Even critics can see that blocking gender reform is undemocratic

The trans community has waited too long to have the process of legally changing their gender made simpler, in line with the system in many other countries in the world.

It has been a long and often difficult journey which should have ended when the Scottish Parliament voted by 86-39 in the closing days of 2022 to reform the system and accept a process based on the principle of self-identification.

But any celebrations have been cut short as the Westminster government cynically seized the opportunity to undermine the Scottish Parliament by, for the first time, blocking for legislation passed democratically and constitutionally correctly by MSPs from all the major political parties.

People who have campaigned for years for legal recognition of their right to live as they want have seen their hopes trampled into dust in front of their eyes.

They are victims of a travesty of justice. And so, too, is the principle of democracy, which has been torn up by a government which has no business in meddling with Scottish laws over which it has no jurisdiction.

It’s worth remembering how we arrived at what is now undoubtedly the biggest constitutional crisis since the Scottish Parliament was reconvened in 1999.

READ MORE: The SNP may regret lending UK its support on freeports

It would be disingenuous to argue that the debate over gender recognition reform has been an easy one. It has been fractious, pitting former allies against each other even within the independence movement. Discussions have been angry and ill-tempered with no possibility of a compromise emerging. Friendships have been destroyed.

However, not even the most ardent opponents of the reform could deny it has been democratic. We have heard the arguments for and against self-identification and a substantial majority of our elected representatives voted in favour.

This was not a decision pushed through by the parties of government. Many Labour MSPs and even the occasional Tory were just as passionate about gender recognition reform.

Labour’s Scottish leader Anas Sarwar voted in favour at the Scottish Parliament debate. MSP Monica Lennon said before the vote: "We must continue to root out transphobia, misogyny and the oppression of marginalised groups. Inclusive and intersectional approaches are vital."

Former Labour leader Kezia Dugdale – no longer an MSP – said on the eve of the vote that the debate on the change had been "fed on division and been driven by and riven with fear".

The passing of the vote shows just how far Scotland has come from the homophobia which once scarred the country. I remember shortly after the launch of the Sunday Herald in February 1999, the country was thrust into a bitter row over legislation, which banned what was described as "promotion of homosexuality" in schools.

The new paper campaigned hard to support the repeal of what was known as Section 28 but it was surprising even then the strength of the forces, which were ranged against that campaign.

READ MORE: Alister Jack: Trans people not part of thinking in Section 35 decision

That included the Daily Record, which took a position that would be impossible to imagine of the same newspaper today. Section 28 was finally repealed in the summer of 2000 and Scotland took its first tentative steps to becoming the progressive country we live in today.

The reform of the gender recognition legislation should be seen as part of that transformation, the support it received at Holyrood a sign of the strength of that commitment to progressive values, the cross-party nature of that support as indicative of how firmly progressive values are embedded in our mainstream political culture.

Scotland may not yet be independent but it has developed an identity very different to an increasingly insular and reactionary United Kingdom. Today it is apparent just how fragile is our ability to defend and preserve that distinct identity against the sheer force of numbers in a union which has become less of a partnership with every passing year since the referendum of 2014.

There are a number of possible explanations for the dangerous behaviour of the Westminster government this past week or so and none speaks well of it.

The first is that it simply disagrees that trans people should be able to have their identity enshrined in law without the prolonged, soul-destroying procedure currently enforced.

If that is indeed the current policy of the Tory party, it surely needs to put and win that argument in order to maintain that position within its jurisdiction, which most assuredly does not include Scotland. The Scottish Parliament has reached is own, very different decision, which after all is exactly the point of devolution.

The second, and to me more likely, explanation is that the Westminster government has no strong feelings on the matter but sees the issue as the opportunity it has been waiting for since 2014 to put Scotland and its Parliament very firmly back in its place.

It is no secret that Westminster wants to reduce the powers and popularity of the Scottish Parliament, which it holds in contempt. It refused to engage with Holyrood throughout the Brexit negotiations, blocked the return of powers from Europe to Scotland, and used the laughingly titled "levelling up" process to divert money from projects democratically approved by the Scottish Parliament to initiatives outwith the control of Scottish politicians.

Whatever the correct explanation is, it is certainly not the one given by the Scottish Secretary Alister Jack, who clearly has no clue about what the Scottish legislation actually does. Muttering vaguely about "adverse effects" including "impacts on the operation of single-sex clubs, associations and schools and protections such as equal pay" makes absolutely no sense.

Jack’s grasp of devolution is no firmer. He can warn darkly of "significant complications from having two different gender recognition regimes in the UK and allowing more fraudulent or bad faith applications" – but differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK is exactly what devolution is about. And Scotland has had its own, separate legal system since 1707. The more detail Jack gives about the UK Government’s objections to the bill, the less sense they make.

In a proper democracy, the official opposition at Westminster would be expected to ram home these points – but when it comes to Scotland, Labour act not as the opposition but as the Tories’ partner in crime. Instead of standing up for the country and for the devolution it ushered in, it colludes with Sunak, Jack and their cronies to deny Scotland its democratic right to make its own decisions and to have a voice in its own future.

In doing so, it proves the truth of all those claims about Scottish Labour being nothing more than a "branch office" of the UK party.

A dissatisfied Johann Lamont coined that phrase when she stood down as Scottish Labour leader in 2014, saying she had "had enough" of the UK party’s attitude. I can find no signs of outrage from Lamont that Keir Starmer has spoken out against the change of gender recognition legal procedures supported by 18 of her party’s 22 MSPs.

READ MORE: Tory MSP Rachael Hamilton in 'insulting' comment over trans law debate

Lamont, of course, has been a vocal critic of the reform, so she must consider it hunky dory for Scottish Labour to be treated as a branch office if she personally disapproves of its actions.

There are Labour MSPs willing to stand up for democracy. Lennon said Starmer’s comments “undermined Scottish Labour and are unhelpful in terms of the wider debate on equalities”.

Her fellow Labour MSP Paul Sweeney dubbed the Tory secretary of state “Viceroy Jack”.

But how long can these 18 Labour MSPs remain in a party whose Scottish leader can turn around after voting in favour of gender recognition reform and deny there was any disagreement with Starmer.

Surely Labour MSPs who voted for progressive values only to see those votes ignored must now realise the contempt in which they are so obviously held by the Labour-Tory anti-independence coalition in England.

If the events of this week prove anything – even to those who oppose the gender recognition reforms but cling to a belief in democracy – it is that independence is vital not just to allow Scotland to carve out a better, more just future but to protect those values the modern Scotland has embraced this century.

There is too much at stake to stand meekly by and allow this affront to democracy to go unchallenged.