For Women Scotland sue Scottish Government over trans policy
They have 21 days to respond — a deadline that will coincide with a planned demonstration outside the Scottish Parliament.
READ MORE
For Women Scotland said they had 'little choice' but to go back to court. They first warned they were considering legal action back in June.
In April, the UK's highest court ruled unanimously that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not alter a person's sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.
The judgment clarified that the terms 'man' and 'woman' in the legislation refer to biological sex, not acquired gender.
While First Minister John Swinney welcomed the 'clarity' provided by the ruling, the Scottish Government has said it is awaiting further guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) before issuing advice to public bodies.
The watchdog is expected to publish an updated statutory Code of Practice — effectively an instruction manual on applying the Equality Act — later this year.
However, the EHRC has repeatedly said ministers do not need to wait before acting on the ruling.
In April the court ruled that sex in law meant biological sex Speaking to The Herald in July, Dr Lesley Sawers, Deputy Chair and Scotland Commissioner at the EHRC, said ministers had 'a responsibility to ensure their adherence to the Public Sector Equality Duty' — the legal requirement for public authorities in Scotland to consider protected characteristics, including biological sex, when carrying out their functions.
She warned: 'The current climate of uncertainty and widespread misinformation serves nobody.'
'The law, as set out in the Supreme Court's clear judgment, has been in effect since it was handed down on April 16.
'Service providers and public bodies should in any event be following the law while they wait for our statutory guidance, as it will not cover every eventuality.
'We have urged relevant bodies to seek their own legal advice where necessary, to inform decisions about what changes they need to make now to their existing policies and practices.'
Some bodies, including the Scottish Parliament and Police Scotland, have already updated their policies in response to the ruling.
READ MORE
In a statement, For Women Scotland said they were focusing on two specific policies: Supporting Transgender Pupils In Schools: Guidance for Scottish Schools, and the Scottish Prison Service's Policy for the Management of Transgender People in Custody.
The schools guidance allows pupils 'to use the facilities they feel most comfortable with', and states that 'if PE classes are organised by sex, a transgender young person should be allowed to take part within the group which matches their gender identity'.
In April, following separate legal action, a Scottish judge ruled that schools must provide single-sex toilets, but ministers have yet to withdraw the guidance, first issued in 2021.
Meanwhile, the prison guidance allows prisoners to be accommodated in the estate that matches their acquired gender — both at admission and at any later stage.
It also permits a male prisoner with a history of violence against women or girls to be housed in the female estate, or — if deemed too high a risk to be placed there — to nonetheless take part in women-only activities and programmes.
According to the latest Scottish Prison Service (SPS) figures, of the 8,190 prisoners currently in custody, 16 identify as transgender. The SPS does not disclose where they are being held.
Among them is Paris Green, formerly known as Peter Laing, who was convicted of murder and torture in 2013.
The SPS allows trans prisoners on the estate of their acquired gender (Image: PA)
The new legal action is not a judicial review but an 'ordinary' action for the 'reduction' — or quashing — of the government policies. If successful, the court would rule the policies unlawful and effectively annul them.
For Women Scotland said: 'We campaigned against the introduction of the prison guidance in February 2024, and in May 2025 the Cabinet Secretary for Justice confirmed her continued refusal to withdraw the policy in response to a letter from MurrayBlackburnMackenzie.
'The Cabinet Secretary for Education stated the government 'will not withdraw' the schools guidance, as did the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice at a meeting in May 2025.
'We have since asked Scottish Government officials, including the Permanent Secretary, to withdraw both policies, and numerous questions have been raised in Parliament, most recently by Annabelle Ewing and Pam Gosal, challenging the continuing operation of the policies following the UK Supreme Court judgment.
'Nothing has persuaded the government to take action, and both policies remain stubbornly in place — to the detriment of vulnerable women and girls — leaving us little choice but to initiate further legal action.
'The Scottish Ministers have 21 days to respond to the summons. If the policies have not been withdrawn by then, we will lodge the summons for calling, and the government will have to defend its policies in court.
'We are asking the court to issue a declarator that the school guidance and the prison guidance are unlawful and that they be reduced in whole. We are also asking that both policies are suspended in the meantime.'
The Scottish Government has already spent around £216,000 of public money fighting the first case and at least £157,816 on the second.
The total bill to the taxpayer is now expected to exceed £600,000.
Dr Michael Foran, the incoming Associate Professor of Law at Oxford University, said: 'The rule of law is undermined when judicial decisions are ignored by governments seeking to create ambiguity where there is none. If the clear decision of the Supreme Court doesn't prompt the Scottish Government to act, losing a third case brought by For Women Scotland might.'
A Scottish Government spokesman said: 'It would be inappropriate to comment on live court proceedings.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
40 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
STEPHEN DAISLEY: Arts venues that want to ban ideas they don't like forfeit any claim to public funds. Defund them. Let them close...
When it announced its ban on Kate Forbes, which it now says isn't a ban, Summerhall Arts promised 'robust, proactive inclusion and wellbeing policies that prevent this from happening again'. The happening in question was an on-stage chinwag with the Deputy First Minister during the Edinburgh Fringe. Summerhall explained that it was concerned about 'attracting those who share Kate Forbes's views'. I thought the Edinburgh Fringe was nothing but people who share Forbes's views, but Summerhall was not talking about the Highlands MSP's support for the national impoverishment plan more commonly known as 'independence'. No, they were referring to her gender-critical views. Summerhall said: 'We do not believe LGBTQ + rights, nor their existence, is up for debate.' It cited concerns for 'the safety and wellbeing of LGBTQ+ artists, staff and audiences' and said 'a designated relaxed space' would be available for anyone affected. Anyone affected by Kate Forbes? Are we talking about the same Kate Forbes? 5ft 2in? Likes the Bible? So young she makes Ross Greer look middle-aged? It's hard to imagine a functioning adult who would require a safe space to protect them from Forbes. Summerhall was going on like it was hosting Hannibal Lecter rather than the most senior woman in Scottish politics. This is the sort of fankle you get into when you believe, or pretend to believe, that political speech – and mainstream political speech at that – is violence and oppression and literally genocide. There are people who feared Scotland would become McGilead if Forbes, a practising Christian, was elected First Minister, who also think women should be shunned for wilful disbelief in the doctrine of self-identification. That is what this is ultimately about: heresy. Forbes does not accept that the material reality of sex is transformed by the assertion of an invisible inner essence called gender identity. For that, anathema is pronounced upon her and she is to be excommunicated from polite society. Kate Forbes is not the fundamentalist here. One would have thought even that clanjamfrie of self-regarding midwits, the Edinburgh arts world, would have learned its lesson from the Joanna Cherry incident. Two years ago, the Stand Comedy Club tried to cancel a Fringe event featuring the former Nationalist MP, blaming staff disquiet over her views on women's sex-based rights. Cherry, an advocate of some standing, gently suggested the club seek some legal advice since what it was proposing amounted to unlawful discrimination. The Stand duly consulted a Rumpole or two, only to be told Cherry was right. The ferret not only reversed but did so while reading a grovelling letter of apology. Talk of cowards who would rather placate crybully censors than stand up for free expression brings us inevitably to Amina Shah, the chief executive of the National Library of Scotland (NLS). NLS was originally intending to include The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht in its 'Dear Library' exhibition. Edited by journalist Susan Dalgety and civil service insider Lucy Hunter Blackburn, it's a collection of essays penned by the women who fought against Nicola Sturgeon's Gender Recognition Reform Bill. The authors include people with sharply contrasting political views. If you want the definitive, behind-the-scenes account of what the Scottish Government tried to do and how they were stopped, The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht is it. I heartily recommend it. Amina Shah seems less enamoured. Upon learning the book would be part of the exhibition, some LGBT+ activists on the NLS staff allegedly demanded it be removed as it contained 'hate speech' and its display would pose 'severe harm' to library employees. We have library employees in Scotland who are afraid books might hurt them. Every day, it becomes less and less baffling that we burned so many witches in this country. Rather than suggest these people seek help, or at least alternative employment, Shah dropped the book from the exhibition. It's not so much that Scotland's chief librarian caved into censors, it's that she did so with a book whose authors risked everything rather than shut up when they were told to. You can't always judge a book by its cover, but when the cover reads 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht', you can probably judge the authors. They kicked up a fuss – rightly so – and Shah has been hit with criticism and, it is said, a donor boycott. That these women were bolshie is commendable but what matters above all else is that they were right. The most powerful people in every sector of public life, enterprise, academia and the arts insisted they were wrong, and not just wrong but cruel, and not just cruel but bigoted. Their meetings were disrupted, their events cancelled, their jobs threatened, and their reputations tarnished on social media. They were exaggerating and misrepresenting. They didn't understand the law and should be disregarded. But they were right. The Supreme Court ruling in favour of For Women Scotland didn't make them right, it merely confirmed they had been all along. I happen to broadly agree with the book's authors, but even if I didn't – and especially if I didn't – I would want to learn exactly what they believe, and how they went about turning those beliefs into one of the most successful political campaigns in modern British history. Instead, there is a pronounced incuriosity, not only an intolerance towards ideas but a total indifference. Ideas are interactive; that's the point of them. One idea meets another and you take the best from both to form an even better idea. Not any more. Now, there are good ideas and bad ideas, and the bad ideas should not be considered. In fact they must be suppressed, because they have the power to harm and to corrupt. Orthodoxy is back, baby. Only it's no longer forbidding clerics or moral crusaders demanding filthy, dirty books be put on high shelves, it's people who imagine themselves to be enlightened and rational and liberal. For dark comedy, nothing at the Fringe can compete with the spectacle of social progressives inadvertently forming a Mary Whitehouse tribute act. Summerhall Arts relies heavily, and the National Library almost exclusively, on taxpayer subvention. Arts funding can be controversial. Some think it subsidises the cultural pursuits of affluent and otherwise privileged people. The search for truth, beauty and humanity should not belong to any one class or sector. It is the hallmark of a liberal society, a society in which liberty is used not only for transient gratification but to better understand the human, the ideal and the transcendental. Unfortunately, our cultural sector seems to be overrun with leaders who believe themselves already in possession of the truth, and uninterested, if not instinctively opposed, to the exploration of other ideas. An arts sector so ideologically prescriptive that it will not countenance wrongthink in its venues or on its bookshelves is one that has forfeited any claim to public funds. Institutions like Summerhall Arts and the National Library of Scotland should not benefit from the spoils of liberal society while having at its load-bearing walls with doctrinal sledgehammers. Defund them, let them close, and invest in new institutions that value free minds and free expression.
Daily Mail
40 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Anger as SNP spend £520m on dualling 11 miles of killer A9
Dualling just 11 miles of Scotland's most dangerous road has so far cost taxpayers more than half a billion pounds, it has emerged. And work on the next six-mile stretch of the A9 is expected to cost at least £300million – pushing the combined bill to more than £800million by spring 2027. The SNP vowed in 2011 to upgrade 88 miles of single carriageway between Perth and Inverness by this year. But ministers failed to fund the commitment and finally admitted two years ago that the timetable had become 'unachievable' – pushing back the completion date to 2035. Only two of the 11 sections have been fully dualled so far – the five miles from Kincraig to Dalraddy, near Aviemore, and six miles from Luncarty to Pass of Birnam, north of Perth. The next section set to be completed, the six miles from Tomatin to Moy, outside Inverness, was recently delayed from 2027 to 2028. Construction has yet to start on the other eight stretches, with the final cost forecast to be around £3.7billion. Figures released to the Tories under freedom of information show the SNP spent £520million on dualling the road between 2012 and June this year. This includes design, land acquisition, demolition and preparatory works, procurement of contractors and the cost of the construction works themselves. Another £300million of spending is planned by April 2027, taking the total to £820million for the completion of 17 miles. Scottish Tory transport spokesman Sue Webber called for emergency legislation to cut bureaucracy and 'get the job done'. 'The SNP's ongoing failure to dual the A9 is Scotland's national shame,' she said. 'They've managed to squander £800million of taxpayers' money and still not even a third of the A9 is dualled. 'As costs soar and progress stalls, more and more lives are being lost on the A9. Unlike the SNP, we would make dualling the A9 a top priority.' Despite being the key transport artery to the Highlands, the A9 has long been a notorious accident blackspot, with many fatalities where the route switches between single and dual carriageway. There have been 320 'injury collisions' on the road in the last four years, including 135 classed as serious and 28 fatalities. The deadliest recent year was 2022-23, when 13 people were killed, followed by 2024-25, when there were seven fatalities. Among the recent casualties was mother-of-two Ashleigh Watson, 31, who was pronounced dead at the scene after a single-vehicle crash just before Christmas last year near Inshes, Inverness. A Scottish Government spokesman said: 'The A9 is an essential route in Scotland. It must be safe, reliable and resilient, and that is what this Government will deliver.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Outrageous! Fury at threat to increase rail fares by 5.5%
A potential 5.5 per cent rise in England's train fares next year has been described by public transport groups as 'outrageous'. July's Retail Prices Index (RPI) measure of inflation – which is often used to determine increases in the cost of train travel – will be announced on Wednesday. The Government has not confirmed how it will determine the cap in regulated fare rises for 2026, but this year's 4.6 per cent hike was one percentage point above RPI in July 2024. Banking group Investec has forecast this year's July RPI figure will be 4.5 per cent, which means fares could jump by 5.5 per cent. Bruce Williamson of pressure group Railfuture said 'it would be outrageous' if fares rose by that much. He added: 'What would be the justification for jacking up fares above inflation? There isn't any. 'It's ripping off the customer, driving people off the trains and on to our congested road network, which is in no one's interest.' Mr Williamson said that he would support the Government marking its nationalisation of train operators by freezing fares. He continued: 'One would hope that there would be some efficiency savings and economies of scale that you get from having a more integrated railway. 'But I strongly suspect that if there are any savings to be had, they'd be swallowed up by the Treasury and not passed back to passengers, which I think is wrong.' Ben Plowden, chief executive of the lobby group Campaign for Better Transport, said: 'Rising fares are not just burdening passengers, they are putting people off rail travel. 'Our survey found that 71 per cent of people would be more likely to take the train if fares were cheaper.' Mr Plowden added that Great British Railways – an upcoming public sector body that will oversee the UK's train operations – 'must take the opportunity to reform fares and make rail travel more affordable' because 'public support for nationalisation plummets if fares continue to rise'. About 45 per cent of fares on the country's railways are regulated by either the Westminster Parliament or the Scottish and Welsh governments. They include season tickets on most commuter journeys, some off-peak return tickets on long-distance routes and flexible tickets for travel around major cities. The Department for Transport (DfT) said there will be an update on changes to regulated fares later this year. A DfT spokesman said: 'The Transport Secretary [Heidi Alexander] has made clear her number one priority is getting the railways back to a place where people can rely on them. 'No decisions have been made on next year's rail fares but our aim is that prices balance affordability for both passengers and taxpayers.'
