Have our MSPs got nothing better to talk about than toilets?

The Herald Scotland

3 days ago

How long before we have an urgent question on the lack of paper clips in Mr Harvie's office?
Jane Lax, Aberlour.
• One may be forgiven for wondering why it's supposed to be "exclusionary", "transphobic" and a "breach of human rights" when employers or public organisations provide gender-neutral toilets on their premises. Of course it's not. Yet this idea lives in the minds of Scottish Greens MSP Patrick Harvie and 16 other MSPs (out of 129) who have signed a letter in protest of the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body's decision to clarify that, in line with the recent Supreme Court judgement, men's and women's toilets at Holyrood are defined as single-sex spaces with additional gender-neutral facilities provided for the needs of everyone.
On behalf of Patrick Harvie, elected representatives then had to spend precious debating time on this topic. While this may seem trivial compared to bread-and-butter issues such as the cost of living, health or education, it does matter. Loos have become the latest battleground in the pushback, driven by some trans activists, against the Supreme Court's clarification that "men", "women" and "sex" are defined by biology in the UK Equality Act 2010. For them, it seems, provision of gender-neutral facilities alongside female and male ones isn't enough and the ultimate prize appears to be the general abolition of single-sex spaces.
By forcing his loo debate on Holyrood Patrick Harvie, a fierce champion of this idea, has made sure that the topic stays in the public eye.
Regina Erich, Stonehaven.
Read more letters
UK must restore dignity
Andrew Learmonth asks why public bodies are waiting for the new code of practice on equality law from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), before changing their policies on things like the use of toilets by trans people ("Why is government waiting for the EHRC after ruling?", The Herald, May 27). The answer is surely that both John Swinney and Keir Starmer were mistaken when they suggested that the recent Supreme Court judgement on this brought clarity. It has, so far, done nothing of the sort.
On the one hand we have the EHRC suggesting that the judgement means that trans people will be barred from using facilities that match their gender identity. On the other hand, we have some very senior lawyers, including a former Supreme Court judge, disagreeing that that is what the judgement requires. And there is already legal action under way to challenge the EHRC's interpretation.
If the EHRC's view is correct, however, two things are clear. Firstly, trans people's rights to privacy and safety will be seriously undermined – more so than in any other western European country. Cases about this will be taken through the courts, if necessary to the European Court of Human Rights.
Secondly, the Supreme Court will have completely reversed the clear intention of the UK Parliament in passing the Gender Recognition Bill in 2004. The then government minister, David Lammy, and the opposition's Andrew Selous, explicitly agreed during the Commons debate on the bill that a gender recognition certificate would change a person's sex for the purposes of equality law (which includes the law governing the use of separate-sex services). The bill was passed on that basis. If the Supreme Court has decided the opposite, it has overturned the will of MPs, based on a detailed analysis of the wording of the legislation. That demonstrates that the law was, in the relevant parts, too loosely drafted to properly implement what was intended by government and Parliament.
Equality law is reserved to Westminster, so the Scottish Parliament cannot fix this mess. If the EHRC is correct, the UK Government should act promptly to amend the legislation to restore the will of Parliament as agreed in 2004. Surely Keir Starmer's Government cannot intend that the UK's respect for equality and human rights should be so much poorer now than it was 21 years ago?
Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh.
Are the .04% more important?
Following Nicola Sturgeon's recent statement in which she proposes the legalising of transgender rights to use ladies' toilets and changing facilities ("'Trans law may require a change,' says Sturgeon", The Herald, May 26), I wish to share the following facts and statistics.
These are 2021figures: UK female population 35 million, an estimated 280,000 identify as transgender; 0.08% of female population.
Scotland's female population of 2.9m, an estimated 19,900 identify as transgender; 0.07% of the female population.
UK total population male and female 69m.
These figures show the transgender population to be .04% of the UK – yet Ms Sturgeon and other politicians believe the transgender community has a status and influence, and therefore rights, higher than 99.96% of the UK population.
Professor Tony Meehan, Glasgow.
Farage not a true unionist
Those of us who are "old lags" in Ukip Scotland remember the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary elections.
Our slogan was "Sack the MSPs". We desired then, as now, the abolition of the Holyrood so-called parliament.
Our national leader was a fellow called Nigel Farage and he enthusiastically embraced this message.
Today of course Nigel has undergone a dramatic conversion and now presumably regards the so-called Scottish Government as a good thing.
The Reform candidate in the forthcoming Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse Scottish by-election claims that he would not be standing for a parliament he does not believe in.
That is exactly what Nigel and Ukip did from 1999 to 2019 as we stood for the European Parliament from which we wished to be disentangled.
Nigel may have walked away from his firm unionist credentials but his legacy lives on as the true unionists in this election seek to resurrect the place of Scotland as an integral part of the United Kingdom governed by the House of Commons – the only Parliament.
Donald MacKay, Blackwood.
Nigel Farage (Image: Newsquest) Frigates not a valid comparison
Stan Grodynski (Letters, May 27) in his own attempt at "whitabootery", intends to distract from the Scottish ferry scandal by trying to compare Glens Sannox and Rosa to cost overruns on the Type 26 Frigate contract. He unfortunately makes the rather basic mistake of not checking his facts first.
The award of the Type 26 contract to BAe Systems was valued at £4.2 billion and is for extremely complex ships of 8,000 tonnes and with high levels of intricate technology. There have been cost overruns acknowledged of £233 million – equating to around 5% – with a delay of 12 months.
By contrast, the Ferguson Marine ferries contract was valued at £97m, and is for two straightforward car ferries. Cost overruns amount to £650m to date – being 670%. The first ferry was delayed seven years and the second's date of active duty is not yet known; both have had their capacity cut due to design flaws, and the one that is running was planned on a scale that means she cannot fit her usual home port.
Steph Johnson, Glasgow.
Why should Israel surrender?
What would Eric Melvin (Letters, May 29) have Israel do to defend itself against the Islamists bent on destroying it? Surrender? Cut Israel in half, hoping to placate the terrorists?
Did we surrender to Germany in the Second World? No. We fought until the Nazis had enough and quit. Then we cut Germany in four, tried and hung their leaders and occupied it until we felt they had expunged the evil from their society. Only after the war did we send in aid.
Israel was savagely attacked on October 7, 2023. On October 8, the Jew-haters swung into action. 40,000 dormant social media sites spewed antisemitic propaganda. Posters and flags were delivered to campuses all over the world. Hezbollah, Iran and Houthis fired into Israel.
Zionism means Jews fight back. Mr Melvin should work to save the hostages, not their aggressors.
Len Bennett, Ottawa, Canada.