Why did the Scottish Administration pursue Gender Self-ID rather than Scottish Self-Determination?
Published in The National, April 17th, 2025.
Today the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) unanimously ruled that the definition of a woman under the Equality Act 2010 does NOT include biological men who hold Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs). The case was initiated by the campaign group For Women Scotland when the Scottish Administration allowed transgender women (biological men) to sit on public boards in places reserved for women.
Lord Hodge, the deputy president of the UKSC, summarised the ruling:
“Interpreting sex as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of man and woman in the Equality Act and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way. It would create heterogeneous groupings. As a matter of ordinary language, the provisions relating to sex discrimination, and especially those relating to pregnancy and maternity and to protection from risks specifically affecting women, can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex.”
He said all transgender people had clear legal protections under the Equality Act 2010 against discrimination and harassment. A November 2024 House of Commons Library report said:
The Equality Act 2010 prohibits direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation on the basis of ‘protected characteristics’. There are nine protected characteristics, including gender reassignment and sex.
A 2021 poll found that although a majority of Scots were supportive of transgender people's right to express their identity, they opposed removing the requirement for a doctor’s approval for a person to legally change their sex, a feature of the failed Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) bill. The bill also shortened the time a person had to live in their new gender from 2 years to 3 months, and lowered the minimum age for applying for a GRC from 18 to 16.
Why did the Scottish SNP Administration find itself into a situation where it had to be slapped down by the colonial UKSC over an issue that has nothing to do with Scotland’s liberation from the British state?
For years the Scottish Administration and Parliament pursued Gender Self ID when most Scots wanted them to address real problems such as the crippling cost of energy, the threatened closure of Scotland’s only oil refinery (which has now happened), the continued sell-off of Scotland’s land and energy resources, the terrible state of roads, and the unacceptable levels of poverty.
If they had showed the Scottish People they were serious about addressing the nation’s real problems and explained to them that Westminster control was preventing them from acting in the People’s interests, support for ending the union would soar.
You have to wonder if the whole Gender Self ID issue was a deliberate attempt by unknown individuals to derail support for Scottish independence by dividing the independence movement and the Scottish People. Divide and rule is, after all, the modus operandi of the British State. We may never know.
But one thing I do know. If Scotland had Direct Democracy, a governance system where People have the Political Rights (referendums and initiatives) to exercise their sovereignty, rather than an undemocratic Westminster mini-me, legislation like Gender Self ID would have been stopped in its tracks, with no need to take the case to the colonial UKSC.
Direct Democracy gives the People the tools to force their elected representatives to listen to them. That’s why Respect Scottish Sovereignty has been pushing the Scottish Administration and MSPs to support PE2135, because it would give the People access to direct Political Rights and, ultimately, the ability to choose the form of government best suited to their needs.
But so far, First Minister John Swinney and Constitution Secretary Angus Robertson have failed to back PE2135, which is a betrayal of the Scottish People they claim to represent.
We can’t allow them to get away with it.
Again, Leah, this is a very clear article, casting light on the efforts being made by the Scottish Government on issues of little importance to the great majority of the Scottish people, while they show little interest in important matters such as our full UN Human Rights entitlement, which we are been robbed of by the UK establishment. If they gave this issue just 10% of the consideration and time they spent on sex definition, they would be supporting our petition and encouraging others to support the Scottish People's full Human Rights, instead of hiding from the issue.
As a matter of practical politics, if the Scottish government picks a fight with the UK government it should do so over an issue where there is overwhelmingly high support for the Scottish government's position. For example, over energy prices, as 99% of Scots think they should be lower.