages to 'John Swinney: Why I'm launching a renewed strategy for independence'. I firstly had to wonder if John penned this article himself, or was it the product of AI and the efforts of one of the Scottish Government's small army of special advisers, then simply approved by John? It is clear that the renewed strategy is cauld political porridge reheated and served up to try and fill the empty bellies of Scotland's independence supporters who are desperately hungry, virtually starving in fact, for new initiatives with hopefully a wee sprinkling of inspiration. I had to wait until I reached the very bottom scrapings of John's porridge bowl to find his scarce-in-detail three-part plan. The final 329 words to be exact. There are more words in this letter! READ MORE: John Swinney's plan can't be the final word on independence John claims that 'first, it will be a campaign designed to build the highest levels of support possible for independence as the best future for Scotland'. This is welcome but it's nothing new. The SNP have been trying to do it for almost 100 years. The real problem for John is that SNP support is now firmly anchored well below support for independence. Some might even argue it is dragging it down. Second in John's plan is 'building public pressure around Scotland's fundamental national rights. We are ready to turn the heat up on Westminster and its anti-democratic stance, mobilising the support, energy and the impetus of people in Scotland behind the simple idea: no ifs, no buts, Scotland has the right to choose'. This is fighting talk, just talk, but with the loss of almost all of the SNP's MPs just over a year ago, Westminster is not going to listen, John. The Scottish public need to hear what is the SNP's practical road map to independence – if they even have one. The third point: 'The way to deliver independence is only with an emphatic SNP win' is simply longhand for "vote SNP on both ballot papers so that the SNP can try to manage devolution for yet another five years." Is that the best we can hope for? Brian Lawson Paisley JOHN Swinney is asking us to imagine this and imagine that. What the hell for? It's a sure sign he is out of touch with Scotland. We don't need to imagine anything he is asking for. It might be in his imagination, but not ours. Just what does he think we have been doing since 2014? We, the people of Scotland, know what we want. So it's time he got out of his SNP bubble and talked to us through a national public convention. This is the diplomatic way forward, just to remind him. Not a dictatorial set of notions of his own making. And yes, I am still an SNP member. Alan Magnus-Bennett Fife READ MORE: Pro-independence politicians respond to John Swinney's strategy I HAVE a lot of sympathy for John Swinney. I think fundamentally he's a good guy with an almost impossible job to do. There's no doubt he's improved the SNP position since he took over. He's a good manager, but as a radical independence motivating force ... err no, that's not going to happen! I know it's been tried before (with the wrong people in my view ) but I believe John should appoint Stephen Flynn as indy minister. He already has a known media profile, he seems to have a bit of fire in him and is a bit of a disruptor. I don't know if that's a realistic possibility, but we desperately need someone from the [[SNP]] to be 100% dedicated to promoting the benefits of indy and the depressing reality of the union. We need someone to be working with other indy parties as a united front, someone who will attend rallies, etc. We need action urgently – time is running out, John!! Colin T Largs
