MY old friend the late Councillor Jim Mitchell would have enjoyed the political headlines of the past few days. Jim was an SNP councillor when they were very few in number. He represented Paisley from May 1977 until his untimely death in January 2011. He was, for a time, a vice chairman of the SNP. He was not a great fan of devolution. I can almost hear him now. “It’s a pocket-money parliament,” he said on many occasions.
The intervention of the UK Government would have come as no surprise to Jim. He would have read the Scotland Act and would have more than happy to point to the terms of Section 35 to anyone who would listen.
READ MORE: Scottish gender reform campaigners 'betrayed' by UK bill block
When push comes to shove, power devolved is power retained. A parliament which relies almost entirely on financial handouts from the so-called mother of parliaments can expect challenge when its views appear to contradict those of its financial backer. The fact it has taken over 20 years to do so is telling.
The gender recognition legislation will now find its way to the courts, where well-paid lawyers will argue over its ramifications. It is just a pity that the legislation in question is not universally popular with the voters of Scotland. It is probably not the ideal subject to use to test the terms of the Scotland Act.
If it does nothing else, the coming legal battle will serve to highlight the limits of the Scottish Parliament. Jim would have liked that.
Brian Lawson
Paisley
WHILE television reporters and many across the UK mainstream media seem content to go along with the questionable UK Government line that uniquely invoking a Section 35 order is necessary to avoid legislative conflict over gender recognition within the UK, others question why the UK Government has been so slow to introduce the necessary reform of its own gender recognition legislation.
What those criticising the First Minister and the Scottish Government seem to wish to conveniently ignore is that if the UK Government had followed the recommendations of its own Tory-led Women and Equalities Committee on this issue then it would have already introduced its own gender reform legislation essentially compatible with the bill passed by the Scottish Parliament.
Those who claim this is not an attempt by the UK Government to politically exploit the current predicament of a disadvantaged minority of the population should also question why it is apparently acceptable for those benefitting from similar reforms in other countries to conduct their lives in accordance with their “new identity” in England but those who would be coming from Scotland would need to be considered differently.
What is evident is that a Tory UK Government will do everything within its power to emasculate the Scottish Parliament and even in a devolved matter will attempt to block a bill overwhelmingly supported by Scottish Labour and the Liberal Democrats, as well as by the SNP and the Greens.
Not only is Scottish parliamentary democracy being denied but devolved government from Holyrood, introduced with the backing of the vast majority of the voting Scottish electorate, is day-by-day effectively being neutered by an authoritarian right-wing government in Westminster. With more of our individual rights set to be extinguished in further doubling-down on the Brexit catastrophe, it is imperative that those who to date have sat on the constitutional sidelines now speak out and demonstrate to “De Facto Governor” Alister Jack that not only is there a strong “desire” in Scotland for our country to be in the European Union, there is an undeniable right of the people of Scotland to determine their own destiny.
Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian
UNDER the Scotland Act 1998, one of the requirements essential for a Section 35 order like the one now made by Secretary of State Jack is that the bill objected to must “make modifications of the law as it applies to reserved matters”. According to his official statement of reasons, the single reserved matter in this case is “equal opportunities”, which is defined in law as “the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination ... on grounds of sex ... sexual orientation ... or of other personal attributes” – in other words, the decrease of discrimination.
READ MORE: BBC Scotland journalist stunned by Paul Sweeney 'Viceroy Jack' jibe
If that was all there was to it, it would mean that Holyrood was unable to pass legislation to decrease discrimination. But the Act gives an exception to that reserved matter, namely “the encouragement ... of equal opportunities”, so if a Holyrood bill encourages the decrease of discrimination it does not encroach on a reserved matter.
Insofar as the Holyrood bill has to do with equal opportunities at all (itself a matter of dispute), it is surely to decrease discrimination, and so comes within that exception. If so, Mr Jack’s Section 35 order is a nullity.
Alan Crocket
Motherwell
WESTMINSTER has decided to overrule the Scottish Parliament and apply a Section 35 to the Gender Recognition Reform Bill as “it doesn’t sit with the British Equality Act”. Rubbish!
I have no particular thoughts on the GRR Bill, but it was passed by a majority of MSPs of all parties, no doubt after careful consideration by them. If this doesn’t make the SNP do something positive, then nothing will.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon says row over gender bill will 'inevitably end up in court'
For a start they must immediately withdraw all their MPs from Westminster to indicate their disapproval of this move and bring this slight on what purports to be Scotland’s democracy to the attention of the world. They should only return, if at all, once Scotland has voted in another referendum on independence.
Paul Gillon
Leven
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel