How the Tories thwarted Nicola Sturgeon's attack on women's sex based rights (apparently)

[IwantToRetire]

A new book about Rishi Sunak's time as Prime Minister has revealed the astonishing inside account of how he and Alister Jack faced down Nicola Sturgeon over gender reform.

Jack went to see Sunak in No. 10 the day after Boxing Day and told him Scottish ministers, MSPs and civil servants were "horrified at the prospect" but said "we should deploy it, Prime Minister".

Sunak responded: "Are you sure this won't jeopardise the Union? Are you sure Sturgeon won't use it as a pretext to call another referendum?"

Jack, the Dumfries and Galloway MP who had been in post throughout the turmoil of Brexit and Covid, argued: "We are one union and we can't ride a coach and horses through devolved legislation."

"After a prolonged conversation in a silent No. 10 festooned with Christmas decorations, Sunak finally made up his mind. 'You're right, you must go ahead: do it,' he said firmly."

They reveal that Sue Gray – the top civil servant who went on to serve Sir Keir Starmer – attempted to block the use of Section 35 but was outmanoeuvred by Dougie Smith, the canny Scots spin doctor who advised several Tory PMs.

Jack's move on January 17 was a bombshell, and triggered a furious response from Sturgeon who accused opponents of the GRR Bill of being "transhobic... deeply misogynist, often homophobic, possibly some of them racist as well".

A Sturgeon aide told the authors: "She was absolutely livid and vowed to bring down the Tory establishment overruling Scotland." However, Jack was acting legally and days later the Isla Bryson scandal erupted "destroying much of the social credibility" of her reforms.

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/inside-story-nicola-sturgeons-downfall-37618409

Strangely not mention of how there was only the legal opportunity to do this thanks to FWS!

This was the second time I realised Tories could do good things. The first was when they legalised gay marriage.

He was my MP -I emailed him about this - and he phoned me that morning! !! Agreeing that women’s rights were being trampled on -I was so relieved to think SOMEONE was on the side of common sense

Well done! That was very on the ball of you. I had no idea about any of this at the time.

That's a great response. Isn't it a relief to find a politician who's not a clown about all this?

Some Tories have been great on this, others not so much. Its been a genuinely cross party issue, in all parties.

The FWS victory came well after this. 2025.

GRR Bill and subsequent Section 35 was earlier. 2022.

I suppose because in my mind the earlier FWS challenge as to whether equal representation of women on company boards and the Lady Haldane ruling, triggered the Scottish Parliament GRR.

Although these were happening in parallel.

Was the Scottish Government proposal for their own GRR underway prior to FWS starting their legal action re women on boards?

Quote but only AI saying this

The UK Government used Lady Haldane’s brand-new ruling as their primary justification for the veto.

They argued that because Lady Haldane had just decided a GRC changes a person's sex for the purposes of the Equality Act, Scotland dramatically expanding who could get a GRC would automatically alter how UK-wide equality laws operated.

They claimed it would create a two-tier system where a "woman" meant something different in Scotland than it did in England, disrupting single-sex spaces, equal pay claims, and gender balance targets on company boards.

.
Lady Haldane was also chosen to preside over the Section 35 court case a few months later.

So, she found herself in the unique position of ruling on both sides of the coin:

1. In December 2022, she ruled that a GRC does legally change a person's sex under the Equality Act (The FWS Case).
2. In December 2023, she ruled that because her previous decision was true, the UK Government was entirely rational to fear that Scotland’s new bill would disrupt UK equality law, making the Section 35 veto lawful (The Section 35 Case).

Yes. Nothing to do with the company boards legislation. GRR was about the process of obtaining a GRC.

'The Scottish National Party (SNP) committed to "review and reform gender recognition law, so it's in line with international best practice for people who are transgender" in their manifesto for the 2016 Scottish Parliament election, which they won.[11][12] After the consultations ended, the Scottish government intended to introduce the bill to Parliament in 2020, but was forced by the COVID-19 pandemic in Scotland to delay consideration until after the 2021 Scottish Parliament election'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Recognition_Reform_(Scotland)_Bill

Actually, yes, that's right, that was part of the Section 35 reasoning.

God, it's been long and complicated.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/section-35-scotland-gender-recognition-bill

Pyrrhic victory, for the Scotgov in 2023!

Thank god for him. This was what opened my eyes to what Nicola and the SNP were actually up to. I was horrified that this was being proposed and then so relieved it got blocked. Then of course, we got big Isla. He did so much more to push the issue into the public's consciousness...

The Scottish National Party (SNP) committed to "review and reform gender recognition law, so it's in line with international best practice for people who are transgender"

That's what's at the heart of it for the SNP, Plaid Cymru, NI, even Labour, it's all about joining the Global Left, they want to get the badges to sew on their lanyards. Self ID, Conversion Therapy Ban it has nothing to do with what the people or the country need but so they can wave their credentials and join The Blob.

Wonder if this as-yet-undocumented "international best practice" is like (or is in fact) the WPATH Guidelines*, which they (WPATH) just admitted were nothing more than their own opinion. In which case I vote for my personal international best practice on crisp sandwiches to be formalised as the gold standard. Ok thank you, next!

(*Not to mention being the mutual wankcircle source of most citations about the topic as well - WPATH said <thing>, so X cites it. Then X says <thing>, so WPATH cites it and so on.)

What flavour crisps, Prawn Cocktail?

😁