IT seems likely that the Draft Co-operation Agreement and Shared Policy Programme agreed between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Green Parliamentary Group will proceed with the approval of both political parties. I am all for cross-party working, as in my experience it’s the best way to achieve results. We saw this in the successful campaign that preceded the 1997 devolution referendum and we saw it also in the success of the cases taken by me and others against Boris Johnson’s unlawful prorogation of parliament.

There is much to welcome in the Co-operation Agreement and Shared Policy Programme – for example, the renewed measures to tackle climate change, including the promotion of 20-minute neighbourhoods, and the commitment to strengthening tenants’ rights and introducing rent controls. I also welcome the renewed commitment to land reform, albeit it’s a very significant loss that Andy Wightman won’t be in the parliament to make sure it happens.

I would have liked to see more in the Shared Policy Programme about the partners’ plans for independence. During the National Roadshow last week, SNP president Michael Russell confirmed that producing the new prospectus for independence and a new white paper will not be his job but that of the Scottish Government and, in particular, Angus Robertson. He also emphasised the importance of the change in SNP party policy resulting in the manifesto commitment to pass a bill to hold a second independence referendum with or without a Section 30 order.

​READ MORE: SNP-Green deal to bring in gender reform bill in 'first year' of parliament

I presume the Scottish Greens are on board with this, but it would have been good if this could have been spelled out in the agreement. I would also like to have seen the policy programme linked into the new prospectus for independence with the development of a 10-year plan encompassing what can be done before the next independence referendum, during the transitional period and thereafter. A timetable for producing a new white paper, with input from both partners in the agreement, would also have been welcome.

There are a lot of fine words about “doing politics better” in this agreement. The opening paragraphs of the agreement state: “The cornerstone of this agreement, and of delivering effective and responsible leadership over this Parliament is mutual trust and good faith.” The partners want “a country that is characterised by fairness and equality for all.”, and, where they differ, they will do so “constructively and respectfully”. There is also a commitment to “mutual respect, transparency and candour”.

The Shared Policy Programme repeats similar aspirations and reminds us: “The founding principles of our Parliament challenge us to be more collaborative in our politics…” A Citizens Assembly is promised on the issue of local government funding and we are told that the partners “believe that an increased use of deliberative engagement with the public will improve outcomes and develop more effective policies and public services. This includes citizens assemblies, citizens juries and other participatory democratic innovation. The development of a sustainable infrastructure to support effective citizens assemblies will include the consideration of the governance, remits and subjects that could be put to an assembly”.

I really hope these worthy aspirations will be put into practice. When Patrick Harvie was interviewed on Scotland Tonight earlier this week, he indicated that he regretted the “ugly and toxic atmosphere” at Holyrood in the last session and that it was “really important to deal with differences constructively, respecting those differences but also working together on the common ground”. I do hope that in future he will practice what he preaches rather than calling women with legitimate concerns about reform of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) transphobic and questioning their professional fitness as journalists/commentators/politicians etc. Sadly, he is not alone in this behaviour and we don’t have to look very far to see examples of politicians and officials from other parties attacking women for their gender critical beliefs, notwithstanding a recent appeal court decision reminding us all that such beliefs are protected in law under the Equality Act.

If we are to have respectful politics and transparent processes, then these values must apply across the board. There can be no areas carved out where anything goes and women, or indeed men, can be abused and traduced for seeking honest debate and scrutiny of policy.

READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: Transformative new partnership can signpost the way to independence

The Shared Policy Programme commits to reform of the GRA with a bill to be introduced in the parliamentary session, which starts next week. Yet in relation to this most totemic and controversial legislation, the approach of the partners to the co-operation agreement has so far failed to live up to the values they have now so clearly set out in writing.

Like many people, I support reform of the GRA to make it less traumatic for trans people to get a gender recognition certificate. This reflects the SNP manifesto commitment. What I, and many others, do not support is self-identification of sex for anyone, which would negate the importance of sex in the legal protections afforded by the Equality Act, in the criminal justice system, in medical research and in many other important areas of public policy.

We are where we are now because “reform” has come to mean self-identification. Indeed, self-identification has already been introduced by stealth in many areas of public life and anyone who questions it is branded a bigot. This is no way to do fundamental reform or change. Much of the vitriol and the shouting down of dissenting voices in the media, on social media and in our parliament is designed to prevent debate, because when light is shone on the proposals for self-identification of sex it becomes clear that there are very real risks to hard-won rights to women-only spaces, to vulnerable women in prison and to the health of women, men, and indeed trans people, if sex disaggregated data is not collected.

We are now only days away from the publication of a legislative programme that will include a bill on GRA reform, but the responses made to the consultation on GRA reform carried out between December 2019 and March 2020 have yet to be published. I understand there were more than 17,000. Last autumn an independent analysis of the responses was commissioned. It reported in May but has also yet to be published.

It’s not too late to reset the debate on this troubled issue. The consultation responses and the analysis should be published without further delay. Thereafter we need to find a way to facilitate a debate where the voices of all those affected by these reforms can be heard respectfully in line with the values espoused in the co-operation agreement.

More than two years ago, together with a trans constituent, I wrote to the Scottish Government suggesting a Citizens Assembly be convened to do that. In Ireland such assemblies dealt successfully with what were fraught debates on equal marriage and abortion rights and I believe in Scotland a Citizens Assembly could do the same for the debate on reform of the GRA. So today I am renewing my call and I hope that, as it is wholly in keeping with the values of the co-operation agreement and the shared policy programme, it will finally receive the consideration it deserves.