The death of Pride and the people who killed it

The Herald Scotland

17-05-2025

The organisers then went on to explain why they thought the ban was needed. The recent Supreme Court's ruling on the definition of woman was, they said, 'not right', and the 'lack of action' from parties had led to mass confusion about who could use essential services and to members of the LGBTQI+ community being blocked from activities such as football 'which has impacted their privacy, dignity and safety'. The organisers said they hoped that by banning the parties, the powers-that-be would 'make the required changes … because it is the right thing to do for the members of your party and the individuals whom you have been elected to represent.'
It's clear from the statement, like there was ever any doubt, which side of the rights debate the organisers are on, but it does raise some questions. Firstly, what confusion are the organisers talking about exactly? The Supreme Court ruling could not have been clearer: the rights and responsibilities in the Equality Act are based on biological sex. Secondly, what about the privacy, dignity and safety of women, including gay women, who do not want members of the opposite sex in activities such as football? And thirdly, what about the party members and individuals, including gay people, who agree with the Supreme Court ruling? The statement from the organisers had the whiff of moral certainty and finality about it when no such moral certainty and finality exists.
The statement, later followed by Edinburgh Pride, also underlines the question of what significance and relevance, if any, Pride still has. There was a time, until the 1990s or thereabouts, when it had a pretty simple message – equality before the law for gay people – and it was a message that ultimately succeeded when Labour won in '97 and introduced civil partnerships and equality of age of consent and so forth. It didn't stop Pride events happening – people still marched, politicians still made speeches, and Jimmy Somerville still sang Smalltown Boy – but it was now more a celebration than a fight. There's still homophobia and issues to be tackled, but the feeling, amid the lager and the flags, was of a campaign victorious.
Read more
Not My Scotland: what the anti-royal protesters keep getting wrong | The Herald
Mark Smith: Can it be true? Sensible policies for Scotland's trains at last
But what else are campaigners to do after winning a campaign but find another one to fight? And so, under new leadership at Stonewall, the gay campaigning organisation became trans-inclusive and LGB became LGBT and over time the T became more and more important; it was the new fight, the new campaign, and its central message was that trans women are women. For many at the time, it felt like a new version of the gay rights campaign that went before it, but we know now that, unlike gay rights, it would not attract broad consensus and social change; instead, there would be division and debate that would go all the way up to the Supreme Court.
There's always been some division in the Pride movement of course – it involves more than one person so there's bound to be. There was a time, for instance, when some lesbians felt it was overly dominated by men and organised their own events. It's also been criticised for not being racially diverse; even Stonewall withdrew its support at one point and partnered with Black Pride instead. And there's long been debate over corporate sponsors keen to attach themselves to what is, or was, a trendy issue. Some see the sponsorship as progress. Others see it creeping corporatisation of what's supposed to be a grassroots movement.
Glasgow Pride has not been immune to the division, most recently over sponsorship. Like all Pride events, Glasgow has been sponsored by big-name organisations but some of them, like JP Morgan and Merck, have proved controversial because they have links to Israeli companies. Last year there was a 'No Pride in Genocide' splinter group and hundreds of people have signed an open letter calling on Glasgow to ditch any sponsors with links to Israel. The organisers say in response that Gaza is a separate issue and the focus should be on LGBTQIA+ rights instead.
Glasgow Pride (Image: Newsquest)
As I say, division like this is normal in any movement, but the response of Glasgow Pride, as well as their statement banning political parties, have rather exposed what's really going on here. The organisers say Glasgow Pride exists as a movement for LGBTQIA+ rights, not as a platform for political visibility or point-scoring. But tell that to Mr Swinney. They also say they 'march as one united community, a single bloc'. But tell that to No Pride in Genocide or the gender-critical gays who celebrated the Supreme Court ruling.
The point that the organisers are missing, either wilfully or carelessly, is that what they see as 'one united community' is nothing of the sort, and that the issue they imagine the 'one united community' is gathering around, LGBTQIA+ rights, is actually the source of division. In their statement, the organisers said the parties they've banned from Glasgow Pride must commit to gender-affirming care in the NHS and a revival of the SNP's self-ID plans. But there is no 'one united community' for such a stance, quite the opposite in fact; many gay people who've been to a Pride event or two in their time are utterly opposed to such policies.
It is this point that the organisers of Glasgow Pride, and many in the wider Pride movement, fail to see. It also underlines the extent to which Pride has died as a movement with pretensions to speak for one group of people with shared interests. The Glasgow organisers are perfectly entitled to their views that the Supreme Court ruling was wrong and resulted in mass confusion and has led to trans people being unjustly blocked from football and other activities. But what they're not entitled to suggest is that in expressing these views, they're somehow speaking for one united community. They're not. The community is not united. And Glasgow Pride does not speak for it.