Why we should be proud of our MSPs' votes for the gender bill

For the record, all Green and Liberal Democrat MSPs voted for the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. Only four out of 22 Labour MSPs did not vote for the bill. Ten out of 64 SNP MSPs did not vote for the bill and three out of 31 Tory MSPs did not vote against a bill which had an overall majority of 47. The bill would still have passed even if all of the SNP MSPs had abstained but it has not yet been enacted because it has effectively been blocked by a single Tory MP at Westminster who refuses to go to the Scottish Parliament to justify his action.

(The separate matter of securely ensuring the safety and welfare of all prisoners, including women, transgender persons and individuals potentially vulnerable irrespective of their gender, presents ongoing challenges to prison authorities across the UK.) 

As in proportional representation Holyrood is demonstrating a greater commitment to genuine democracy which the general public in Scotland can see in spite of the concerted efforts of opposition politicians, and their supporters, to denigrate the First Minister, the SNP and the Scottish Government.
Stan Grodynski, Longniddry

• ALISTER Jack was absolutely correct in refusing to appear at Holyrood ("Alister Jack justifies gender reforms bill block to Holyrood committee", heraldscotland, January 31).

The Governor-General having to explain himself to the tribal council! Unthinkable, where would it end?
John Boyle, Ardrossan

If we had voted Yes...

HERALD readers must by now have noted Jill Stephenson's forensic ability to link any controversial or unpopular events anywhere in the world to the activities of Scottish independence supporters, but even by her standards her assertion today suggests that she is running out of contrived arguments.

She claims that the Gender Recognition Reform Bill would now be law if we had voted Yes to independence in 2014. Does she expect us to believe that nine years into independence, the present devolved administration, with an SNP overall majority, would be governing Scotland?

Had we voted Yes in 2014 we would not have been taken out of the EU by our xenophobic neighbours and Scotland would be a very different country today, most likely with a government in which various shades of opinion were represented with fewer £5 million-tax avoiders in its ranks.
Willie Maclean, Milngavie

Bill does not affect prisoners

JILL Stephenson writes about the Gender Recognition Reform Bill and about "provisions of that bill regarding the placing of male sex offenders in a women's prison". There are no such provisions – this is an example of the misinformation circulating about the bill.

Under the Scottish Prison Service's policy, placement of trans prisoners is based on a risk assessment. A gender recognition certificate (GRC) does not give a prisoner any right to be granted a move to a prison matching their certificate gender. As with other single-sex provision, the law says that trans people (whether they have a GRC or not) can be excluded where that is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. Clearly it is legitimate, proportionate and correct not to house a prisoner who has a history of sexual violence against women, with other women.

None of this is changed by the GRR Bill, which alters the process for applying for a GRC, but does not change any of the effects of obtaining one.
Tim Hopkins, Director, Equality Network, Edinburgh

Starmer has wrong priorities

PRIME Minister’s Questions sees the Leader of the Opposition being entitled to six questions to hold the Government to account. Due to the economic turmoil, the energy crisis, the strikes and unrest in the country, there is no shortage of topics to raise – the list is endless and serious. Families struggling, having to choose heating or eating or in England buying their medication; step forward Sir Keir Starmer.

Amazingly, amidst the cost of living crisis he got to his feet and focused on the internal shenanigans within the Conservative Party ("Sunak branded 'weak' for refusing to suspend Raab", heraldscotland, February 1).

Appalling as they are, and a poor reflection on the Government, the sacking of the Conservative chairman by the PM (albeit too late) has done nothing to address the real issues affecting millions. With his questions, Sir Keir played to the Westminster bubble, effectively denying a voice to those struggling daily.

Labour hopes to form the next government. On this performance, a reality check is called for.
Catriona C Clark, Falkirk

Shocking greed of many MPs

I AGREE entirely with your correspondents’ condemnation of the duplicitous and arrogant conduct of so many members of the UK Government (Letters, January 31). I am surprised, however, that nobody has commented on the outrageous greed of MPs reported in your columns on January 30 (“Boris tops list as MPs declare £8m in earnings”).

It is deplorable that so many of our elected representatives cannot keep their self-seeking snouts out of the trough of money and privilege. The cost of living crisis is causing untold misery for millions of people, poverty and homelessness are rising inexorably; meanwhile many of those in positions of power and influence have no compunction in using their past office – however ignominious – as a means of lining their silken bottomless pockets with obscene fees for speaking engagements and the like. Just how much money do these shameless parasites need?

It is a truly regrettable sign of the times that this abhorrent state of affairs seems to have gone unremarked not only in the media but in the electorate at large.
Iain Stuart, Glasgow

Learn a lesson from Brexit

YOUR correspondents (Letters, February 1) raise what could be called a hoary old chestnut when referring to the dead voting as part of any proposal to use turnout in a formula for determining a majority in any future vote on Scottish independence. This ignores the statutory duty of Returning Officers "to take all necessary steps to ... maintain the electoral register, and to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that all those eligible (and no others) are registered in it".

It is never going to be perfect, but then nothing is. Indeed, those same correspondents might like to also consider that their own preferred system of 50%+1 voting has a similar flaw: if that was to be the vote in favour, and the one extra died at midnight on polling day, there would then be no majority.

More practically, it would be hoped that one of the lessons we have learned from Brexit is that major change should not be pursued unless there is a clear and demonstrable majority for it in the country. It would be interesting know how others think that this criterion can be met – or whether they think it is unnecessary.

Another lesson of Brexit is of course that to leave a political, economic and social union entails massive costs and unnecessary economic disruption. Nationalists appear to have learned neither of these lessons – or much else either.
Peter A Russell, Glasgow

What if indy win was narrow?

MAY I turn Peter Dryburgh's argument (Letters, January 31) on its head? Let us suppose we have an independence referendum with a highish turnout of 63.5% (which was the highest-ever turnout for a Scottish parliamentary election, achieved in 2021) and the pro-independence vote succeeds with a 50%+1 majority. That is, the irrevocable breakup of the United Kingdom will have occurred as a result of the votes cast by 32% of the Scottish electorate.

Alasdair Galloway (February 1) states that he and many independence supporters "wish for an independent Scotland 'at ease with itself'". Does Mr Galloway consider that the above scenario would be a recipe for a Scotland "at ease with itself", particularly in light of the fact that most commentators expect there to be very many economically difficult years ahead for Scotland post-independence?
Robert Murray, Glasgow

Read more letters: Thank goodness we voted No – it saved us from gender disaster

Letters should not exceed 500 words. We reserve the right to edit submissions.