Thank goodness we voted No – it saved us from gender disaster

Strange things are happening in Scotland nowadays. But at least we are spared one disaster: had Scots voted to leave the UK, the Gender Recognition Reform Bill would now be law. Even Nicola Sturgeon has backtracked on provisions of that bill regarding the placing of male sex offenders in a women’s prison. She should be grateful that His Majesty’s Government has saved her from the monumental error that that bill perpetrates.
Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh

Bloody nose for the SNP

IT looks like the SNP Government is getting a bloody nose on gender reform. What makes all those who voted for this bill think that 16-year-olds are in any kind of hormonal balance to be able to make a decision of such importance as to what sex they want to be? I have a friend whose daughter has decided twice, since the age of 12, to change her sex. Once from girl to boy and now back again – fortunately, only by changing clothing and slightly modified appearance. And all this mainly due to influence from a close pal.

The final straw for the Government is the farce of the male rapist changing sex before prosecution and landing up in a female prison ("Ministers may consider separate unit for trans prisoners after rapist outcry", The Herald, January 31). How convenient for him. There should be a moratorium on any, even marginally violent, transgender male being allowed anywhere near a women's prison.

Nicola Sturgeon's latest tirade against those who oppose her bill ("Sturgeon says some critics of gender law are ‘transphobic’", The Herald, January 28) looks like someone at the end of their tether, using attack as the best form of defence and hoping it might work. Votes are more likely to be lost rather than gained by this outburst.
Ian Smith, Symington

• CALLING people names is silly. If you disagree with somebody, give him reasons, not invective.

Calling someone a misogynist just because he believes that abortion is wrong does not justify the killing of a human being, nor does calling someone a Holly Willie because he says that adultery is wrong justify the offence against marriage, neither does calling someone transphobic because he states that a man is not a woman change the fact.

Labels are not arguments.
John Kelly, Edinburgh

Keeping all women safe

DOROTHY Connor (Letters, January 31) asks why women in prison have more rights to protection from potentially dangerous men than "law-abiding" females and seems to imply that this should not be so. Surely all women should have the same level of protection?

With regard to the current controversy about trans prisoners I refer to the Scottish Prisons Service operating task as "helping to protect the public and reducing offending through safe and secure custodial services".
Cathy Baird, Dunipace

Paying a heavy price for Brexit

IT is no coincidence that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) report noting that the UK economy will perform worse than all other advanced and emerging economies, was published on the three-year anniversary of the UK leaving the EU ("Economy ‘to go into reverse’ this year", The Herald, January 31).

Our economy is set to contract by 0.6 per cent in 2023, worse than other economies, including sanctions-hit Russia.

One contributory factor in this is of course Brexit. We have witnessed the damaging economic impact of leaving the EU, with the UK set to be 4% poorer than if it had stayed in it, according to the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. This is set to knock £80bn off the UK’s gross domestic product and about £40bn off exchequer receipts.

Further evidence, if any were needed, of the damaging impact of Brexit is the recent research by the Centre for Business Prosperity at Aston University. This has found that withdrawal from the EU and the introduction of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement has resulted in a 22.9% slump in UK exports.

This considerable contraction of the UK trade capacity signifies some serious long-term concerns about the UK’s future exporting and productivity.

The UK Government itself even noted that the much-trumpeted Australian trade deal will raise economic output by less than 0.1% per cent a year by 2035, while Brexit has raised food prices by 6% and drained the workforce.

Brexit is one of the greatest acts of economic self-harm by a nation, and the figures from the IMF are evidence of the UK reaping what it has sown.
Alex Orr, Edinburgh

Messing about with majorities

PETER Dryburgh's excellent letter (January 31), challenging the supposed need for supermajorities for constitutional change, dealt hypothetically with the proposition that 64% should not be considered a mandate. However, one need not deal with the hypothetical. Recent precedent exists for straight majorities being the criterion in the UK.

No bill could have been more focussed on constitutional change than the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act (2022), which repealed the Fixed Terms Parliament Act of 2011. It was passed in Westminster by 316 votes to 162 – tantalisingly close to a two-thirds majority, but not quite. Can you imagine any government – in any parliament – accepting that the vote was not valid because a two-thirds majority was not achieved?

Frankly, I can't see supermajorities for constitutional change in the UK ever becoming the norm. The English constitutional concept that "Parliament is sovereign" with 50%+1 of the votes is just too useful for the passing of contentious legislation – no Westminster government would give it away willingly.

If this flawed two-thirds majority proposal were to come to be, it would be described as "essential" for bills the executive wished to block and "unnecessary" for bills that the executive wished to pass. Pure cakeism – and that is no way to govern a country.
David Patrick, Edinburgh

Unionists are running scared

PETER A Russell’s letter (January 31) brings to mind a story related to me by one of my lecturers at Glasgow University. Paul and his wife had been on holiday in Sicily, and on being told by their hotel receptionist that there was a local election that day, he had asked as a joke “would my wife and I be able to vote?”. To which the receptionist replied: “Sir, even the dead vote here”.

Mr Russell offers his trademark support to W McIntyre’s call (Letters, January 30) for a supermajority to apply in any future vote on Scottish independence. The latter required only 60/66% whereas in only 24 hours, Mr Russell is clear that it should be two-thirds. Given enough time, perhaps a majority prerequisite might be reached that would require the dead to vote here, at least in an independence vote? Indeed, Mr Russell’s suggested use of turnout (cognate to George Cunningham’s 1978 amendment to democracy) encourages just this.

More seriously, Mr Russell suggests that Scotland “at ease with itself” after an independence vote is more important than independence. I think, if he asked, he would find that many independence supporters (me included) would agree. Our wish is for an independent Scotland “at ease with itself”.

However, his commitment to Scotland “at ease with itself” becomes questionable as when unionists find their preferred constitutional arrangements under pressure, procedural changes such as a supermajority are rolled out. For instance, Ian Paisley introduced a bill in the House of Commons at the end of last year for a supermajority to apply in any referendum.

Is it too cynical to suggest that this might just have something to do with the possibility of a border poll under the Good Friday Agreement and the pressure Unionism is under in Northern Ireland just now? Or that if Scottish independence were achieved it might increase demands for a united Ireland?

Put short, is Scotland “at ease with itself” not just a subterfuge for "if the argument is being lost just use the law?"
Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton

Read more letters: Why on earth should we call these people Honourable?

Letters should not exceed 500 words. We reserve the right to edit submissions.