Scotland’s nationalist leader has gravely misjudged her battle

Nicola Sturgeon claims to be outraged about Westminster’s intervention in the Gender Recognition Act – but I’m unconvinced by her rhetoric. Surely, all along, she’s been guilty of cynically using Scotland’s trans community as pawns to manufacture yet another constitutional tussle with Westminster?

It was almost inevitable it would come to this – another Holyrood and Westminster constitutional bicker. By knowingly championing legislation at odds with established GB law, Sturgeon has now got precisely what she wants. She’ll relish, I anticipate, wildly catastrophising that this isn’t about a single piece of legislation but an assault on Scottish democracy. Yet I also believe, in this instance, that the nationalist leader has misjudged her battle.

Opinion polls show that the majority in Scotland and indeed a large proportion of nationalists are opposed to the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. On this occasion, Sturgeon may well find that, in Scotland, few buy into her predictable “them and us” divisive narrative, with the majority welcoming Westminster’s intervention.

Martin Redfern

Roxburghshire

The Scottish Secretary, Alister Jack, has now used his powers under the Scotland Act to prevent the Gender Recognition Act going forward for royal assent, on the grounds that he has a “reasonable belief” that it will conflict with the provisions of the UK-wide 2010 Equalities Act. Perhaps he, Kemi Badenoch, Rishi Sunak and others who make this case could tell us exactly how it conflicts.

Contrary to general assumptions, trans people tend not to carry a copy of their Gender Recognition Certificate as proof of identity.

For those born in the UK, it is in effect a voucher for a revised birth certificate, which is then the basis for other documents such as passports and driving licenses. Those can be got anyway, at the cost of a little more embarrassment, by means of a formal declaration. Stymying the Scottish Bill is discrimination against trans Scots, pure and simple.

One suspects that this is the government’s whole purpose – not to “protect women’s rights”, on which the bill has no impact, but simply to feed another slab of cheap red meat to Tories who suspect that the Sunak government is failing.

The Scottish government will, I am sure, fight this decision in the courts. Unless the judges can agree that it is possible to hold a “reasonable belief” that is contrary to the known facts, they will win.

Rachael Padman

Suffolk

I read your editorial on cultural reforms at the Met police with interest and agreement. Yes indeed, this is an issue that the home secretary can get her teeth into and her authoritarian speech would not go amiss here, instead of the continual ramping up of harsh, migrant rhetoric.

Over and over again, these ghastly stories come to light and we have the usual commentary from the police hierarchy that definite steps will be taken to counter this culture once and for all. But still, it goes on. Although I have some sympathy for the fairly new commissioner on the beat, Sir Mark Rowley, who agreed with every negative comment that was made, this must be a definitive watershed moment.

Of course, this will take time to facilitate but it must be given top priority as it appears to be widespread and not just a few “bad apples”. This is counter-productive for the many decent police officers who serve in the force. They too must call it out whenever they come across it and not sweep it under the carpet. Otherwise, faith and trust in our police force will continue to be devalued by every horrendous scandal.

Judith A Daniels

Norfolk

I’d like to thank the 309 MPs who voted in favour of the Transport Strikes Bill.

This bill would allow, for instance, nurses to be sacked for going on strike. Because what we need are fewer nurses. It is simply not enough to just demonise and demoralise professionals who provide essential services.

Having fewer nurses and other essential workers is the correct solution. After all, who needs essential workers?

Sacking them not only saves money in wages no longer paid, but it also keeps costs down by keeping wages down. Trained professionals no doubt will choose to leave but this will just help further reduce costs. Such a genius alternative to paying trained, professional, essential workers what they’re worth. Having inadequate staffing levels will really ensure public safety and services long term! And throw in the master stroke of Brexit to add to the difficulties of finding replacements.

So, if the government is no longer providing the essential service of sane politicking, when do we get to sack them?

Ian Henderson

Norwich

In reply to Steve Mackinder’s recent letter, what Britain and the rest of the world can do without is yet another “loose cannon”.

Boris Johnson and his government reduced this once great country to a laughing stock for the rest of the world. Tory ministers faffed around producing unrealistic legislation while Johnson broke laws, lied to the government, and failed to secure a positive future for our children. Of course, we have to assist Ukraine to defeat Putin’s illegal war and I believe that our country is doing what is necessary to that end.

But Johnson produced nothing of any benefit for the British people in his two years as PM, nor have his party over the 12 years they have been in power. His parties and cavalier governance have caused the chaos we are experiencing at present. Britain needs able, adept and honest MPs to improve our situation; not loose cannons to jeopardise our future.

Keith Poole

Basingstoke

It seems that many of our leaders are too wealthy to understand poverty or too fearful of losing power to take action to separate the hideously rich from their coffers. They seem unaware that the most equal societies are the most contented. Or perhaps they just don’t care.

Meanwhile, the NHS is crumbling. There is a vicious cycle of poor pay and stressful working conditions; fewer people are coming forward to work in the service and those who already do are so stressed that they are leaving. Government ministers’ financial arrangements are not subject to the same scrutiny as other MPs, so they can benefit hugely from “gifts” from wealthy supporters.

Our current system condones and encourages inequality. A great proportion of wealth is in the hands of relatively few people, while millions live in poverty. Even in our affluent country, there are now many people who have jobs but cannot afford to feed themselves and their families. Sad to say, it might require a fairy godmother with a redistributive wand to even begin to solve the problem.

Susan Alexander

Gloucestershire