Having just squandered a quarter of a million pounds on her fruitless Supreme Court independence challenge, Nicola Sturgeon’s government could be headed back to Little George Street sooner than they might have expected. If the UK government deems the hugely controversial Gender Recognition Reform Bill unlawful, a Section 35 order blocking the legislation from going to royal assent could be invoked by Scottish Secretary Alastair Jack. This would oblige Sturgeon’s government to take the matter to court.
Is this what the First Minister wants? Many have been perplexed at her stubbornness in pursuing this contentious legislation, warts and all. (She wouldn’t even countenance a few common-sense safeguarding amendments, such as not allowing sex-offenders to change sex.) Sturgeon has expended a huge amount of political capital in the process. Some are wondering if another high-profile showdown with Westminster is all part of the SNP leader’s cunning plan. If so, she may have badly miscalculated.
For whereas the Supreme Court’s decision that the Scottish parliament could not legislate for a referendum on independence was spun as evidence of Scotland’s chattel status (which may be the reason for a slight uptick in pro-independence polling), achieving the same result for this Bill will be far more difficult. Two thirds of Scots oppose the gender reform plans – and many passionately so. Last night’s debate at Holyrood was disrupted by protestors shouting ‘shame on you’ from the balconies. Proceedings were suspended while the gallery was cleared.
A blocking move would present the UK government as the grown up stepping in to deal with an unruly, immature child
Some of the fiercest criticism has come from within the separatist movement. The SNP’s ironclad internal discipline has been breached by the issue and for the first time, the party has its rebels. Enraged users of the influential pro-independence site Wings Over Scotland vowed that they were finished with the SNP because of the law which was passed last night. There is a ‘Sturgeon resign’ protest planned to take place outside Bute House on 25 January, aimed at disaffected SNP supporters.
J.K. Rowling has brought her immense profile to the cause, accusing Sturgeon of being a ‘destroyer of women’s rights’. The author has put her money where her mouth is by founding a refuge for (biologically) female victims of sexual violence. She also sent a case of champagne to a woman who heckled Sturgeon at a Zero Tolerance event in Edinburgh.
Into that heady atmosphere, a blocking move from Westminster, firmly grounded in law, with the clearly emphasized rationale being the safeguarding of women and girls would be likely to attract broad-based support. Indeed, the more free-thinking members on the independence side, such as the widely respected Joanna Cherry, and former SNP government minister Ash Regan would be hard pressed for a reason not to side with Westminster.
It would present the UK government as the grown up stepping in to deal with an unruly, immature child whose behaviour had become irrational and dangerous. And for many, this would not be just an impression, but a pretty accurate depiction of reality. The absurdity of proceedings at Holyrood in the past week was encapsulated by a jokey member of the public who claimed she was ‘a duck trapped in a woman’s body’ and quacked throughout the session.
Sheer spite, rather than mature, deeply held conviction, seems to be the reason for the rejection of the sex offender amendment. KC Roddy Dunlop tweeted that he simply could not understand how anyone could vote against it. Neither can I. Neither, I suspect, can the vast majority of Scots, of whatever political hue.
It is a measure of the extent to which this legislation has forced people to adjust their political stances that both J.K. Rowling and Wings Over Scotland editor Stu Campbell, neither of whom had previously had an iota of sympathy for the Scottish Conservatives (visceral loathing would sum up the feelings of the latter) that both have credited the Tories with being the only party which at least attempted to stop the legislation going forward. And they have both expressed contempt for the Lib Dems and Labour, whose reasons for joining the Sturgeon’s crusade (seen as a grievous error of judgement by some commentators), are very hard to fathom.
At a time when sentimental attachment to the union appears to be evaporating north of the border, its defenders should be aware that some semblance of respect could be rekindled by a robust response from Westminster. It could even force the more thoughtful on the nationalist side to think again about their readiness to discard the 300-year-old union – and consider that it may have its uses, after all. A fissure in the nationalist ranks could turn into a chasm and some of the less zealously committed may be tempted to reassess.
However, political advantage, or even the broader cause of unionism, are not the main reasons to oppose the Bill – and the government must be clear in that message. The government should stand up for the dignity and safety of women and girls across the UK without fear or favour and say so loudly and clearly. If Nicola Sturgeon tries to spin something out of that, she may find her reel is out of thread.
Comments