Supreme Court latest: Judges rule on definition of a woman in landmark case
The key moment from the judge's ruling
Watch the moment Lord Hodge announced it was the "unanimous decision" of the Supreme Court that the terms "woman" and "sex" refer to a biological woman and biological sex in the Equality Act 2010...
Ruling 'absolutely' a victory for women's rights, says campaigner
Some reaction now from For Women Scotland, the campaign group that brought the case against the Scottish government - which made its way from courts in Edinburgh to the highest civil court in the UK, the Supreme Court.
The group's director Trina Budge has just spoken to our Scotland correspondent Connor Gillies, describing the outcome in court minutes ago as a "victory".
While the judge cautioned against seeing the ruling as a win, Budge said: "This case was always about women's rights... never about trans rights."
"It's absolutely a victory for women's rights," she said.
Transgender people, she added, are "fully protected in law" - as the judge said.
"It means there's absolute clarity in law regarding all women... and that when we see a women-only space, it means exactly that," she added.
"Just women. No men. Not even if they have a gender recognition certificate."
That's not a view shared by Scottish Greens activist Ellie Gomersall, who is a trans woman.
As we reported at 10.26, she said it "ends 20 years of understanding" that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate are "able to be, for almost all intents and purposes, recognised legally as our true genders".
In pictures: Campaigners sing Auld Lang Syne after ruling
Here are some images of the celebrations by For Women Scotland campaigners in Edinburgh after news of this morning's verdict.
Our Scotland correspondent Connor Gillies is among the group as they break into a rendition of Auld Lang Syne, the classic Scottish song based on a poem by Robert Burns.
Ruling 'undermines vital human rights', trans activist says
We can now bring you some reaction to this ruling from Scottish Greens activist Ellie Gomersall, a 25-year-old trans woman who lives in Glasgow.
"I'm gutted to see this judgement from the Supreme Court, which ends 20 years of understanding that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate are able to be, for almost all intents and purposes, recognised legally as our true genders," she says.
"These protections were put in place in 2004 following a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, meaning today's ruling undermines the vital human rights of my community to dignity, safety and the right to be respected for who we are.
"This ruling represents yet another attack on the rights of trans people to live our lives in peace.
"With hate crimes against trans people on the rise across Britain, it's time for the UK Labour government to stop sitting on the fence when it comes to the human rights of trans people, to step up, and defend one of the most vulnerable minorities in the country."
'A very practical, common-sense decision'
We've just heard from legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg reacting to the judge's remarks.
"This is a way of bringing clarity to a very confused area of the law," he says. "I think it's a very practical decision. It's a very common-sense decision."
Rozenberg says this decision gets round many "practical problems" that the judge outlined during his remarks.
"But, as you heard, Lord Hodge went to considerable lengths to say that although this was a victory for the campaign group, it wasn't a defeat for the trans community.
"He was making it very clear that their rights are protected. It doesn't mean that they can be discriminated against. They have rights under the Equalities Act."
Rozenberg praises the decision for being "very clear and decisive", which he says will no doubt please those who feared today's ruling might have created "some sort of grey area".
Unanimous decision greeted by cheers - but there will be disappointment for trans campaigners
Speaking outside the Supreme Court, our correspondent Alice Porter hears cheers from campaigners against the Scottish government.
She says the judge ruled it was a unanimous decision of the court that in the case of the 2010 Equality Act refers to biological sex - and not necessarily somebody who has a gender recognition certificate.
"That was what this case rested on," she adds.
"Now, this will be welcomed by For Women Scotland, but of course there will be transgender campaigners and the community who will be very disappointed by the decision today at the Supreme Court."
Judge: Trans people still have protection under law
In his ruling, which ended a short moment ago, Lord Hodge said: "As I shall explain later in this hand down speech, the Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender."
'Woman' refers to biological sex, says judge
It's the "unanimous decision" of this court that the terms "woman" and "sex" refer to a biological woman and biological sex in the Equality Act 2010, Lord Hodge says.
"But we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another," he adds, as he prepares to set out a definitive ruling shortly.
"The Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender.
"This is the application of the principle of discrimination by association.
"Those statutory protections are available to transgender people, whether or not they possess a gender recognition certificate."
His full remarks are not over yet, but there were cheers for supporters of For Women Scotland in Edinburgh when the judge read out this part of his remarks.
Judge sets out central question of today's ruling
Lord Hodge is now speaking in the Supreme Court and sets out today's case.
He says it's not the task of the court to make policy on how the interests of the trans community should be protected.
"Our role is to ascertain the meaning of the legislation which parliament has enacted to that end," he says.
"The central question on this appeal is the meaning of the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010.
"Do those terms refer to biologic women or biological sex? Or is a woman to be interpreted as extending to a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate?"
Watch the ruling live from court now
Proceedings have begun and we can now bring you live footage from inside the Supreme Court.
Watch the landmark ruling live in the stream at the top of the page - and we'll bring you text updates too.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
18 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
SNP and Reform feed off each other – but Labour is still hungry
Nats activists never tire of referring to Labour & Tories as two cheeks of the same a*** - the same charge can now be levelled at SNP and Nigel Farage's Reform CHRIS MUSSON SNP and Reform feed off each other – but Labour is still hungry SNP activists never tire of referring to Labour and the Tories as two cheeks of the same a***. Well, the same charge can now be levelled at the Nats and Nigel Farage's Reform UK. 1 Reform came a close third to the SNP and winners Labour Neither will want to hear this, but their equally destructive stances on funding Scotland's public services reveal yet another similarity between the two parties, vying for power at Holyrood next year with Labour. Both claim to be the outsiders standing up to the Westminster establishment, though for the SNP this is also not-so-subtle code for England. The stock-in-trade for both is to blame others for all ills. Both engineered referendums to leave major economic unions, and both lean heavily on populist rhetoric. And as we discovered in the run-up to last week's crunch by-election, they both want to cut Scotland's funding off at the knees. They want to do so to further their own narrow, political aims. For the SNP, that's independence. For Reform, electoral domination down south. As underlined by the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election — where Reform came a close third to the SNP and winners Labour — support for Farage is surging amid falls in backing for traditional parties. Scottish Labour have been buoyed by that Hamilton result. and remain hungry for power. But they still face a huge battle. Because the more Reform's support grows, the more likely it becomes the SNP can win the 2026 Scottish Parliament elections with a far lower vote share than they got in 2021. And the two parties don't just share ideas — they are feeding off each other. There may be a point in the coming years — with Farage in No10 and the SNP in power at Holyrood — that these competing forms of nationalism create a perfect storm. Moment John Swinney is heckled by Reform UK campaigners as FM breezes past warring activists heads of Hamilton by-election Both parties have set out how they want the Scottish Government to have more independence in terms of funding, a move that would go a long way to ending the current 'pooling and sharing' of resources which Scotland voted to keep in 2014. The common theme is the scrapping of the Barnett Formula — the funding mechanism which drives Scotland's significantly higher share of public spending than the UK average. Last year, this meant thousands of pounds per person extra to spend on Scots services like the NHS and schools. Scotland spent £22.7billion more than the £88.5bn it raised in taxes in 2023/24. Including oil revenues, we brought in just £60 per head more in tax than the UK average. But we spent £2,417 per head more. Not a bad deal, you may think — unless you look for the worst in everything, as the SNP do. But Holyrood Finance Secretary Shona Robison wants to scrap this 'Union dividend'. She has resurrected an SNP aim to ditch the pooling and sharing — which means that extra spending is covered — and turn that £22.7bn overspend into Scotland's problem. Robison says that short of independence, 'moving to full fiscal autonomy for the Scottish Government would create a fairer system that would protect public services and allow investment in our economy'. Ms Robison knows full well that the opposite is true. Full fiscal autonomy may mean keeping all taxes raised in Scotland — income tax, VAT, corporation tax, oil revenues and so on. HOLYROOD sits just three days a week, when it's not enjoying long holidays. When it does, MSPs spend an inordinate amount of time debating meaningless motions. Last week, the Scottish Government staged a debate and vote congratulating itself for making 'significant progress' towards becoming one of 'Europe's fastest-growing start-up economies'. Some brass neck, given how anti-business and anti-growth the SNP have been. And the previous week, it had emerged that because Scotland's economy has lagged behind the UK average, we are losing hundreds of millions of pounds a year in funds for public services. That's the reality. So how about knuckling down to sorting that out, rather than grandstanding about this imaginary world? But it also means we have to pay for everything. And we simply can't afford it. It means the end of the Barnett Formula, and the Scottish Government having to find ten per cent of its GDP to fill that £22.7bn gap. Borrowing at these levels, even if it were possible, would provoke a response from the markets making Liz Truss's mini-budget disaster seem small fry. If you think the NHS and schools and roads are bad now, just wait for the super-charged austerity under full fiscal autonomy. It would be economic suicide, and Robison is not thick. Which leads me to think this is a kamikaze policy. Scots public services are the target, leading to the inevitable conclusion from SNP chiefs that things are so terrible the only way out of the wreck is independence. And what about Farage? Last week this newspaper tried to get some Scots policies out of him. Reform UK are quite light on those — meaning they really haven't got any. He did confirm he no longer wanted to axe MSPs — good news for the ones who could be elected for Reform in 2026. But one thing he did speak on during his Scots trip was scrapping the Barnett Formula. In his own words, he said it 'seems to me to be somewhat out of date', adding: 'What I'd like to see is a Scottish Government that's able to raise a bit more of its own revenue, and a Scottish economy that has genuine growth.' Like the SNP's funding policy, the consequences would be the opposite of what Farage says. It would strangle spending and growth. With a reduced settlement for public services here — while people in England get the same, or closer, to the current Scots levels — it would mean savage cuts, tax rises, or both. This would also suit the SNP's independence argument. Does Farage care much about that? I'm not sure he actually does. Scotland has never been his priority. Domination in England is. There would be a bit more money for England, styled as one in the eye for 'subsidy junkie' Scots, playing well to potential Reform voters down south. At the heart of it, like the SNP's stance, it's about making Scotland poorer, not wealthier. As the SNP's Trade Union Group put it last week: 'This is code for a bonfire of public services. And the effective end to devolution.' Correct. But they may want to look in the mirror, as SNP chiefs are proposing the same.
Press and Journal
44 minutes ago
- Press and Journal
'Stop passing the buck and help Aberdeen Raac families'
A campaigner fighting for Aberdonians caught up in the Raac housing crisis is pleading with politicians to stop passing the buck over responsibility days before another UK spending review. Torry Raac campaign supporter Raymond Davidson reacted to the blame-game between political leaders in the week the UK Chancellor is under more pressure from the Scottish Government to find funds at Westminster. In the run up to the spending review on Wednesday, SNP and Labour leaders again kept the row going in a series of letters and statements shared with the P&J. Meanwhile in Aberdeen, Balnagask homeowners are trying to convince the city council it already has the money to meet everyone's needs. Mr Davidson said the constant back-and-forth between London and Edinburgh is a distraction. 'It's like a game of pass the parcel to them,' he said. 'No one wants the music to stop and take responsibility, it just keeps going round and round. 'It's as though people don't matter in this. Politicians are playing party-political games.' One of the big problems is what happens to homeowners who bought properties with Raac which is now posing a risk. The council has a 'voluntary acquisition proposal' which would cost more than £12 million to take the homes and demolish them. For those who want to stay, a massive repair bill would fall to them personally. The share could be between £20,000 and £44,000 depending on the size of property. 'Why can't the council provide the lot?' asked Mr Davidson. 'They can spend now whatever Holyrood and Westminster are saying. 'If there's extra money down the line, fine. But that shouldn't stop them now.' A proposal from residents would see people relocated to a cluster of homes which would then be repaired at what campaigners say is a reduced cost to the taxpayer. Councillor Allard, the SNP co-leader in Aberdeen, said the local authority is already getting on with helping Raac residents – but is under no obligation to fully fund private owners. 'By law we don't need to give them anything,' he said. 'Morally, we are helping.' The full cost, regardless of what happens, should involve government help, he added. 'I don't understand why the UK Government will not pay more. It should be like the Grenfell cladding crisis and a UK-wide issue.' In the UK's Scotland Office, Labour MP Ian Murray agreed the council's voluntary purchase scheme must give homeowners 'fair compensation.' But in a letter copied to residents and the P&J, he wrote: 'While I have the utmost sympathy with what you and your neighbours are going through, our powers are limited, given this is an issue devolved to the Scottish Government, which received a record £50bn funding settlement at the Autumn Budget. 'Some of that could – and I believe should – be used to tackle this problem.' Meanwhile, the housing minister in the UK Government said Raac is 'low' in English housing so there will be no additional extra government scheme. This is crucial because if Westminster does spend extra on English housing on Wednesday, it would generate a compensating figure for use in Scotland. In a letter to his Scottish counterpart, Mr Norris said building safety and local government finance are Holyrood's responsibility. 'Any decisions on funding to support building owners to manage Raac are for the Scottish Government and impacted local authorities,' he wrote. The P&J put the UK Government position to the SNP Government. Scottish housing minister Paul McLennan said: 'Raac is a cross-UK problem, and we have been clear from the beginning that it requires a cross-UK solution. 'We have repeatedly called on the UK Government to make available a dedicated Raac remediation fund, which they have unfortunately failed to do. 'We are continuing to call on them to take action – and at next week's spending review the Chancellor has the opportunity to take action to support people affected by Raac, including those in Aberdeen. We will keep up the pressure on the UK Government on behalf of homeowners in Aberdeen and across Scotland.' The P&J asked a spokesman for the prime minister in the Commons last week if any money can be expected on Wednesday. But the spokesman would not disclose any details ahead of the statement.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Immigration is an economic imperative for Scotland
Liz McAreavey, CEO, Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce There is a growing recognition across Scotland's business community that immigration is not just a social or political issue – it is an economic imperative. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... For Edinburgh and the wider Scottish economy to thrive, we must embrace the reality that attracting and retaining international talent is essential to our future prosperity. There has been much debate in recent weeks about the merits of giving the Scottish Parliament devolved powers when it comes to setting immigration policy. Inevitably, that has become caught up in the ever-present constitutional argument. Scotland's demographic trends are clear: we have an ageing population and a declining birth rate. Edinburgh, while a vibrant and successful city, is not immune to these challenges. Over the next decade most of the population growth in Edinburgh and the Lothians is expected to come from people aged 65 and over – and by quite a large margin. At the same time, Edinburgh's birth rate is one of the lowest in the UK, which itself has a lower birth rate than many other countries. This creates a real challenge for our future workforce and economy. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The facts speak for themselves: to keep our economy growing, we need more people of working age. We need individuals who can support our essential public services, start new businesses and bring valuable skills into our workforce. The 2024 Edinburgh by Numbers report highlights this clearly. Between 2012 and 2022 the natural population change – births minus deaths – added just over 5700 people to Edinburgh's population. In contrast, net migration added more than 53,000. Migration isn't just helping to grow our population – it is the main driver behind it. Edinburgh is a city of opportunity. As outlined in our Call to Action, we have world-class strengths across a range of sectors including tech, health, the green economy, financial services and the creative industries. These are underpinned by strong enablers such as our vibrant visitor economy, excellent domestic and international connectivity, and a highly skilled workforce. But to maintain this momentum – and to drive good economic growth – we must ensure our population can support our economic ambitions. Other countries have successfully aligned immigration policy with regional economic needs offering useful models for Scotland. Canada is a strong example. While the federal government sets overall immigration targets, provinces have the flexibility to tailor programmes that address their specific labour market demands. Through the Provincial Nominee Programs (PNP), provincial governments can attract economic migrants with the skills and experience needed in their regions. For instance, Alberta has a scheme that encourages immigration to smaller rural communities facing labour shortages. In British Columbia, the Tech Pilot programme fast-tracks immigration for technology professionals to meet the needs of its growing digital sector. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad These models show the value of a collaborative approach between national and regional governments – one that enables targeted, responsive immigration strategies. Crucially, they are supported by integrated data systems that track and monitor migration flows. The UK already has tools, such as the digitised National Insurance system, that could support a similar approach here. With the right infrastructure and political will, we could adopt a more flexible, regionally responsive immigration system – one that supports Scotland's specific economic needs and helps unlock our full potential. The time has come for a mature, constructive conversation about how we manage immigration in a way that supports our economic ambitions. We need our governments – at all levels – to work together to find practical, forward-looking solutions. Liz McAreavey is Chief Executive, Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce
