THE Scottish Government deciding to scrap their gender reform appeal leaves a “bad precedent”, according to a public law expert.
On Wednesday, Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville confirmed in a statement to MSPs that no further legal action will be taken to fight the UK Government’s block on gender reform legislation in Scotland.
In January, Scotland Secretary Alister Jack made the unprecedented move of using a Section 35 order to block the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, and earlier this month the Court of Session ruled that the UK did have the right to block the reforms.
Now, Aileen McHarg – a professor of public law at Durham University – has said that not pursuing the case “leaves a bad precedent”.
So, I understand the political decision not to proceed with an appeal in the s.35 Order judicial review, but it is disappointing because it leaves a bad (IMO) precedent, which could have seriously deleterious effects on the autonomy of the Scottish Parliament within its sphere of
— Aileen McHarg @AileenMcHarg@mastodon.scot (@AileenMcHarg) December 20, 2023
She added in a tweet: “It could have seriously deleterious effects on the autonomy of the Scottish Parliament within its sphere of competence, and encourage the trend (already emergent) of forum shifting to Westminster by those who have lost political debates at Holyrood.
“For those saying that the risk of veto is ‘part of devolution’ – sure, but its use (further) displaces political expectations about how devolution works in practice.”
McHarg went on to say that the Outer House decision from Lady Haldane “does not create a binding precedent”.
READ MORE: UK Government to seek legal expenses over Scotland gender bill row
She said: “If the power is ever used again it will be open to the Scottish Government (or other devolved govts) to rerun arguments for a much more searching standard of review, and to try to challenge some of the other questionable aspects of Lady Haldane’s decision.”
The legal expert expressed her hope that a future Labour government could reverse a trend toward “muscular unionism” and towards “meaningful reform” to the legal frameworks within which devolution operates.
She added: “One thing that events of the past 5/6 years have clearly shown is that relying on convention and political understandings to temper the legal powers of the UK institutions simply does not provide adequate protection against the undermining of devolution.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel