The reforms are good but if we don’t have the right to do it then we should be trying to persuade the rest of the country, not just throwing money away on a case we clearly cannot win just to prove our virtue.
I don’t have any secret knowledge about what’s going on with the appeal, and I don’t see anything that follows through on the headline in the article.
Here’s the text:
>The Scottish Government is expected to abandon its legal action over the UK Government’s veto of Holyrood’s gender reform legislation.
>Ministers have until December 29 to appeal the Court of Session’s ruling that Scottish Secretary Alister Jack’s use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act had been lawful.
>However, the Scottish Government is set to update MSPs tomorrow, before Holyrood breaks for the Christmas recess.
>It is understood ministers believe there would be merit in an appeal to define the operation of the Section 35 power for the future.
>However, Lady Haldane’s judgment against the Scottish Government earlier this month was so emphatic that the prospect of a successful appeal is too remote to continue this particular case.
>MSPs passed the Gender Recognition Reform Bill (GRR) in December last year by 86 votes to 39 on a cross-party basis.
>The legislation was supposed to speed up and simplify the process for a trans person to obtain a gender recognition certificate and change their legal sex.
>Under the current system, this takes at least two years, involves a medical diagnosis and is only available at 18.
>Holyrood’s Bill would have cut the waiting time to six months, scrapped the need for medical diagnosis and lowered the age threshold to 16.
>However, before it could become law, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack blocked it by using the first-ever order under Section 35 of the 1998 Scotland Act.
>He argued that although the subject matter was within Holyrood’s powers, the Bill would have an adverse effect on the operation of UK-wide equality law.
>Running for the SNP leadership in the spring, Humza Yousaf said he would challenge the veto as a matter of principle if he won and later launched a judicial review.
>His top law officer, the Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC, argued at the Court of Session in September that Mr Jack’s decision had been unlawful, irrational and motivated by a “policy disagreement” with Edinburgh rather than legal concerns.
>In her ruling, delivered earlier this month, Lady Haldane rejected the Scottish Government’s arguments and said there was nothing to lead her to conclude that Mr Jack had acted unreasonably or unlawfully.
>She also said Section 35 was an “intrinsic part” of devolution, not a perversion of it.
>Mr Yousaf disagreed, calling it a “dark day for devolution.”
>”The Court has confirmed that legislation passed by a majority in Holyrood can be struck down by Westminster. The only way to guarantee we get true self-government is through independence,” he tweeted.
>Earlier this month, Mr Jack said he was “minded to seek cost from the Scottish Government” for the UK Government’s legal bills.
>He told the Commons’ Scottish Affairs Committee: “My understanding, and I don’t have the precise figures, is that the Scottish government has spent £230,000. We have spent circa £150,000 on our legal advice.
>”If this was to go to the Inner Court of Session, you could easily double that up. And if it was to then go to the Supreme Court, you could double that again. So it’s a sort of exponential increase.
>”You could easily end up at the thick end of £2 million.”
>He defended his use of the Section 35 order, telling the committee that it was the first in the history of devolution where UK Government law officers had judged Scottish Parliament legislation would have “adverse” effects on reserved legislation.
>*More to follow…*
Sensible given the absolute drubbing they got from Haldane. Greens comprising on their “red line” when?
Regardless of your moral position on the matter, they cannot win an appeal so let’s not waste public money due to a scorched ego.
I do love how Westminster can now legally just say “no you dont” to pretty much anything that the Scot Gov votes for.
Just some vague assertion of “adverse effect” on the UK is enough to justify the overruling the will of a democratic nation.
No making things better for yourself, it might make Westminster look bad, thats what “adverse effects” will come to.
Vote NO to lead the uk, not leave it, they said
finally some common sense
The ruling didn’t leave much room for an appeal to have much chance if success
Whatever your thoughts on the matter, I can see why they don’t want to spend money on something that has a tiny chance of success
I’m annoyed but understand. Trans people have been treated shamefully by Westminster as they have used them to attack the SNP.
There will be another S35 use. Better to look to future – and fight this battle then and take the spotlight away from Trans people.
Can they not waste anymore money on this, and maybe put the money into improving health (mental and physical) services for transgender people? I remember working in the health policy area a few years ago (and ended up working on this specifically) and time and time again it was the mental health services that kept coming up as lacking when speaking to stakeholders.
i have my own opinions on this (am pretty liberal) and am an SNP supporter but i’ll be glad to see this issue put away for a few years because this is consistently shown in polls to be near the bottom of the long list of voter priorities. Being seen to focus so much energy on an issue that is v low on voter priority polls isn’t helping the snp. SNP need to focus on their 2 main voter attractions – indy and being the left leaning party that Labour clearly are not.
12 comments
The reforms are good but if we don’t have the right to do it then we should be trying to persuade the rest of the country, not just throwing money away on a case we clearly cannot win just to prove our virtue.
I don’t have any secret knowledge about what’s going on with the appeal, and I don’t see anything that follows through on the headline in the article.
Here’s the text:
>The Scottish Government is expected to abandon its legal action over the UK Government’s veto of Holyrood’s gender reform legislation.
>Ministers have until December 29 to appeal the Court of Session’s ruling that Scottish Secretary Alister Jack’s use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act had been lawful.
>However, the Scottish Government is set to update MSPs tomorrow, before Holyrood breaks for the Christmas recess.
>It is understood ministers believe there would be merit in an appeal to define the operation of the Section 35 power for the future.
>However, Lady Haldane’s judgment against the Scottish Government earlier this month was so emphatic that the prospect of a successful appeal is too remote to continue this particular case.
>MSPs passed the Gender Recognition Reform Bill (GRR) in December last year by 86 votes to 39 on a cross-party basis.
>The legislation was supposed to speed up and simplify the process for a trans person to obtain a gender recognition certificate and change their legal sex.
>Under the current system, this takes at least two years, involves a medical diagnosis and is only available at 18.
>Holyrood’s Bill would have cut the waiting time to six months, scrapped the need for medical diagnosis and lowered the age threshold to 16.
>However, before it could become law, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack blocked it by using the first-ever order under Section 35 of the 1998 Scotland Act.
>He argued that although the subject matter was within Holyrood’s powers, the Bill would have an adverse effect on the operation of UK-wide equality law.
>Running for the SNP leadership in the spring, Humza Yousaf said he would challenge the veto as a matter of principle if he won and later launched a judicial review.
>His top law officer, the Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC, argued at the Court of Session in September that Mr Jack’s decision had been unlawful, irrational and motivated by a “policy disagreement” with Edinburgh rather than legal concerns.
>In her ruling, delivered earlier this month, Lady Haldane rejected the Scottish Government’s arguments and said there was nothing to lead her to conclude that Mr Jack had acted unreasonably or unlawfully.
>She also said Section 35 was an “intrinsic part” of devolution, not a perversion of it.
>Mr Yousaf disagreed, calling it a “dark day for devolution.”
>”The Court has confirmed that legislation passed by a majority in Holyrood can be struck down by Westminster. The only way to guarantee we get true self-government is through independence,” he tweeted.
>Earlier this month, Mr Jack said he was “minded to seek cost from the Scottish Government” for the UK Government’s legal bills.
>He told the Commons’ Scottish Affairs Committee: “My understanding, and I don’t have the precise figures, is that the Scottish government has spent £230,000. We have spent circa £150,000 on our legal advice.
>”If this was to go to the Inner Court of Session, you could easily double that up. And if it was to then go to the Supreme Court, you could double that again. So it’s a sort of exponential increase.
>”You could easily end up at the thick end of £2 million.”
>He defended his use of the Section 35 order, telling the committee that it was the first in the history of devolution where UK Government law officers had judged Scottish Parliament legislation would have “adverse” effects on reserved legislation.
>*More to follow…*
Sensible given the absolute drubbing they got from Haldane. Greens comprising on their “red line” when?
Regardless of your moral position on the matter, they cannot win an appeal so let’s not waste public money due to a scorched ego.
I do love how Westminster can now legally just say “no you dont” to pretty much anything that the Scot Gov votes for.
Just some vague assertion of “adverse effect” on the UK is enough to justify the overruling the will of a democratic nation.
No making things better for yourself, it might make Westminster look bad, thats what “adverse effects” will come to.
Vote NO to lead the uk, not leave it, they said
finally some common sense
The ruling didn’t leave much room for an appeal to have much chance if success
Whatever your thoughts on the matter, I can see why they don’t want to spend money on something that has a tiny chance of success
I’m annoyed but understand. Trans people have been treated shamefully by Westminster as they have used them to attack the SNP.
There will be another S35 use. Better to look to future – and fight this battle then and take the spotlight away from Trans people.
Can they not waste anymore money on this, and maybe put the money into improving health (mental and physical) services for transgender people? I remember working in the health policy area a few years ago (and ended up working on this specifically) and time and time again it was the mental health services that kept coming up as lacking when speaking to stakeholders.
i have my own opinions on this (am pretty liberal) and am an SNP supporter but i’ll be glad to see this issue put away for a few years because this is consistently shown in polls to be near the bottom of the long list of voter priorities. Being seen to focus so much energy on an issue that is v low on voter priority polls isn’t helping the snp. SNP need to focus on their 2 main voter attractions – indy and being the left leaning party that Labour clearly are not.
🙁