Overriding the veto on gender identity would be «unlawful interference in politics»

In January, the UK government repealed Nicola Sturgeon's gender recognition bill. Photo: Getty Images/Jeff J Mitchell

This is the highest figure in Scotland. The court will reportedly be improperly intervening in politics if it overturns the UK government's veto of Nicola Sturgeon's gender identification laws.

David Johnston, acting on behalf of the UK Government, told the Court of Session in Edinburgh that «in a democracy the person charged with making assessments of this kind should be politically responsible for them, as ministers and not as judges.»

< p>Rejecting the Scottish National Party government's argument that the veto should be overturned, he said Scottish Secretary Alistair Jack was «entitled» to heed the official warning about the cross-border impact of the changes.

He said Mr Jack had the right to receive detailed information about the potential negative consequences from UK government experts and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the official watchdog.

The EHRC contacted the UK and Scottish governments with a warning that «practical difficulties or confusion may arise in cross-border situations» if a person has one legal gender in Scotland and another in the rest of the UK.

Mr Johnston told the court that the letter should be given «considerable weight» because it «specifically focused on cross-border issues» and Mr Jack should have taken this into account when deciding whether to veto.

< img src= "/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/595694c17da4da78d53d562d48e7fe99.jpg" />

In contrast, he rejected the accusation from Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain CC, representing the Scottish Government, that Mr Jack had ignored international evidence that self-identification will not lead to a surge in fraudulent claims from men seeking access to safe spaces for women. /p>

Mr Johnston said it was of «very limited assistance» to the Scottish minister as he made decisions considering gender recognition policies in unitary states that did not have devolved parliaments trying to implement different systems.

>

In addition, he rejected the Lord Advocate's contention that the real reason Mr Jack vetoed was his disagreement with the policy, saying it was a «red herring» and «simply inappropriate».< /p>

He said the only question before the court was whether the conditions for a veto had been met and whether the Scottish Secretary had acted «rationally».

Mr Johnston was speaking on the second day of the review hearing The Scottish National Party Government's application for a judicial review of Mr Jack's veto under section 35 of the Scotland Act — the first time this power has been used.

< p>The Gender Recognition Reform (GRR) Bill would allow Scots to change their legal gender simply by signing a statutory declaration, removing the requirement for a formal medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

It would also radically reduce the period of time someone must live in their “acquired gender”, from two years to six months, and will allow 16-17 year olds to receive gender recognition certificates for the first time.

The reforms sparked a huge public backlash after trans predator Isla Bryson was initially sent to a women's prison after being found guilty of two rapes.

Humza Yousaf, Ms Sturgeon's successor as first minister and leader of the SNP, filed an application for a judicial review of the decision, despite legal experts warning it had little chance of success.

On the first day of the hearing, Ms Bain said there was «no credible evidence» that the law would be used by burglars and Mr Jack's reasons for the veto were «very unlikely to arise in practice».

< p>But Mr Johnston cited the ECtHR letter, arguing that the commission's opinion on the bill was an «important matter» given its statutory role as the UK's «equality regulator».

He quoted a section that said: “We have repeatedly raised concerns about the lack of certainty about the practical implications for individuals and society, including in relation to cross-border issues.”

Ms Bain countered that tens of millions of people live across borders. unitary countries, where some parts have different gender recognition rules but not others, including the US and Canada.

The Lord Advocate said 250 million people live in countries that already have self-identification, and more 100 million people. in states where there was no “national process”. Lady Haldane will consider the arguments and make a written decision.