Nicola Sturgeon reveals mistake over controversial gender ID row in bombshell ITV interview
The former First Minister has spoken to ITV News in an exclusive interview ahead of her memoir being released next week.
4
4
4
And in a sneak preview ahead of the full interveiw being aired on Monday night, Ms Sturgeon told ITV's Julie Etchingham she did not predict the anger from opponents to the bill.
She said: 'I didn't anticipate as much as I should, or engage as much as I should, on some of the concerns that might then be triggered.'
But the ex-SNP leader insisted her backing of trans rights was still correct - but admitted she should have 'taken a step back'.
She added: 'I fervently believe that the rights of women and the interests of trans people are not irreconcilable at all. I should have taken a step back and said, 'How do we achieve this?'.'
Her reverse-ferret is the latest twist in the saga over self-ID laws which go back to 2017 when the SNP first revealed the planned legal changes.
The law would have removed the need for trans people to be diagnosed with so-called gender dysphoria by a doctor in order to change their legally-recognised sex via a process known as a gender recognition certificate.
It also planned to lower the age someone could apply for one from 18 to 16, and cut the amount of time someone would have to live in their 'acquired gender' from two years to just three months.
The plans sparked outcry from feminist groups despite being backed by LGBT organisations - who warned they would allow biological men into single sex spaces and increasing the risk of sexual assault or harassment.
They were also heavily criticised by high profile critics including Harry Potter author JK Rowling who blasted Ms Sturgeon as the 'destroyer of women's rights'.
In December 2022 after months of furious debate, MSPs from all parties passed the bill 86 votes to 39.
Nicola Sturgeon reveals her sexuality 'isn't binary' in bombshell new book
However, it was blocked from becoming law by the then-Tory UK Government who were challenged in court by the Scottish Government under Humza Yousaf's leadership.
This cost taxpayers more than £375,000 in costs to the UK and Scottish Governments.
The SNP also chose to fight two legal challenges from For Women Scotland about the definition of a woman - with costs expected to top £625,000.
In April, judges ruled that the definition of 'woman' under equality law was biological women - hailed as a "victory for common sense" by campaigners.
Ms Sturgeon faced furious pressure after trans double rapist, Isla Bryson, born Adam Graham, was housed in a women's prison.
She refused to say whether the beast was a man or a woman and as recently as January doubled down, stating: 'That person was a rapist.'
In the same interview, she also rejected the suggestion she hadn't taken feminist concerns about the rules seriously.
Ms Sturgeon said: 'The legal system we were trying to introduce has existed in the Republic of Ireland for years without any of the terrible consequences that were predicted here.
'If I was to sit here today and say I just wouldn't do it, that would be to make my own life easier.'
She previously claimed opponents to the bill were criticising the bill with a 'cloak of acceptability to cover up what is transphobia'.
The ex-Nats chief said some critics were: 'deeply misogynist, often homophobic, possibly some of them racist as well'.
And after the UK's equality watchdog said trans people should be banned from single sex facilities like bathrooms, Ms Sturgeon said the rules could make the lives of trans people 'almost unliveable'.
She said: 'I think that potentially makes the lives of trans people almost unliveable.
'It certainly doesn't make a single woman any safer to do that because the threat to women comes from predatory and abusive men.'
The full interview airs on ITV tomorrow night at 7pm.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer and Zelensky say Alaska talks present a ‘viable chance' for Ukraine
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met in Downing Street on Thursday, affirming their 'strong resolve' to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. It comes ahead of a scheduled meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday to discuss a potential ceasefire in Ukraine. Downing Street said both Sir Keir and Mr Zelensky agreed that the Alaska talks 'present a viable chance to make progress as long as [Mr] Putin takes action to prove he is serious about peace'. However, there are concerns that the US and Russia might attempt to decide the war's conclusion without Ukraine's direct participation. Mr Trump has warned of "severe consequences" if the Russian leader does not agree to peace, while Mr Putin has hinted at discussions on nuclear arms control.
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
What a cheek! The US is in no position to lecture us about free speech
In the spirit of free speech, I suppose we have to allow other countries to express their concerns about life in Britain, even though it's none of their business and is diplomatic bad manners. However, it is impudent of the Trump administration, currently engaged in dismantling the constitution of the United States, to issue a patronising school report on the state of human rights in the United Kingdom. Every so often, the Americans, whose system of laws owes much to the British, like to tell us we're no longer a free people. 'Sod off' is the instinctive and succinct British reaction to such treatment, but I shall endeavour to elaborate. In the document, produced by the US State Department, Britain is chastised for a human rights scene that has apparently 'worsened' over the past year. From the lofty moral heights occupied by Donald Trump, 'specific areas of concern" are raised, including restrictions on political speech deemed "hateful" or "offensive". The Americans are especially censorious about the way the government responded to the horrendous murder of three children in Southport last year, and the subsequent violence. This constituted, or so we are lectured, an "especially grievous example of government censorship". The UK is thus ticked off: 'Censorship of ordinary Britons was increasingly routine, often targeted at political speech". Bloomin' cheek! What the Americans don't like is that we have laws against inciting racial, religious and certain other types of hatred. Well, first, tough. That's how we prefer to run things to promote a civilised multicultural society. Second, they might do well to consider our way, which is not to pretend that there is ever any such thing as 'absolute' free speech. Encouraging people to burn down a hotel of refugees is not, in Britain, a price worth paying for 'liberty'. Although never stated explicitly, it seems that the State Department is upset about the now totemic case of Lucy Connolly, colloquially regarded in both the UK and the US as 'locking someone up for a tweet'. Connolly was sentenced to 31 months' incarceration under laws consistent with international human rights obligations, which obviously include the protection of free speech. It was more than one message on social media that landed Connolly in the dock, the most famous of which went as follows: 'Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you're at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.' It was up for three hours and read 310,000 times so not trivial. But there's more. According to the recent court of appeal review of her case, and before the Southport attacks, Connolly posted a response to a video which had been shared online by the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Laxley-Lennon, showing a black male being tackled to the ground for allegedly masturbating in public. She wrote: 'Somalian, I guess. Loads of them', with a vomiting emoji. On 3 August 2024, five days after the attacks, Connolly posted a further message in response to an anti-racism protest in Manchester: 'Oh good. I take it they will all be in line to sign up to house an illegal boat invader then. Oh sorry, refugee. Maybe sign a waiver to say they don't mind if it's one of their family that gets attacked, butchered, raped etc, by unvetted criminals. Not all heroes wear capes.' Two days later, Connolly sent a WhatsApp message to a friend saying: 'The raging tweet about burning down hotels has bit me on the arse lol.' She went on to say later that, if she got arrested, she would 'play the mental health card'. So that is some extra background on the case of Lucy Connolly, and nor should we forget that she was sending inflammatory messages during the worst civil disorder in years. Of course, the great irony about the 2024 riots is that they were caused by what you might call 'too much free speech'. The entirely false rumour promoted on social media was that the killer, Axel Rudakubana, was a Muslim asylum seeker who had virtually just got off a boat before setting off to commit a terrorist offence. None of that was true, but it was stated near enough as fact by people 'just asking questions' with no official interference or 'censorship' whatsoever in free speech Britain. There was no 'cover-up' of the perpetrator's status because Rudakubana was born in Britain. At his trial, it was established that his massacre was not motivated by any political, religious or racial motive but by an obsession with sadistic violence. Had this propaganda about Rudakubana been banned, a great deal of needless anger, distress, and damage would have been avoided. And what of America? Where you can be refused entry or deported for your political views, and without due process, violations of the ancient rule of habeas corpus. Where the president rules by decree and can attempt to strike out the birthright clause in the Constitution by executive order? Where the Supreme Court is packed with sympathetic judges who give him immunity from prosecution, and the president ignores court orders in any case. A land where there is no human rights legislation, no international commitments to the rights of man, where the media is cowed and the universities intimidated? Where the president dictates what is shown in museums, how history is taught and where the historic struggles of people of colour are disparaged as woke nonsense. A country where gerrymandering is a national sport. Where science is being abolished and statisticians sacked for reporting bad news. America is in a state of incipient authoritarian rule and is in no position to criticise anyone about freedom and liberty. The British should tell them all that, but we're too polite.
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
A ferry link between Scotland and France could be one step closer
A ferry linking Scotland to Europe could be one step closer to reality after a key border obstacle may be resolved. Ferry operator DFDS is planning on launching a service between the town of Rosyth in Fife, Scotland, and Dunkirk in France, as early as spring 2026, allowing for both passengers and freight to be transported between the countries. The route is nicknamed 'Project Brave', and was first proposed in 2022. If instated, the journey could take up to 20 hours, making it among the longest in Europe. One of the main barriers to the project was the need for certain goods to be processed at a border control post. Building a new facility at Rosyth was deemed expensive and unnecessary. DFDS proposed using the existing border control post at Grangemouth, in Scotland, instead, however local politicians say a new UK-EU deal could mean that checks at the posts would no longer be needed. In May, prime minister Keir Starmer confirmed a new agreement with the European Union, which means food and drink can be more easily imported and exported 'by reducing the red tape'. Goods are expected to flow more freely as some routine checks on animal and plant products will be removed. Negotiations are ongoing with the EU to determine specific requirements. Scottish MP Graeme Downie said this week that the new deal could bypass the need for border control posts, according to the Dunfermline Press, but temporary use of Grangemouth will be required for the ferry to launch by spring 2026. 'A regular passenger and freight ferry service from Rosyth to Dunkirk would be an incredible boon for the Dunfermline and Scottish economy, making trade easier as well as making it simpler for people from Europe to visit the kingdom of Fife," he said. 'These matters can be complex but we have taken a huge stride towards making this ferry service a reality.' Secretary of state for Scotland, Ian Murray, has written to Steve Reed, secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, detailing how the ferry service could launch without the new border control point, the local paper reported. He asked that for an 'urgent' amendment to the current model, and thanked Mr Murray for his support in finding a temporary workaround. '[The] efforts make it more likely a passenger and freight ferry to Dunkirk could begin as soon as next year,' he said.
