January 9, 2023 - 10:00am
How on earth did we get here? A quarter of a century ago, when politicians were debating how devolution would work in Scotland, they envisaged disagreements about tax or national security. No one foresaw that a Scottish government would one day insist that men can become women at will — and pass a law allowing them to do so.
But that, incredible as it seems, is where we are now. It’s why we are hearing so much about the UK government giving consideration to issuing an order under Section 35 of the 1998 Scotland Act, a piece of legislation most people had barely heard of until last month. The Scottish Secretary, Alister Jack, moved fast in December, raising the prospect as soon as Holyrood passed the Gender Recognition Reform bill. An order would prevent the bill receiving royal assent, something many women in Scotland would welcome.
It’s also the nuclear option, signalling a monumental struggle in the courts, and a constitutional crisis. Cynical observers wonder if that’s what the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, really wants, believing it would revive support for her flagging party. It’s certainly an odd hill to die on, given that we now know how few people identify as trans men or women. Last week, ONS data revealed that the figure in England and Wales is 0.2%, just under 100,000 individuals, and Scotland is a much smaller country.
Ministers have the power to block Scottish laws if they would have an adverse effect on the operation UK-wide legislation, in this instance the 2010 Equality Act. There is a legal argument to this effect because an Edinburgh court ruled last month that ‘sex’ in the Act doesn’t refer only to biological sex, creating confusion about the status elsewhere in the UK of someone holding a Scottish gender recognition certificate.
The GRR bill removes virtually all safeguards in Scotland, allowing a man to be legally recognised as a woman without the need for a medical diagnosis of dysphoria. Even convicted sex offenders will be able to apply, a provision so extreme that it lends support to the idea that Sturgeon wants a battle with the UK government.
If ministers issue a Section 35 order, the SNP-Green coalition would no doubt scream blue murder about Westminster frustrating the will of the Scottish people. That isn’t the case — a recent opinion poll showed that the main changes in the bill are opposed by two-thirds of the population — but it’s how the fight would be framed. Even so, UK ministers may think it’s a risk worth taking, given that this is one issue where they are closer to public opinion than any of the other parties.
Labour is streets ahead in the polls but the Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer, has infuriated many party members with vague talk about ‘modernising’ the process of getting a GRC. If the UK government blocks the Scottish legislation, he will have to say where he stands, including whether he supports the introduction of self-ID in the rest of the country.
Other options, floated in national newspapers, include sending the Scottish legislation to judicial review or declaring that a Scottish GRC won’t be recognised outside Scotland. That would limit the damage, but it won’t help Scottish women who are furious about having their rights taken away.
The UK government has less than two weeks to make up its mind, but it’s worth remembering how we arrived at this unprecedented situation. Indulging the delusions of gender extremists, under the rubric of ‘being kind’, has brought this country to the brink of a constitutional crisis.
Joan Smith is a novelist and columnist. She was previously Chair of the Mayor of London’s Violence Against Women and Girls Board, and is on the advisory group for Sex Matters. Her book Unfortunately, She Was A Nymphomaniac: A New History of Rome’s Imperial Women was published in November 2024.
polblonde
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIf one thing shines through from the antics of the media and politicians around the world over the past 18 months is that the old traditional left-right view of the world or rather govern it, is that it is no longer relevant. I have read so many blogs from left to right. I find myself agreeing with those on the right who, 2 years ago, I would have shouted at on Question Time! Likewise I am ashamed by the beliefs or rather mandatory imposition of THEIR beliefs from those on the left I used to agree with.
So here we are with certain people from the traditional right and certain people from the traditional left stating the same thing. It seems like we are splitting into two viewpoints:
A. Those who favour centralised mechanisms of control. Whether that is the global capitalist or the socialist state controlled organisations. They both behave the same, they both require the same control, they both demand a compliant and obedient population. The people behind this belief have an arrogance born out of their education or birth right. Democracy is a token gesture you simple “appoint” a figurehead to keep the Oligarch juggernaut rolling on.
B. Those who favour a de-centralised system. Yes I really do mean small businesses, the farmers market approach. Democracy needs to be totally overhauled and made much smaller. we cannot allow it to grow so big it is no longer relevant to those it is intended to serve. No more money in politics. No more careers in politics, you serve ONE term.
We know how “A” looks once completed its in book available on Amazon written by Klaus Schwab. How “B” would look I don’t yet know. I suspect this will need some serious brainstorming to sort out. The problem is “B” is running out of time………
I want B please not much liking A which seems to be rapidly taking control.
To be honest I think the left-leaning media will latch onto anything that indicates that their time has come again and milk it for all it’s worth, regardless of the true reasons. The state of denial that they’ve been in, believing that their traditional voters are running away because they’re dumb and will return to the fold once they realise their own stupidity in voting for other parties, is ongoing. Neither Labour, nor the SPD, nor the SPÖ (which is the SPD’S equivalent here in Austria) are producing any really good or consistent policy ideas; there’s no initiative and no vision: just mud-slinging and waiting for others (who are probably also pretty rubbish) to fail so they win by default and put it down to their own moral superiority. See Exhibit A: Angela Rayner.
I see the result of the German election as a collective shrug on the part of the electorate who are concerned about a range of issues in Germany but are anxious about the future and just want a comfort-blanket Kanzler who is as much like Merkel as possible. Scholz (sort of) fits that bill. And he only won on that front because Laschet and Baerbock were so toe-curlingly bad.
I upvote this article for ‘saved their speck‘ alone.
Spot on. Some months ago a german news magazine (I believe it was Der Spiegel) asked the question “What is Olaf Scholz´ secret”?. The answer was blindingly obvious: the other two candidates. The Greens have become victims of their own reverse sexism by putting up Annalena Baerbock as their candidate instead of the vastly more experienced and very popular Robert Habeck. The CDU paid the price for prioritising party politics over electoral success by choosing Armin Laschet over Markus Söder from the CSU. Serves them right.