Eric Clive

I wonder what the judges of the UK Supreme Court are thinking when they see their judgment in the FWS case used to justify the banning of trans girls from the girl guides.

For me the revelation came long before the Supreme Court decision. It came when I saw the malevolent nonsense spouted in opposition to the Scottish Parliament's gender recognition reform Bill.

Totally agree about the "rather extreme amounts of lawfare". Costing a great waste of time and money as well as distress to individuals in some cases. Vexatious litigants in a non-technical sense.

The political opportunism in the current attacks on Rachel Reeves is blatant and unattractive. The Labour government has made a lot of mistakes but saying there was a need to keep down borrowing costs was not one of them - and was not misleading the country.

Understood. You may well be right. I'm expressing a hope, not a prediction - and I do still hope for something more balanced, more conscious of its statutory duties and more willing to respond to reasoned arguments than the Falkner Commission.

I watched a bit of it. Not impressive I agree but still I’ll judge her on her performance in office. She could begin by taking the consultation on the draft code seriously.

Some of them. I’ve seen people rise to the challenge of a new job. She knows the statutory remit of the Commission. It is not the Commission for the preservation of women’s spaces (or men’s spaces). She has a chance to prove herself.

I wish the new chair every success in her role and sincerely hope that she can get a grip of a valuable institution and restore some of its lost reputation.

And then, if I have got this right, the GR Act 2004, was meant to "regularise" the situation but didn't tidy away the old law - a bit like what happened in Scotland when regular marriage was introduced but marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute was left in place for a long time.

Wouldn’t be The Cobbler?

Tedious rehashing of minor "political" budget issues this a.m. The big issue is that growth is a mirage. The budget had to avoid two dangers - increased borrowing costs and a move to greater inequality. It largely did. I would cut Rachel Reeves a bit of slack on the political presentation.

I may be too much of an optimist but I believe that good arguments win in the end. Anent religion, we have learned to cater for no religion. EqA s 10 "(1)Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion." Something similar could be done for gender.

This case confirms my impression that the definition of gender reassignment in the Equality Act needs to be changed. Quite apart from the semantic point noted in the decision, the emphasis on reassignment is unfortunate. Who does the reassigning? Also, the word "process" is vague and confusing..

Rachel Reeves says there will be no referendum on Scottish independence.
"When there was a referendum just a few years ago, it said that this was a once in a generation referendum."
This is a poor argument. The ref was 11 years ago. A lot has changed. "It" said nothing about once in a generation.

Bill Cruickshank on X: "No Labour politician can now claim that Scotland is in an equal, fair & democratic union: https://t.co/jS8g9wT6F9 @RachelReeves has blown Scottish democracy to smithereens. No unionist politician has ever gone this far, not even Thatcher. Scary times Scotland!" / X No Labour politician can now claim that Scotland is in an equal, fair & democratic union: https://t.co/jS8g9wT6F9 @RachelReeves has blown Scottish democracy to smithereens. No unionist politician has ever gone this far, not even Thatcher. Scary times Scotland!

Reeves tells Scotland that it does not have the right to exist as a separate state if its people so desire. Imagine someone said this about Israel Canada or Ukraine there would rightly be outrage & condemnation. Nothing from Sarwar or Scottish Labour. Do they agree with Reeves?
x.com/bjcruickshan...

staggered to see the stories about David Coburn. If only there had been some sort of sign that he was an utterly inept and incompetent politician

The Scottish Government has accepted and implemented the SC judgment in FWS. The judgment said its published interpretation of the Equality Act was wrong. It has corrected that interpretation. Correctly applying the new interpretation of the Equality Act is a different, and contested, matter.

So England isn't a country either. Andrew Bowie should tell this to the English football fans and the "patriotic" English flag flyers.

One of the less discussed aspects of the UK budget is that it reveals the ramshackle state of the UK constitution. It is difficult for the ordinary citizen to work out what measures are UK measures and what are England-only measures.

The Laura Kuenssberg show left me depressed. Nobody has the answers. Maybe we should be asking what we can and should avoid, starting with greater inequality; higher borrowing costs.

In the Scottish Parliament elections in May I won't be voting for a pro Customs Union party when I can vote for a pro EU membership party. But if the UK prefers the less satisfactory solution then so be it - fewer problems at border if/when an independent Scotland becomes an EU member state.

What an incredible amount of high level work! Well done. A great service to anyone interested in this issue. Thank you.

Great point - and there is the rule of interpretation that exceptions should be construed narrowly, precisely to avoid them becoming the rule.

What is the new gender guidance on single-sex spaces and sport? We look at several elements of the equality watchdog’s code, which advises organisations on how to interpret the Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act

"if a trans person is admitted to a service which is for the opposite sex, it would no longer be a separate or single-sex service, which could amount to unlawful sex discrimination."
"Would"? Really? Always?
"Could"? Please explain why and when.

www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/...

That could actually be nice, because services are not like financial benefits; it is much easier to manage, say, toilet facilities in a relaxed and inclusive way than in a policed way.

"Talk to me with respect, I'm the Chancellor,' says Rachel Reeves."

This, if true, is pathetic. It shows a certain lack of respect for the person addressed.

'Talk to me with respect, I'm the Chancellor,' Reeves tells Scots businessperson RACHEL Reeves reportedly told a Scottish business to “talk to me with respect, I’m the Chancellor”.

This, if true, is pathetic.

www.thenational.scot/news/2563827...

Is there any new statutory guidance? The Interim Update has (rightly) been withdrawn and the suspect new code has (rightly) not yet been approved by the Minister. I hope it never will be. The sensible course would be to send it back to a reconstituted Commission for a complete rethink.

The justification for separate toilet facilities is now up in the air. WCs are in cubicles. Urinals can be removed. We are talking of wash basin areas. It surely can't be a legitimate aim to protect women from having to wash their hands in the presence of anyone who doesn't look feminine enough.

Only an idiot would approve of guidance which is logically, morally, socially, economically and legally suspect and which goes well beyond anything required to implement the Supreme Court's judgment.

Only ten days now until there is a new chair of the EHRC.