John Swinney is right to worry about swing towards dangerous populism

The National

27-04-2025

There is a dangerous swing towards populism, manifest not only in Britain, but across the European continent, in Argentina and, perhaps most terrifyingly, in the United States. This is not just about being right-wing – US Republicans and British Conservatives have aways had 'right-wing' elements, but in the US, the party of Abraham Lincoln has now been taken over by Klan sympathisers, white supremacists and gun-toting fake Christian Zionists all paying homage to a narcissist who cannot string two complete sentences together and is trampling on the constitution, bypassing Congress and calling judges appointed by Reagan and Bush 'dangerous, woke and left-wing'.
READ MORE: Will Reform benefit from John Swinney's anti-far-right summit?
A former Cameron aide, Steve Hilton, who had his own Fox TV show, has now announced his candidacy for governor in my home state California. What ties all these people together – and they are very much together – is the 'dark money' funding think-tanks like the IEA founded by Samuel Fisher, the Legatum/Prosperity Institute/Policy Exchange here, connecting via the Atlas Foundation chaired by Fisher's daughter, a "bridge across the Atlantic", to the Heritage Foundation and other outfits like the Hudson and Hoover Institutes.
Hilton is married to Fisher's granddaughter, who worked for Google, Uber and Facebook. So they are well in with the tech billionaires behind Trump. Farage has appeared on Question Time 38 times in four years. He's been to the US eight times since Trump's election. Commentators are right to point out the disproportionate media attention being given to Reform UK councillor Thomas Kerr from Glasgow; it's happening everywhere, and the media need to be careful of giving so much oxygen to people who would restrict press freedom. And that's just for starters.
I am not hopeful that any summit can stop the impending tsunami but I wish the FM, Alba and other independence supporters the very best. We must all do whatever we can.
Marjorie Thompson
Edinburgh
THE Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) recently issued an interim statement following the Supreme Court's ruling in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers, asserting that 'sex' under the Equality Act 2010 must now be interpreted strictly as biological sex. However, the EHRC's own statement would fail any credible Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA).
First, it fails to identify all those affected. Intersex people, whose biological characteristics may not fit binary categories, are not mentioned. Cisgender men (particularly gender-non-conforming, disabled, gay, or bisexual men) are also placed at risk of discriminatory treatment, yet this is not considered.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon confronted by media over views on Supreme Court row
Second, it fails to assess differential impacts. By permitting the exclusion of trans people from both men's and women's spaces in some cases, and by leaving unclear what 'suitable alternatives' means, the EHRC creates a framework in which trans, intersex, and gender-nonconforming individuals may be left without lawful access to basic facilities.
Third, the statement is riddled with dangerous vagueness. Terms such as 'where possible,' 'suitable alternatives,' and 'in some circumstances' are left undefined. Proportionality is invoked without clear standards. Duty-bearers are left exposed, and affected individuals left unprotected.
Fourth, it is riddled with contradictions. If mixed-sex single-occupancy rooms are acceptable, why could existing cubicle-based facilities not be adapted? If trans people must not be denied all access, why does the EHRC permit the possibility of barring them from both men's and women's facilities? If the aim is to protect women's spaces, why risk under-providing alternatives that could place women at greater risk?
READ MORE: What comes next after Supreme Court hands down gender ruling
Finally, the statement offers no meaningful mitigation. An EQIA demands that steps be proposed to address any disadvantage created. Here, no such steps are suggested.
At a time when respect for equality law and human rights obligations is under political pressure, the EHRC's actions risk not only breaching domestic law but also setting the stage for future conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Rather than upholding dignity and fairness, the commission appears to be hollowing out both.
If the EHRC expects others to respect equality law, it must meet its own obligations first.
Ron Lumiere
via email
YET another letter from an Alba supporter telling us the biggest problem of getting the vote out to end the UK Union is the threat of Scotland joining the EU at some future date.
George Morton (Letters, Apr 25) tells us how that puts folk off voting for independence and damages the cause.
Funnily in most surveys I have looked at, one of the biggest drivers for support in ending the UK Union is allowing Scotland to rejoin the EU family of nations, Schengen and the customs union.
It appears most of Scotland's voters are in opposition to this self-declared Alba position agin the EU.
Will Alba fall in line with the majority wish or yet again remain as an outlier, the pushers of 'bendy cucumbers', the EU making 'Scottish laws' and the rest of the Brexit lies? In which case, who is actually being divisive and a threat to future cohesion in Scotland's drive for independence?
Peter Thomson
Kirkcudbright