Stephen Daisley

There are two kinds of people in this life: people who say Gavin Williamson is the least capable member of the Cabinet and people who have heard of Ben Wallace. The Secretary of State for Defence, in an intemperate answer in the Commons, claimed the UK waged ‘illegal wars’ under Labour.  Wallace was speaking during the second reading of the overseas operations (service personnel and veterans) bill, which is intended to protect British soldiers from lawfare. It was rather unfortunate, then, that in the middle of trying to pass such a piece of legislation, the Defence Secretary would make a jibe about ‘illegal wars’ to the Labour benches.

Beware a government appearing to do the right thing. Liz Truss, minister for women and equalities, released a statement this morning that appears to do the right thing on reform of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA). Trans activists wanted the 2004 law changed in three key ways: 1) Remove the requirement for a medical diagnosis and allow individuals to legally change their gender by self-declaration, 2) extend this to those who wish to be recognised as ‘non-binary’ rather than male or female, and 3) lower the age at which a person can do these things to 16.

The more the SNP decries the Internal Market Bill, the more I warm to it. Initially, I considered it sensible enough but wholly insufficient given the constitutional threat facing the United Kingdom. (Less keen on the law-breaking bit, mind.) But now Mike Russell, SNP constitution minister and professional hysteric, says the Bill will ‘undercut the existing settlement’ by allowing devolved administrations to be ‘overridden by the whim of the UK Secretary of State’ and by permitting ministers to spend ‘in opposition to the Scottish government’ in what he calls ‘an enormous assault on the devolved powers’. Now, that’s more like it.

In a very specific and limited way, I have concerns about the Internal Market bill. It’s not a bad bill; on the whole, it is a welcome piece of legislation that attempts to bring some cogency to regulation and practice as we exit the EU. The bill will make it easier to trade and contract with and within the UK, standardising and simplifying a regulatory terrain that currently resembles the obstacle course at Sandhurst. It also establishes in black and white UK ministers’ power to invest directly in devolved nations, including via transfers to local authorities. Since the first hint of the bill’s contents, the SNP has been squalling that the UK government is mounting a ‘power grab’ to undermine their bailiwick of belligerence at Holyrood.

Free speech concerns about the SNP’s Hate Crime Bill have been mounting for months now, so it was inevitable that the Scottish Parliament would eventually take notice. The Scottish Conservatives plan to force a vote there tomorrow calling on the Nationalist administration to withdraw the legislation. The Tory motion is unlikely to pass given the numbers at Holyrood. The SNP parliamentary group operates essentially as a single bloc vote while the sole function of the Scottish Greens is getting Nicola Sturgeon’s government out of the latest trouble it’s gotten itself into. What the resolution will do is compel MSPs to take a side.

One of the most impressive qualities of Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership so far has been his ability to land blows on the government without seeming political. He’s a lawyer with the demeanour of a bank manager: he’s just telling you how things are. That has served him well in his broadsides against ministers’ handling of Covid-19. But in his rounding on the Prime Minister’s preferred trade envoy, Tony Abbott, he has faltered. The charge that the former Australian PM’s views make him unsuitable for the role sounds like something cooked up by younger, less worldly advisors and foisted upon the Labour leader. I like to tell myself the same thing about his taking a knee in the Shadow Cabinet room. Abbott stands accused of sexism, misogyny and homophobia.

They’re all it at. The dust has barely settled on the ruthless removal of Jackson Carlaw from the Scottish Conservative leadership yet it seems the Caledonian branch of the People’s Party are in rebellious mood too. Three Labour MSPs have called on Holyrood chief Richard Leonard to stand down, with moderate Jenny Marra describing his leadership as ‘tied from the start to the disaster of Jeremy Corbyn's project’. Leonard was chosen to replace Kezia Dugdale in 2017 but his lacklustre style, as much as his left-wing leanings, has seen him make no impact in almost three years. Well, no impact on the SNP; he’s certainly left his mark on Scottish Labour.

There is a satirical flowchart that sums up Scottish nationalism better than a thousand articles. It begins with the question: ‘Did Scotland do good?’ The chart branches off to the left for ‘Yes’ and the right for ‘No’. Answer ‘Yes’ and you are led to the outcome ‘proof that Scotland doesn’t need the UK’. Answer ‘No’ and you are assured it is ‘proof that the UK is holding Scotland’ back. Both branches then lead to the same end: ‘Independence’. Andrew Wilson is a walking, talking, but above all, believing version of this flowchart. In fact, it should be christened the ‘Wilson Diagram of Infinite Nationalism’.

The law on gender is a mess and could either be about to get much clearer or messier still. The Scottish government is being taken to court by feminist campaigners over its plans to increase women’s representation on public boards. That’s not the sort of thing feminist campaigners typically take governments to court over so you might have already guessed what’s coming next. For Women Scotland (FWS) believes the SNP is using the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act 2018 (GRPBA) to change the law on gender recognition by stealth. That’s already too many acronyms, which is always a sure sign that a given law is a bad idea.

The SNP’s determination to push on with its draconian Hate Crime Bill has put it on the wrong side of Scottish public opinion. A new poll indicates popular unease with plans to criminalise speech on everything from religion to ‘transgender identity’ if it is deemed ‘likely that hatred would be stirred up’. The Savanta ComRes poll of 1,008 Scottish adults found both generalised endorsement of classical liberal precepts such as free expression, open debate and the absence of a right not to be offended, as well as more specific concerns about the Bill itself.

Among the encroachments on Milton’s three supreme liberties contained in Humza Yousaf’s Hate Crime Bill is a cloturing of the debate on gender identity and the law. Proposals to remove medical expertise from the gender recognition process have either stalled or been shelved, but not before their radical scope prompted a lively dispute about the ethics of gender identity, sex-based rights and the freedom to dissent. That freedom will be meaningfully reduced in Scotland if the Hate Crime Bill becomes law because it is a piece of legislation that begins from the position that all legitimate debate has already concluded. The Bill creates an offence of ‘stirring up hatred’ against a list of protected characteristics, including ‘transgender identity’.