THE UK Government’s decision to block the Gender Recognition Reform Bill was unprecedented. It was a dark day for devolution, democracy, and the rights of trans people in Scotland.

The reality is that this is one of the most scrutinised bills in the history of our Parliament. It passed following years of debate, including two consultations and a full committee scrutiny process.

The three days of parliamentary debate saw MSPs sitting well into the night. In the end, it was backed by a two-thirds majority, including MSPs from every party. It was even supported by the Tory justice and health spokespeople.

Despite all of the heated rhetoric, and the often very toxic nature of the debate, the bill itself is very simple. It is a small but important step to improve the process for legally recognising a trans person’s gender.

Currently, those who wish to apply for a gender recognition certificate must spend large amounts of time on a difficult, bureaucratic, and unfair process if they want to have their gender legally recognised.

That is why one trans activist, Ellie Gomersall, has said that sometimes the hardest part of being trans is the admin.

The point of gender recognition reform is to simplify this and remove some of the difficulty and trauma from the process. It’s not a new or particularly radical policy and is already the norm in many countries across Europe and beyond.

READ MORE: 'Absolute disgrace': Alister Jack snubs Holyrood committee invite

The use of the Section 35 order has been described as the “nuclear option” – and it’s clear why. It is the first time that it has been used since the founding of Holyrood.

We should call it what it is – a cynical and disgraceful attack on one of the most marginalised groups in our society. It is part of a crude “culture war” that treats the rights of trans people as a political football so that Downing Street can distract from its many failings.

That became particularly evident during Alister Jack’s parliamentary statement in which he attempted to justify his decision. He was barely able to answer even the most basic questions about the legislation.

But if Jack’s performance was pathetic, the response from Labour’s Ian Murray was not much better. He tried to equivocate and blame “both sides” for the impasse, treating it as a party-political skirmish rather than a fundamental question of where power lies.

Despite the passive response from the Westminster Labour Party, we should recognise that the vast majority of Labour MSPs rightly voted for this bill, including their Scottish leader, Anas Sarwar.

They did so because they agreed that it was the right thing to do and because they knew it was within the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

For Ian Murray and his UK Labour colleagues to overrule them shows a disregard for their Scottish colleagues.

Challenging this bill may have been a political calculation, but it is a counterproductive one. Where does it end?

If the UK Government is successful then we can be sure it won’t be the last time that they use this power to curb our Parliament and the choices that elected MSPs make.

Now that the seal has been broken, the Tories will want to use this process again, whether against another progressive bill or another vulnerable group.

It is a pattern we have seen from an increasingly authoritarian Tory government that wants to shut down opposition and scrutiny at every turn. In the same week as they have tried to blunt the powers of the Scottish Parliament, they have also continued their campaign of disinformation against public sector workers.

On the same day as the Section 35 was announced, the Tories also brought in some of the most repressive anti-trade union laws in Europe.

As a Scottish Government minister, I have come to see the many ways in which Downing Street already obstructs our ability to do even basic things.

READ MORE: Richard Murphy: The SNP may regret lending UK its support on freeports

After Brexit, the UK Government introduced the Internal Market Bill – a blatant power grab that gives Westminster a veto and powers to obstruct a huge range of Scottish Parliament legislation. Holyrood can still pass devolved laws on matters such as animal welfare, food standards or the environment.

But if the UK Government was to introduce different rules, this bill would allow them to encroach on the autonomy of Scotland and other devolved parliaments.

This would apply even if the new standards being introduced are lower or less robust.

The use of the Section 35 order comes from a similar anti-democratic position. That is why the First Minister has announced that the Scottish Government will resist Westminster’s veto over gender recognition reform.

It should never have had to come to this, but if it ends up in a legal process, then its conclusion will be pivotal to the future of devolution.

The precedent that has been set should not only concern independence supporters. It should concern everyone who believes in devolution, democracy and our Scottish Parliament.