So The Judgment will obviously go to the ECHR ...

Also the Scottish government is not a High Contracting Party - it is the Westminster govt which has that role.

Despite Robin Moira White's nonsense, I don't believe the ECHR would even hear a case brought on a "I'm not getting my own way" basis.

The usual suspects have been claiming they'll take it to the ECtHR.

I'm sure I've read a legal take-down of exactly why that won't be happening, or is vanishingly unlikely to happen, but I can't recall who wrote it. I re-checked the Akua Reindorf piece in The Times last week, and it wasn't there, so some other legal bod.

The article/post I read did, I think, say exactly what Raquelos says above: that ScotGov have accepted it and anyone else wanting to take a similar case out would have to start at square one and go through all the stages required to get to the ECtHR. A long and winding road indeed, with no certainty of winning at any stage.

People are spouting lots of nonsense right now. They just hate this hard line that's been drawn in the sand.

As I understand, the Scottish government cannot make an application to the ECtHR specifically because they are a government.

Article 34 of the ECHR says who can bring claims:

"The Court may receive applications from any person, nongovernmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right."

The "High Contracting Parties" are the governments that signed up to this.

So, the Scottish Ministers (who lost this case) could not pursue this.

To get to the ECtHR it would now be down to another person or group to go through the whole process right up to the Supreme Court before they could make an application to the ECtHR.

I don't think the ECHR can rule on what the British government intended when they made the EA, which is what this case ruled on.

I have no idea whether TRAs may be able to make a case on some other grounds.

I know they're different institutions, but worth noting is the EU are having a consultation on their 'LGBTIQ equality strategy for 2026-2030'. I've not read them all, but from scanning the first few pages of comments, there's a lot of support for women: ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14551-EU-LGBTIQ-equality-strategy-for-2026-2030

Don't know where you got the idea the judgment will be appealed to the ECHR, bit it won't. Firstly because the Scottish government would be the party appealing and it has no standing to do so, and secondly the Scottish government has already said it accepts the judgment.

I suppose one or more transpeople could take a case to the ECHR to say the SC ruling is wrong and infringes their rights. Perhaps the fox basher will crowd fund to do exactly that on behalf of some misguided man.

The claim that this sc judgement breaches Goodwin are nonsense.
Goodwin ordered the UK government to allow trans people to be recognised in law as the gender they want to be without the requirement of genital mutilating surgeries and to marry someone of the same sex but different gender.
All of those requirements have been met and could continue to be met by even if we did away with the grc by adding a gender marker alongside an accurate sex marker on all documents including birth, marriage and death certificates. We already have same sex marriage.
They're on a hiding to nothing with this one

Why do you say that?

My understanding is that it won't go to the ECHR because that would require the losing party to appeal the case, and the Scottish Government has said they accept the ruling. Another case could make its long and winding way to the ECHR, but that would take years; this case took 7 years to get to the UK Supreme Court, so it would be that and a bit more.

Why do you think it will go to the ECHR? I am no expert, at all, but if you read the SC judegment in full I fail to see how there is even a case. The ruling spells out quite clearly how:

a 'certificated sex' reading means some people (transmen and biolocial women) lose the rights the EA is intended to bestow, and

'a biological sex' reading provides transpeople with the full protections of the EA under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and biological sex

To my mind a legal brain reading the ruling (which I assume the ECHR have) would not entertain it. In the case there is viewed a lack of protections for transpeople then the logical legal arguments would be to enhance the protection under the approriate protected characteristis (gender reassignment) not to try to use the 'sex' characteristic. (the ruling clearly demonstrates how the latter approach breaks the whole act and is incompatible with previous exisiting legislation).

I don't know though, I am not an expert in equalities law.