Is Humza Yousaf set to repeat his predecessor’s mistakes? He’s certainly not doing much to avert fears: today, his government has confirmed that it will be launching a legal challenge against the UK government’s section 35 order that blocked the bill. Shirley-Anne Somerville, the Cabinet secretary for social justice, wrote in response to a parliamentary question:
The use of section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 to stop the legislation proceeding to Royal Assent is an unprecedented challenge to the Scottish parliament’s ability to legislate on clearly devolved matters. To uphold the democratic decision of the parliament, and ensure proper protection of devolution, Scottish Ministers will now lodge a petition for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision. The Scottish government does not consider the reasons set out by him provide sufficient justification for his decision to make an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act. The Scottish government also believes that the UK government has not used the power in line with the Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Devolved Governments, or as envisaged when the Scotland Act was passed.’
Yousaf’s leadership race promise that he would pursue a ‘progressive agenda’ if elected First Minister was not, it turns out, an empty threat. While his move will no doubt go down well with the Scottish Greens, Yousaf’s plan to take the UK government to court over its blocking of the gender bill has proven, er, controversial with some of his current and former colleagues.
Alex Neil, a strong critic of the FM warned Yousaf that he doesn’t ‘have a cat in hell’s chance of winning at the British Supreme Court’. Kate Forbes has already expressed her clear discomfort with the legislation, noncommittally saying during the leadership race that she would better scrutinise what amendments need be made.
Ash Regan, from the Salmondite wing of the party, didn’t even try to entertain whether the bill should remain – unsurprising given she shook up Scottish parliament in October last year by resigning over it. And while Yousaf harks on about ‘the principle’ of the section 35 order being an ‘undemocratic veto’, he ought to remember that almost half of his own party’s voting membership supported socially conservative policies – never mind the two-thirds of Scottish voters who oppose the legislation.
So much for democracy, eh?
Comments