It's the SNP who are playing politics with trans people

There is no shortage of volunteers in that category and they are already active at their keyboards, polishing their hyperbole and showing little interest in Keir Starmer’s sensible intention to “wait and see the legal advice” – which the UK Government should now produce.

Starmer found himself denounced for “repeating toxic Tory talking-points” by the Green MSP, Maggie Chapman. That sums up how the Equalities Act - designed to protect women and minorities – is now sneeringly dismissed by single-issue zealots who have congregated around this legislation.

Insofar as the devolved writ runs, the decision of the Scottish Parliament to pass the Bill should be respected, no matter how much it is disagreed with. The decision to withhold Royal Assent must be solely because the effects of the Bill extend beyond that writ and in conflict with other laws.

Nicola Love: Gender reform bill should be cause for celebration

This principle should not be difficult to grasp but must be made crystal clear. Any suggestion the Bill is being stopped because that course of action might be politically popular is as intellectually unacceptable as its mirror image - that the UK Government should have done nothing in case it encouraged a pro-SNP response.

The rules had to be observed and, like it or not, the rules are at this juncture legalistic rather than political. If that means the dispute ending up in the Supreme Court, so be it. That may be its natural home, reinforcing the point that this is a question of law rather than politics. Meanwhile, the offer from Alistair Jack to co-operate in revising the Bill which avoids the conflict with existing and competing legislation should be taken at face value and acted upon.

It seems unfortunate this was not clarified sooner and for that the UK Government owes an explanation. Ministers and their lawyers knew this was happening in Holyrood and had plenty time to make clear the likelihood of challenge. SNP Ministers too should now share the legal advice which (presumably) caused them to believe the Bill would not be open to challenge.

It is a risky issue to play politics with because it clearly crosses party and voter lines. There are plenty within the SNP, from very senior people who have opposed it throughout down to rank and file members, who will be delighted to see the Bill kicked into touch – but preferably not as an affront to devolution. Just stick with the law.

Keir Starmer was denounced for “repeating toxic Tory talking-points” by Green MSP Maggie Chapman (Image: Newsquest)

Equally, there are leading lights in other parties who seemed anxious to play the conflation game. Tory MSP, Jamie Greene, wrote to the Prime Minister telling him not to block the Bill because it would be a “gift” to independence. So is it really Mr Greene’s view that if legal advice is politically inconvenient, it should be ignored for a quiet life?

I have no idea why Scottish Labour supported the Bill after its own crucial amendments were rejected and are now at odds with Keir Starmer particularly on lowering the age to 16. I suppose it is a plus that nobody can say they were told what to do by “London” but they certainly should steer clear of the “contempt for devolution” bandwagon, assuming UK Ministers based their decision squarely upon legal advice.

Any presumption the Scottish public will be mortified by Mr Jack’s intervention is optimistic. The more the SNP turn a legalistic dispute into a political grievance about thwarting the Scottish Parliament, the more sceptical the electorate will become. This is not the issue on which to wage that battle.

It is a scenario which feeds into the continuing“de facto referendum” soap opera. First there was the Supreme Court question to which everyone, including the Lord Advocate, knew the answer before it was asked. Then we were to have the de facto General Election which would take us up to 2024. Now there’s an alternative wheeze which would spin the de facto coverage out till the Holyrood elections in 2026. (The other option of all resigning now, risking their salaries and getting it over with is not considered).

I used the word “we” but this is really a private SNP affair. The vast majority within Scotland attach little priority to a referendum (eight per cent at the last count) and outside Nationalist ranks there is zero support for unilaterally declaring an election to be a referendum in disguise.

Maybe we could have a referendum on the running of our National Health Service. Here in the Western Isles we could have our own wee referendum on ferries. Now even more topically, we could have a referendum on Gender Recognition Reform. Let’s see how that one goes.

Or on balance, say most Scots, let’s just vote as usual – whether from lifelong commitment or by having weighed a whole range of factors on the appointed election day.

The idea any politician or party can re-define an election as a referendum is both impossible and impertinent. What seems remarkable is that each twist and turn in this protracted PR stunt is treated seriously as if great decisions were at stake. They aren’t.

Kevin McKenna: SNP assault on women’s rights shames Scotland

Instead, the Empress’s clothes should have been questioned long ago. Whether in 2024, 2026 or 2050, what does a “de facto referendum” mean? If the magical figure of 50 per cent was not achieved, would she pack her trunk, say goodbye to the circus and give us all peace? That seems a reasonable question.

This never-ending manoeuvring and search for conflict is all so irrelevant to Scotland’s urgent needs and mood. So too is the Gender Recognition Reform Bill and the political pickings from a fight over it will be unpredictable for all concerned..