Politicians respond to the SC judgement

[ArabellaScott]

A thread to gather politicians' responses to yesterday's Supreme Court judgement.

1. Stella Creasy. She's rather unhelpfully posted a pdf, (and turned off replies), so archive below.

https://archive.ph/8T1Yl

https://x.com/stellacreasy/status/1912609872430133697

No, I think my assessment is correct. 😁

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7vn1vryyvdo

Confirmation from Shirley Ann Somerville that Scotgov have no intention of challenging the Supreme Court.

'Somerville reiterated that the Scottish government had "no intention" of bringing the gender recognition reforms back to parliament or seeking to overturn the UK government block on the bill.
She said the Supreme Court judgement, as well as updated guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), would provide clarity on access to public services.
The EHRC said it will release an updated code of conduct for services, including the NHS and prisons, in the summer.
Somerville said Scottish ministers would meet with body next week. The government will also set out its next steps in a statement to parliament in the coming days.'

Well they had to say that didnt they?
Mere inches away from EHRC enforcement action - anyone seen if NHS Fife provided the requested documents? Yesterday was the deadline

I imagine even the Scottish Government are pleased the matter is settled, and they can go back to talking about independence.

Scottish independence is dead for the foreseeable future. The SNP have lost all credibility now.

I don't think they're interested in Independence. And I say that as someone who voted SNP for years and who voted yes in the referendum.

When the SNP were a small party with a pipe dream (and my parents who were with the SNP since the 70's used to get laughed at on doorsteps while campaigning for independence), they could paint this picture of a beautiful independent country.

But then they took over. and they got comfortable. They don't want to put themselves on the line, taking full responsibility if things go wrong. No, far better to do what they're doing, passing all sorts of nonsense, with a handy scapegoat if it all goes tits up.

And with a few notable exceptions, our politicians (across all parties) have proven that they can't be trusted, are credulous, dishonest and not very clever to be honest.

What's happened to the Scottish Parliament and Government is a shocking disappointment to be honest.

@Waitwhat23 I completely agree. I voted for independence, but I wouldn't know. One reason is the possibility of joining the EU, which I would love in itself but I don't want a trade border with England. The main one, though, is the farcical GRR bill and the lunacy and dogmatic agendas that were revealed through this.

I'm not a fan of PR but I think it is telling that Maggie Chapman is in office because she was elected under a system that allowed an allocation of extra MSPs based on the percentage of votes picked up by the Greens. A hybrid PR system.
In other words she is not answerable to a constituency and doesn't have a single constituent.
That means she never has to knock on a door and sell this bullshit to a single voter.

Yep. I do wonder if there are better PR systems than the modified D'Hondt, which seems to land us with politicians in power on the basis of how unpopular they are.

Lovelyview · Yesterday 20:44

Yay for North Tyneside Labour MP Mary Glindon.

'The poisonous polarisation is finally over. Women’s rights are rightly fully protected.

Oh, she's my MP. Good on her.

KnottyAuty · Yesterday 22:24

Nothing from Kier Starmer on this landmark ruling by the Supreme Court against one of our Nation Governments. But never fear - he’s all over the potholes.

Is it wrong for me to be unable to hear that any other way than as if it were delivered by Jim, from Friday Night Dinner?

I was listening to some American podcast and something that came up is politicians making pledges to special interest groups in order to get elected. I do wonder how many of the politicians doubling down today have longstanding connections that they can’t reverse ferret from so have to stick with it.

A child can’t have a GRC.

Biology is important and the SC knows that TWAM.

Hope that sorted his thought process. HTH

The BBC article linked above says that the ruling means that ‘people who are born male no longer have access to female-only facilities and services’.

This is pernicious reporting because the ruling simply clarifies that who are born male should not ever have had access to female-only facilities and services. The language here feeds into a narrative that the ruling has taken something away from trans people. It has not. It has clarified that such access was not ever legal.

I also worry about the part that Scotgov will outline its plans in the coming days. They don’t have a record of reasoned thought on this.

The judgement is clear that it applies to girls and women and boys and men for the protected characteristic of sex.
It is also clear that for gender reassignment the comparator group is men/boys or women/girls of the same biological sex.
So a child who wished to identify as a boy but is biologically female should not be discriminated against for wishing to present as a boy in an all female school.
That is how I read the judgement, but I am still only as far as paragraph 223 so I caveat my interpretation with that. But it seems perfectly clear to me.

Regarding kids, now is the time to test all of the ridiculous Stonewall interpretations that have infected the public discourse.

The gender recognition act doesn't allow anyone under 18 to apply for reassignment, so while there is a provision for someone who "intends" to apply for a GRC, I don't believe it should be possible for a young person to "intend" to undertake a process that they are legally unable to do.

No child should ever have the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment".

Not in O'Neill's article but I am liking the concept of an 'All fee, no win' barrister

I used to be very pro proportional representation. The Scottish Government - particularly the Greens - demonstrated to me how it can cause huge problems through 'electing' people who don't actually have a direct link to voters.

Little bit slow of me to realise that those lamenting the SC ruling are using typical cult behaviour (again) to tell the "trans community" that it's a bad world out there and people are doing this to hurt you. That's the narrative that must continue to be pushed.

Initially I was thinking how damaging it is actually to those who call themselves trans to run with the idea that the ruling affects trans rights.

My God, that was years of pent up righteous anger having joyous release 😁

Can't get that Tom Slater link to open. Maybe it's been taken down?

Anyway, the bit that resonates with me in the Brendon O'Neill is the last 48 hours wailing is the "death rattle".

It's still there. Just go to the home page.

Al Pinkerton (my bloody MP) of the Lib Dem's burbling on LBC.
https://x.com/lbc/status/1912594352750092634?s=61&t=fqBIlp0gCJVNmzgyV_wlSQ

'Light and heat'!!! 😡

While we're still waiting to hear from Starmer, this article summarises his gender journey

https://archive.ph/qANVl

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/17/how-starmer-changed-his-tune-on-trans-women/

Although I think the final sentence is far too kind to him.

Light and heat..... has anyone yet managed to pin down what a speaker actually means when they pop that one out?

It's the modern version of supercalifragalistic.