WHEN Stan Grodynski (Letters, Dec 29) claims the Gender Recognition Reform Bill had a “democratic passage” through Holyrood, doesn’t this betray a curious notion of “democracy”, a word regularly abused by Westminster’s political disciples denying Scottish democracy and now this parliament falling into line with the same denial of it?

First and paramount, at the last Holyrood election voters were exhorted to vote SNP and Green, to validate the mandate for the Scottish Parliament to hold the referendum on Scotland’s independence. Many will have done so for independence, only to discover the referendum is not going to happen, while this gender bill which they don’t support has been given inordinate parliamentary attention.

READ MORE: When do Westminster and Holyrood return from recess?

In its desire to heed the vociferous minority lobby, this contemporary social engineering measure – which removes many of the sensible protections within the existing process – has been railroaded through. Undeniably, the status of women has been downgraded – anyone can choose to be a “woman” – and young and impressionable people may be more vulnerable as a consequence.

It’s worth noting that this parliament does not have a revising chamber. There is no means to balance the diktat of a parliament captured by a vociferous single-issue lobby, on the premise that it is a social equality issue and not a psychological medical issue – although Westminster and/or the courts may be called on to intervene.

Given how there was no real mandate for this measure – this was not what people were voting for at the last election – the significant 30% of MSPs voting against this measure, the concerns of women’s groups and the many case histories that suggest this may not be a sensible version of reform, along with no revising chamber to exercise caution, the passage of this bill can hardly be held up as a beacon of parliamentary democracy in action.

READ MORE: The nine most memorable Scottish politics moments of 2022

Of course if this social engineering needed the overwhelming support of the public it could have been a prime manifesto commitment, or subject to a plebiscite to demonstrate support. It wasn’t. And we can guess why, which speaks volumes.

Sturgeon took the indy referendum bill before the Supreme Court; so why, given the contentious nature of this issue, did she not do the same to test it against the UK equalities legislation, where there is considerable legal doubt whether it complies?

Citing 30 other countries, out of 200, who have followed a similar route is irrelevant. We don’t know what each of them has decided, nor should we care. We are struggling to establish our own independent democratic country to decide these matters for ourselves. We’re constantly being told how we are at the forefront of an issue, as it should be with this case. But we should be deciding such matters with a balanced parliamentary process, not a group of politicians seduced to a point of view by a tiny vociferous lobby claiming a psychological condition has somehow become a matter of human rights. Where would we be if every such condition was accorded the same standing? Just think about that.

Finally, we now have the Greens telling us to ban “conversion therapy”. We already have laws covering such matters. But isn’t the real question whether we want a political philosophy that shares power by the back door to impose bans on any aspect of our lives, without confirmation by prime manifesto commitment or plebiscite?

So, when the Greens’ Maggie Chapman seeks to impose yet another ban on us, is this the kind of “democracy” we can expect in an independent Scotland?

Jim Taylor
Edinburgh