THINKING back to that halcyon summer campaign ahead of the independence referendum 10 years ago, it strikes me that the image of the Yes movement – as one that takes pride in its progressivism – is a little diminished of late.
For some caught up in the culture war, “progressive” has become a dirty word. And similarly, the self-appointed party of independence itself seems to be re-evaluating its relationship to the idea. Some may argue that appointing a Deputy First Minister who believes that queer people are effectively second-class citizens should not count against their credibility. I would strongly disagree.
But with the Prime Minister’s announcement that he will bring forward a ban on the tortuous practice of so-called conversion therapy – the process of trying to forcefully change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity – the Scottish Government is about to be tested on just what being a progressive party means.
READ MORE: Colin Fox: The case for a national care service is compelling
Labour’s proposed ban will come into effect in England and Wales – meaning that, were our government willing, it could be extended to Scotland in turn. Thus, the Scottish Government would have no need to go through the predictably fraught process of passing its own positive legislation for the LGBTQ+ community in the current climate.
There are already rumblings that this could be what lies ahead. But if the Scottish Government were to drop its own legislation in favour of the UK Government’s, what would that say about them?
This legislation was defined by the former equalities minister Emma Roddick as a message to Scotland’s LGBTQ+ community; that “the Scottish Government is still with them”.
What would it say to us now, to leave us to Labour?
While the King’s Speech included a promise for “a draft bill to be brought forward to ban conversion practices” we have no idea what form that bill will take. Or when it will come. Or if, as it was under two separate Conservative governments before them, it will be announced then quietly forgotten.
Scotland has a chance to lead on banning conversion therapy practices; not to follow. Is that not what the message of the progressive Yes movement was all about? Is that not the image of itself that the SNP wishes to project?
Given the ease with which Labour’s leadership have adopted the talking points of anti-trans organisers, I have restrained expectations of what a Labour bill will even look like once it reaches the end of its journey.
The Prime Minister himself recently said that “gender ideology” – successor to the “gay agenda” of the 80s and 90s – should not be taught in schools. The “gender ideology” that Keir Starmer was referring to here is, most likely, the simple acknowledgement that trans people exist.
Meanwhile, UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting has, in his short time in the position, so deeply damaged the Labour Party’s reputation with the LGBTQ+ community that he had to be wheeled out to deliver an “I actually don’t have a problem with trans people, but…” thread on social media.
READ MORE: 'Utterly unjustifiable': Economist reacts to Rachel Reeves speech
For a conversion therapy ban to mean anything at all, it can have no loopholes, and it must be trans-inclusive. To fail on either count will be to have failed on all counts. This is not something, justifiably, I feel able to trust the current Labour Party to do right. I’ll reserve judgment for when (if) the bill sees the light of day – and how quickly it is attacked by parliamentarians as it progresses.
It’s no secret that the same well-funded groups that were relentlessly spotlighted by the British press during the passing and subsequent vetoing (which Labour have said they will not reverse) of the Gender Recognition Reform Bill in Holyrood.
These transphobic and homophobic campaigners are prepared to mobilise again, worried that a ban will criminalise them; though if I found myself suddenly at risk of being criminalised for torturing and abusing children, as conversion therapy does, I’d maybe be taking a moment to consider my life choices.
Whoever tries to pass this bill will have a fight on their hands – one that I hope our government won’t shy away from.
Banning this abhorrent practice is not, as some would characterise it, an attack on anyone’s religious freedom. You, personally, have the inalienable right to not get gay married. Great news. You, personally, do not need to transition if you don’t want to either. That is your personal choice.
Asserting that young, queer and trans people deserve autonomy over their lives is no more trampling on your rights than a vegan sausage roll from Gregg’s is stopping you from eating meat.
I’ve found it to be especially despicable how some have used their faith as a shield for horrors; as if the justification of faith means that actions are beyond critique. Your actions are what you are being judged on. Not your faith.
The Scottish Government is, as far as I know, still collating the data from the recent consultation on banning the practice. But that will mean nothing if it chooses to take the easy path, and leave the fight to Labour.
Scotland should lead, not follow, on banning conversion therapy practices. After all, independence and autonomy are what Yes voters chose in 2014. I hope that a progressive, independence-minded SNP will recognise this, and move ahead with a robust ban that leaves no-one behind.
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