SHONA Robison has accused the Scottish Secretary of a “complete disregard for devolution” as she criticised his assertion that two gender recognition systems cannot exist across the UK.

In a scathing first response to Alister Jack, seen by The Herald, the SNP Civil Justice Secretary has criticised the UK Government for failing to raise concerns about the Gender Recognition Reforms Bill in previous discussions and then “with no warning” using a “power of veto never used before” which should be used as a last resort.

In her letter to the Scottish Secretary, the SNP minister points to the UK Government’s “fundamental objection to the existence of two different systems with in the UK which is “in direct contradiction with the position” set out in 2018 by Tory ministers.

Read more: Alister Jack snubs Holyrood committee over gender reforms block

Last month, the Scottish Parliament overwhelmingly passed the reforms which would remove the need for trans people to require a gender dysphoria diagnosis to obtain a gender recognition certificate – with a move to a system of self-ID.

Under the proposal, the lower age limit would be reduced to 16.

But the UK Government has blocked the plans from becoming law by issuing a Section 35 order under the Scotland Act.

Mr Jack has insisted that the proposals encroach on UK-wide legislation such as the Equalities Act, which would justify the use of the power which has never been used before in the history of Scottish devolution.

He said that “the legal advice I have says that citizens’ rights across the United Kingdom, including Scotland, are impacted by those adverse effects by this legislation”.

The Scottish Secretary also stressed that concerns had been raised about two parallel systems being in use in different parts of the UK, despite the matter being devolved to Holyrood.

Read more: Hundreds of trans rights protesters demand gender reforms

In her letter, Ms Robison points to Mr Jack’s claims that he wants to “find a constructive way forward which respects devolution and the operation of UK legislation”.

But she adds this is “utterly incompatible with your approach of waiting until after the bill has been passed to implement a power of veto never used before, with no warning communicated about the use of that power or prior attempt to engage on the detailed issues now raised”.

The cabinet secretary has asked Mr Jack to “clarify how the Scottish Government can work constructively with you under these circumstances”.

Pointing to the statement of reasons published late on Tuesday by the UK Government, Ms Robison claimed it included “scant detail”.

She added: “We will respond in full to the points raised in the appropriate forum which, given the approach taken by the UK Government, is now likely to be through the courts.”

Mr Robison has also highlighted Mr Jack’s “fundamental objection to the existence of two different systems within the UK”, raising suggestions that the bill could not be amended to meet the request of Westminster.

Read more: Shona Robison says UK 'has no showstopper' to block gender reforms

She added: “This is in direct contradiction of the position set out in the UK Government’s 2018 consultation on gender recognition reform.”

The Scottish Government has faced criticism for an apparent failure to engage with the UK Government prior to the stand-off emerging to solve any issues.

But Ms Robison has insisted that during previous discussions, the UK Government had not “given any indication it would consider using any powers, let alone a Section 35 power to effectively veto the bill, or that it had issues that could possibly warrant doing so”.

She said: “The UK Government has only raised concerns about two specific issues with the bill, both of which were quickly resolved.

“The first was provision relating to asylum seekers added at stage two by an MSP and which the Scottish Government was clear it did not support.”

Read more: Alister Jack claims UK will 'not veto Holyrood Bills when it chooses'

Scottish Labour’s amendment on asylum seekers was dropped after Ms Robison pleaded with MSPs not to include matters that were reserved to the UK Government.

Mr Robison has confirmed that “the competence of this amendment was queried by the office of the Advocate General, and it was removed by a Scottish Government”.

The second issues was raised by UK Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch during the stage three debate at Holyrood last month “in relation to remarks” made in the chamber.

Ms Robison said: “This was resolved the same day through clarification that the existing GRC process will continue to be open to those in Scotland.”