‘We don't want to go back to court', says women's group over gender ruling delay
The decision is likely to have far-reaching implications for transgender people in accessing services, but the Scottish Government has declined to make changes to guidance until the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issues its own guidance, which is expected to take place in the coming months.
But speaking at a fringe event at the Scottish Conservative conference in Edinburgh, FWS co-director Susan Smith said the group was considering a further legal challenge against the Government.
Speaking to journalists after the event, she said: 'We have spoken to the Scottish Government and asked them to withdraw some of this guidance, just to say that it's under review – they don't have to re-issue anything at this point – because it's clearly unlawful, we really do need some action.
'They're telling us they have to wait for the EHRC revised guidance and we don't believe this is true.'
Ms Smith added that, if a woman were to be assaulted in prison by a transgender prisoner, the Government could be taken to court by the victim.
'I think they need to step up and take a bit of responsibility because these things are under their remit,' she said.
She added: 'We don't want to go back to court, we really, really don't, but if we don't see some action that may be something we will have to consider.'
Ms Smith said the group is speaking with its lawyers but she would not say if there was a timeline for action to begin.
The co-director stressed that if ministers were concerned about a challenge to their guidance from the pro-trans rights side of the argument, they should be worried about one from FWS and other such groups too.
'They seem worried about a legal challenge from the other side,' she said.
'But my message to them would be they should be more worried about a legal challenge from the people who have the law on their side.'
Ms Smith was joined at the fringe meeting – which was hosted by Tory MSP Pam Gosal – by former foreign secretary James Cleverly.
Mr Cleverly was part of the Conservative-led government which blocked the Scottish Government's controversial gender reforms.
The Government proposed removing the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria as a requirement for obtaining a gender recognition certificate – a process known as self identification.
The move was scuppered by then-Scottish secretary Alister Jack, who used Section 35 of the Scotland Act to block the legislation.
Mr Cleverly told attendees the move showed the 'importance of the union'.
'This issue was clearly spiralling out of control, badly out of control,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
9 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Scottish Tories eye Reform electoral pact
Senior Scottish Conservatives have discussed striking an electoral pact with Reform UK for the Holyrood elections next spring. One figure backing a deal told The Telegraph it could help avoid splitting the vote on the Right and kick the SNP out of power in Scotland. The deal, which would not need to be made public, would see the Tories either not stand candidates or go easy in areas where Reform is better placed to win and vice versa. It comes as Nigel Farage 's party sits above the Conservatives in third place in opinion polls for the Scottish Parliament elections next May. A pact does not have the backing of Russell Findlay, the Scottish Tory leader, whose team released a statement ruling out the possibility when approached by The Telegraph. But the fact a deal is being considered at senior levels in the party underscores the scale of Reform's popularity surge north of the border and the concerns it has triggered among Tories. In Scotland, Reform now has 15 councillors, 14 of whom used to be Conservatives. It is in marked contrast to other political parties previously run by Mr Farage, such as the UK Independence Party (Ukip), which struggled to get a foothold north of border. One Tory MSP has privately spoken of a defection 'watch list' in Holyrood of those suspected of switching to Reform. Mr Farage also waved away the idea he would agree to any such pact, telling The Telegraph: 'No chance. The Tories are dying in Scotland and I've got no desire to do a deal with them whatsoever.' The idea of some form of agreement, public or private, between the Conservatives and Reform has become a common discussion point in Westminster. Average UK-wide voting polls have Reform in first place on 30 per cent of the vote, with the Tories in a distant third on 17 per cent. Labour is in second place on 22 per cent. Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, has ruled out a pre-vote deal with Mr Farage, but speculation continues with the next general election not due until 2029. The recent by-election result for the Scottish Parliament seat of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse underscored the challenges of Right-wing parties splitting the vote. Labour won the seat with 32 per cent of the vote, followed by the SNP on 29 per cent. Reform came third on 26 per cent. Had the Tories, who got 6 per cent, not stood a candidate, it is possible Reform would have beaten Labour and taken the seat, though pollsters often caution against hard conclusions when predicting voter behaviour. Mr Farage has agreed to election pacts before. The Brexit Party, the precursor to Reform which Mr Farage led, had criticism of the Tory handling of the issue of Europe as its heart. Yet he still agreed not to stand candidates against sitting Conservatives at the 2019 general election to help Boris Johnson win and get a Brexit deal through the Commons, securing the UK's departure from the European Union. Despite interest in some quarters of the Scottish Conservative Party, other figures strongly played down the possibility of a pact. One Scottish Tory politician who has spent years in influential positions said: 'Churchill's phrase comes to mind, 'You don't negotiate with a tiger when your head's in its mouth'. We're in competition with Reform – we're not in partnership with them.' The source said Scottish Tory supporters had brought up the prospect of a deal with Reform but that there was little chance it would be adopted by the leadership. Another senior Scottish Tory said: 'Why would Reform do a deal? I can see why we might be interested in it, but why would they?' There have long been suspicions on the Right of coordination between Labour and the Liberal Democrats at general elections to maximise the chances of Tory defeats. The Lib Dems surged from winning 11 MPs at the 2019 general election to 72 MPs at the 2024 general election with almost no increase in overall vote share. The party's strategists have talked about how they ruthlessly focused on a small number of winnable seats rather than competing hard everywhere. Labour was likely to have benefited from the decreased campaigning in non-target seats. But there are reasons why striking some form of deal would be less likely in elections for the Scottish Parliament than the UK-wide Parliament in Westminster. The electoral system for the Scottish Parliament has a proportional element, meaning as well as individual constituency races a party wins some MPs for their overall vote totals. Reform, whose strategists hope to get between 10 and 20 MSPs next spring, is expected to get their victories almost entirely via this way, known as 'the list', rather than winning constituencies. That could provide a disincentive to strike a deal with the Tories, given a lower overall vote total would likely mean fewer MSPs thanks to this proportion element of the election. In polling for next spring's Scottish Parliament elections, Reform is on around 17 per cent, above the Tories on around 12 per cent. The SNP is top, followed by Labour. A year ago, it looked likely that Labour could win power in Scotland but a support slump since Sir Keir Starmer took office last summer means the SNP is now well-placed to remain in office. A Scottish Conservative spokesman said: 'Nigel Farage has said he is content with the SNP winning another five years in power and Reform stood multiple pro-independence candidates in the general election, so no, this won't be happening. 'The Scottish Conservatives want to get the SNP out of power, while Reform will gladly help the nationalists.'
Telegraph
9 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Free The Donald
The talk among Maga supporters at Turnberry Golf Club this week was whether Donald Trump should be offered the freedom of the City of London on his State visit next month. The Honorary Freedom has never been awarded to a sitting US president. One City figure tells me: 'This would be a unique honour, and it is tied to our history with a focus on trade.' But the Corporation of London sounds lukewarm. A spokesman says: 'By convention, only heads of state or government who have served a minimum of seven years in office are eligible to be considered for the Honorary Freedom.' Any decision must be approved by the Court of Common Council, he adds, and it will not meet until next month. Surely this is the time to waive conventions? False flag I was one of the lucky reporters in the room when Donald Trump met Sir Keir Starmer at Turnberry on Monday. It felt like our PM was visiting Trump in the US, even though we were in Scotland. And no wonder: the US flag was flown on the left of the Union flag, meaning that the Stars and Stripes was 'the senior national flag', according to guidance from the Flag Institute. Was this a diplomatic snub? Joanna's marriage secret Dame Joanna Lumley has been married to conductor Stephen Barlow for almost 40 years, which has ensured that barely any modern-day pop music is played behind closed doors. 'I'm married to a classical musician, so we don't really have popular music in the house very often,' the Ab Fab actress, 79, explains on Radio 2. 'I stopped at about The Everly Brothers, really.' Awks in Ambridge Snogging your girlfriend in Ambridge is 'horrendously awkward' says Taylor Uttley, who plays Brad Horrobin and is in an air relationship with Mia Grundy on Radio 4's The Archers. He says: 'You have to time a kiss on the back of your hand at the same time, relative to the same microphone. So you have to look between you and go OK 'one, two, three and then do that'. That's awful.' Awks! Tarrant's TV exit Former Tiswas and Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? presenter Chris Tarrant does not miss being on TV shows. He says: 'I spent 50 years on them. I'd rather be fishing or going somewhere nice with my old lady or my kids.' Tarrant says he is still asked to do 'dreadful things' including The Masked Singer. But he says. 'It's a naff idea. I can't believe they make it. And what's next? You know, The Masked Chef, The Masked Knife Juggler. What else are they going to do?' Tarrant adds: 'My missus says to me 'It would reignite your career' but the last thing I want to do is reignite my career. I'm trying to stop.' Shy Michael Former Conservative MP Sir Michael Fabricant has hit back against campaigners who want to cancel naked bike rides which happen in UK, Birmingham and Cardiff. 'These are just a bit of fun,' Fabricant, 75, told the BBC. 'These are fairly innocent events. If you don't want to see bits and pieces wobbling around, don't look.' The nearest Fabricant got to riding naked was when he was cycling alone for charity. He says: 'I had tiny little shorts on or I would have been arrested.' Why so modest Fabbers? Cleanshaven Philp Shadow home secretary Chris Philp shaved off his beard before the last general election, prompting speculation that it was a turn-off for voters. 'No, that is not true,' he told me on GB News' Chopper's Political Podcast. 'I did suffer a backlash on the beard, but it came amongst others from my 12-year-old daughter and unfortunately, faced by a backlash from my 12 year old daughter, the beard had to go.' Travelling light Peterborough readers have been sending in their packing tips for travelling light, following actor Nigel Havers' example. David Shaw tries to 'halve the amount of clothes and double the amount of money' he is taking just before he sets off, while Michael Weeden said: 'I can think of nothing more efficient, than going to a naturist resort and packing just a bottle of good sun cream.' John Turner was so inspired he wrote a long poem, ending: 'So, now I've made a rational decision/whenever I go wandering from home./ Be it Blackpool or Bahamas,/ I have had my share of dramas;/ It's pyjamas, a toothbrush and a comb.'
The National
30 minutes ago
- The National
Consent for gigantic wind farm is an ironic act of ecocide
The irony is that Holyrood is contemplating the introduction of an ecocide bill – at the very time the [[Scottish Government]] is complicit in ecocide committed by renewable energy companies on an ever-expanding scale. We note 'SSE Renewables will have to provide a plan to counter any impact the wind farm may have on seabirds', but this is thin gruel, especially as SSE is quoted as admitting in its own environmental impact assessment that more than 31,000 bird collisions are estimated during its lifespan. READ MORE: Scottish crew 'excluded from Spider Man 4 filming' What will its proposed 'mitigation' provide? It is to be hoped it will be something better than the farcically inappropriate plans that Equinor has put in place to construct an inappropriately sited nesting habitat for Arctic Terns hundreds of miles from its proposed massive wind farm extension off the coast of Norfolk. Whatever it is, it is difficult to see how it can provide more than a small sticking plaster for an act of ecocide. The Scottish Government may well have shot itself in the foot here. People who would not normally object to a wind farm are sickened by this decision. The sleeping giant of Joe Public has awakened. Aileen Jackson Scotland Against Spin, Uplawmoor THE story about House of Lords peers warning UK recognition of Palestine may 'breach international law' (Jul 31) is revealing, not just for what it says about Westminster, but for what it exposes about Scotland's position. The peers cite the Montevideo Convention, claiming Palestine doesn't qualify as a state because it lacks a defined territory, unified government and full diplomatic capacity. This argument is flawed because the UK never signed the convention — it's a regional treaty drafted in 1933 by US states, not global law – and even if you accept it as a standard, it backfires spectacularly when applied to Scotland. Let's test the same criteria: Permanent population? Scotland has that; Defined territory? Clearly; Functioning government? We've had one for over 20 years, with its own legal system, civil service, and tax powers. Capacity for foreign relations? Scotland already hosts consulates and conducts international outreach, and could expand that overnight. By any serious standard, Scotland meets the Montevideo criteria more fully than [[Palestine]], Kosovo at the time of recognition, or even Israel in 1948. So why are we still being told we must wait for a Section 30 order from [[Westminster]] to hold an independence referendum — and why are the SNP still building their entire strategy around asking for one? John Swinney says a vote for the [[SNP]] in 2026 will be a vote for independence. But what comes after that? Nothing. Because the leadership still refuses to act without permission. The Supreme Court didn't say independence is illegal – it said [[Holyrood]] doesn't have the power under UK law to legislate for a referendum. That's a political dead end, not a legal one. Recognition doesn't begin with external approval, it begins with internal control. That's how Estonia, Ireland, Kosovo, and countless others did it. They asserted the fact of statehood, governed as such, and forced recognition by acting like a state. That's how international law actually works. The real reason Scotland isn't independent isn't legal, it's psychological. Our leaders won't cross the line. They keep asking Westminster to validate our democracy instead of enforcing it. They quote laws they never intend to test. And they call that strategy. So yes, the peers' letter is cynical and legally thin. But it also hands us a mirror. Because if the UK can consider recognising Palestine under the Montevideo Convention, then the only thing stopping Scotland is the lack of a leadership willing to act on what we already are. James Murphy Bute THE claims by a group of peers in the House of Lords that UK recognition of Palestine could 'breach international law' warrant scrutiny. These assertions are based on a rigid interpretation of the Montevideo Convention and a selective reading of legal principles and risk politicising law rather than defending it. A clear-eyed examination reveals that such recognition remains well within the bounds of international legality and reflects long-standing norms of state practice. The UK is not a signatory to the Montevideo Convention of 1933 and state recognition in international law has always been as much a political act as a legal one. Numerous recognitions have occurred over the years, including Kosovo and South Sudan, despite contested claims to defined territory or unified governance. Recognition of states remains a sovereign prerogative. As confirmed by the International Court of Justice in its 2010 advisory opinion on Kosovo, international law does not prohibit declarations of independence or third-party recognition, even in complex or disputed circumstances. Recognition by the UK would not constitute a breach of international law but rather an exercise of lawful foreign policy discretion. (Image: Jonathan Brady) More than 135 UN member states have recognised Palestine and in 2012 the UN General Assembly granted Palestine non-member observer state status. These actions underscore the fact that recognition of Palestinian statehood is neither novel nor legally exceptional. If such recognition were truly contrary to international law, it would have triggered challenges in international courts – none have materialised. It is time to move beyond legal obfuscation and act in pursuit of a just and lasting peace. Peter Macari Aberdeen
