Scottish Government spent £374k on gender court battle
This figure includes £148,925.00 in counsel fees, £7,552.00 in court fees, and £1,339.30 in miscellaneous costs.
These costs came on top of the £216,182.50 reported during the initial judicial review, bringing the total spent to £373,998.80.
READ MORE
In a unanimous decision, the UK's highest court ruled that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not change a person's sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.
The justices concluded that the terms 'man' and 'woman' in the legislation refer to biological sex, not acquired gender.
The legal dispute began in 2017, when the Scottish Government introduced the Gender Representation on Public Boards Bill, intended to boost female representation. The law was amended to include trans women—including those without a GRC—as 'women'.
FWS challenged this, arguing that the definition conflicted with the Equality Act 2010, which reserves sex-based protections for biological women.
After an initial defeat, FWS won on appeal in 2022, with judges ruling that biological sex could not be redefined.
The Scottish Government subsequently updated its guidance to state that GRC holders change their legal sex.
FWS launched a second challenge, maintaining that 'sex' in the Equality Act refers to biological sex.
The Outer House and the Inner House both ruled in favour of the Scottish Ministers. However, the Supreme Court subsequently overturned this.
In its FOI response, the Scottish Government said the final total is still being determined and will be published once confirmed.
READ MORE
Scottish Conservative shadow equalities minister Tess White condemned the expenditure, calling it a 'needless and humiliating' use of public money.
She said: 'It will rightly stick in the throat of taxpayers that they are picking up a huge legal tab for the SNP's needless and humiliating court defeat.
'John Swinney's party threw good money after bad in a doomed attempt to defend their reckless gender policy which betrayed women.
'They dug their heels in defending the indefensible to the highest court in the land, instead of accepting that gender self-ID was a dangerous fallacy that ignored the legal rights of women and girls.
'The Nationalists' desperation to pander to gender zealots inside and outside their party was shameful and pig-headed.
'Yet, even now, John Swinney will not apologise or issue a new directive to public sector bodies—which adopted self-ID wholesale—on their legal requirement to protect single-sex spaces. That negligence leaves the taxpayer wide open to huge compensation payouts.'
The Scottish Government has been approached for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
10 hours ago
- Scotsman
Readers' Letters: Exclusion isn't the only response to difficult pupils
A reader has a suggestion for the First Minister when it comes to dealing with difficult pupils Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Apparently First Minister John Swinney warns that 'Excluding disruptive pupils risks pushing them into organised crime' (19 June). That may be so, but there are other alternatives for those young people who, for whatever reason, find mainstream education challenging. For example, he could look at the opportunities provided by the Spartans Community Foundation in Pilton and their Alternative School for secondary school students, extending now to P6/P7 pupils. Fiona Garwood, Edinburgh John Swinney wants every Scottish pupil to have a good educational experience (Picture: Andrew Milligan - Pool/Getty Images) Deadly games Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad US President Donald Trump is taking a fortnight to consider whether to join Israel in attacking Iran. Good. It means internal advisers have got to him, perhaps even the Europeans, Canadians and UK. Such a move would be an act of folly. Remember the run-up to the Iraq war. Labour in power, Tony Blair gives early notice of his support for the 'special relationship'. They produce a 'dodgy dossier' speaking of 'weapons of mass destruction' which probably didn't exist. Blair struts around beside George Bush, looking macho. There is a 'victory', but long-term chaos descends on Iraq, certainly no democracy. Iran is much bigger than Iraq, and there will be greater chaos. Israel is the immediate major aggressor, and is a client state of the US, which is totally complicit. Meanwhile, Israel has reduced Gaza to ruins, and is starving its population, what remains of it, to death. At the same time, it is a land-grab, with more Israel settlers being facilitated. Crawford Mackie, Edinburgh Ban US bombs Earlier this week, Donald Trump demonstrated his grasp of diplomacy by making an offensive early exit from the G7 meeting in Calgary, presumably rushing home to plan a joint war with Israel against Iran. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Will Britain, in an echo of their actions in joining with the USA to wreck Iraq, now join with the US to wreck Iran? It would seem that this is the intention of our Prime Minister, not wishing to cross his big orange buddy. I sense that the great majority of Scots are not up for waging a new war in the Middle East, just as we do not support Israel in their obliteration of the Palestinians, but what can we do? Well, we might take journalist Neal Ascherson's advice, and act as if we are already an independent nation. The USAF regularly use Prestwick to refuel their flights to the Middle east. Might bunker buster bombs be part of the payload of USAF aircraft refuelling at Prestwick? The airport is owned by us, the Scottish people. Our Scottish Government should veto any USAF flights resupplying Israel's military, and should certainly veto any transit of bunker busters ultimately intended for Iran. This would very much displease Keir Starmer, but would be recognised by right-minded people, nationally and internationally, as a correct and moral action. Ken Gow, Bridge of Canny, Banchory What the X? So the SNP's Communication's Officer, David Mitchell, asks on X, 'why exactly is Scotland is paying for [HS2] when it doesn't even stop in Scotland?' And yet, the SNP government has stated that it has not contributed any funds to HS2. Indeed, Scotland will receive proportionate Barnett consequentials funding based on that (albeit flawed) investment. So it seems to me that part of Mitchell's role is to miscommunicate in an attempt to provoke groundless outrage amongst dyed-in-the-wool separatists. Martin Redfern, Melrose, Roxburghshire Planning language Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Words fail me too (Letters, 19 June). The Government has taken its eye off the ball. There is a much more important language than Gaelic or Scots that must be made official so they can pursue their dream of covering Scotland with wind farms – planning language. I doubt SNP MSPs had any idea how, for example, the word 'localised' would be used when they passed National Planning Framework 4, based on the manifesto of the Scottish Greens, voted for by 8 per cent of the electorate. The Government voted for the two National Parks and National Scenic areas to be protected from wind farms but 'Where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied, they will generally be considered to be acceptable.' It seems 'localised' in the dictionary means 'restrict or assign to a particular place'. Developer language 'for planning purposes' means you can insist the effect of 18, 180m high turbines along the Moorfoot Scarp in view of Midlothian, parts of East Lothian and South Edinburgh, including the castle, are localised. It is said significant effects of Torfichen wind farm would reach to Gorebridge 5.6km away, about three and a half miles! Locally three wind farms have already been refused on wider landscape grounds. Surely the opposite of localised is 'widespread', as used by Nature Scot in their representation 'widespread visibility of the turbines from many areas of East Lothian and Midlothian... and would result in adverse cumulative landscape and visual impacts'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Why should a minority party decide the shape of Scotland to come? Why no strategic plan instead of landowners deciding where wind farms should go? Now the pact has ceased, and the New National Park has been scrapped, this has to be looked at again. All governments make mistakes but, as we have seen lately, it is how and if they rectify them by which they are judged by the electorate. Celia Hobbs, Penicuik, Midlothian Green dreams Scotsman writer Paul Wilson will certainly not feature on the Green brigade's Christmas Card list ("Mighty growth from Scotland's Acorn could prove elusive', Perspective, 19 June). He strips away the green film to reveal hard, indisputable facts not the green fiction politicians and those of a green persuasion would have us believe. Soaring electricity costs are costing jobs and are not being replaced by the green jobs so beloved and promised by clueless politicians and their followers. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad So where is the cheap electricity we were promised? In the last year wind and solar could only provide 35.8 per cent of our electricity while gas was 29.9, nuclear 14, Drax using trees to produce electricity was 7.3, and imports from Europe totalling 11.5 per cent kept the lights on. The Scottish Government, keen to 'lead the world', said they would achieve net zero by 2045. Yes and pigs can fly. China has set its net zero target as 2060 and India 2070. Both huge maybes. As Paul Wilson says, the green jobs bonanza that politicians promised for decades has failed to materialise and the UK is shedding jobs by the thousands. At least the Scottish people can show their anger in May 2026 and throw out the green charlatan MSPs and their hoards of mega-expensive climate advisors. Clark Cross, Linlithgow, West Lothian Minimum brains It appears the SNP administration is still keen on introducing a minimum income guarantee payment of £11,500 to every Scot, whatever their status. This would cost £8 billion-plus. Maybe the nationalists think it a vote-winner. This in spite of every country that has ever tried to implement anything similar finding it to be unworkable and financially disastrous. An 'expert' group was commissioned by SNP ministers in 2021 to work it all out. That alone should send shivers down the Scottish spine. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Be afraid, be very afraid. This could make the ferry fiasco look like a drop in the ocean. Alexander McKay, Edinburgh The Never-Never Like Nessie, growth remains elusive for this government. The Bank of England has just prioritised control of inflation over any immediate interest rate reduction which could have stimulated growth. But worry not! Grand plans are in hand. Following on the heels of last week's Spending Review setting out the UK Government's priorities for the next four years or so, a £725 billion, ten-year infrastructure investment plan for the UK has just been announced. Moreover, the Government's much awaited Industrial Strategy is imminent. The devil is always in the detail of big plans and aspirations. Often overlooked, the devil here may lie in the detail of the approval process for capital projects in the public sector. The appraisal techniques that are used are set out in the Treasury's Green Book – the UK's Bible of 'best practice'. (Scotland has its own version which largely follows this.) The Chancellor announced that the Green Book is about to be revised and updated, making capital project approvals quicker and easier, so the taxpayer gets a bigger bang for their buck, especially for projects (eg new homes) in areas of deprivation. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However, it is unclear how this will work in practice. One concern relates to the level of analytical rigour required, which may prove over-challenging for parts of the public sector. If that's true, then, somewhat perversely, Green Book 'enhancements' could have the effect of slowing down approval rates, with knock-on effects for the speed at which any related growth impacts are realised. 'Never Never Land' is the fictional domain where children never grow up, or some other imaginary ideal. There is a fear here that despite good intentions, when facing increasingly fierce and uncertain macro-economic headwinds, and the micro-challenge of delivering growth-inducing capital projects on the ground, that the plans and aspirations of this government run the risk of being equally fanciful. Ewen Peters, Newton Mearns Write to The Scotsman
Scotsman
11 hours ago
- Scotsman
Fergus Ewing: Can veteran Nationalist beat the SNP at Scottish election and win as an independent?
Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... No family has contributed more to the SNP and the independence cause than the Ewing family. That was the view of James Mitchell, professor of public policy at Edinburgh University and an expert on the party, when I spoke to him back in March for an article about this extraordinary political dynasty. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Winnie Ewing's victory in Hamilton in 1967 remains one of the defining moments of modern Scottish nationalism. Her son, Fergus, has now set the scene for another remarkable election battle. Fergus Ewing, pictured in the Scottish Parliament | PA His announcement that he will run as an independent in Inverness and Nairn next year, standing against the party he has represented in Holyrood since 1999, will cause real concern in the SNP hierarchy. Mr Ewing, who secured a majority of 9,114 in 2021, has been an outspoken critic of the Scottish Government on a number of issues, not least the lack of progress on dualling the A9 and A96 roads. He is viewed as a strong local champion, regardless of whether or not you agree with him. He told The Scotsman he is going to put 'everything' into the fight. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Fergus Ewing | Colin D Fisher/ 'Two Fridays ago, it took me two hours to get through Morrisons to do some shopping for four items, and I wasn't swithering in the aisles,' he said. 'It was just people wanting to speak to me. 'It's easy to overestimate one's own personal popularity, but I did get a majority of around nine [thousand] or 10,000 for the past three elections and I think I'm in with for a shout. But let the people decide.' Can Mr Ewing pull it off? Only three MSPs have ever won on an independent platform. Dennis Canavan scored a spectacular victory in 1999, and again in 2003, after being rejected as a Labour candidate. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Margo MacDonald was repeatedly elected as an independent list MSP after falling out with the SNP, while Jean Turner won Strathkelvin and Bearsden in 2003 following a very specific local campaign centred on Stobhill Hospital. 'I think he's got a good chance,' said Prof Mitchell. 'Not least because a lot of the issues on which he has spoken out against the Government, on which he has been rebellious, have been related to his constituency. 'He has in that sense been a very, very good constituency member, and that can only help him. What is certainly the case is it's going to damage the SNP, of that there is no doubt.' Mr Ewing has been campaigning all his life, said Prof Mitchell, while he may also benefit from his family name. His mother was strongly associated with the Highlands and islands. The media interest during the campaign will also help, of course. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'He will have some support in the SNP membership and among the activists as well, so that would not be insignificant,' Prof Mitchell added. Emma Roddick, who is a list MSP for the Highlands and Islands, has been selected as the SNP candidate for Inverness and Nairn. She was previously a junior minister, but does not enjoy anywhere near the profile of Mr Ewing.
Scottish Sun
19 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Major update on benefit claimed by thousands of Scots
The consultation carried out after the move was announced last December received 260 responses CHECK IT OUT Major update on benefit claimed by thousands of Scots Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) NATS ministers ploughed on with plans to scrap the two-child cap despite finding overwhelming opposition among Scots. Three-quarters of responses to a Scottish Government consultation on the move were against axing the limit. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 1 Three-quarters of responses to a Scottish Gov consultation on the move were against axing the limit Credit: Alamy And ministers were repeatedly told parents should not have more kids than they can afford. But despite the findings, SNP ministers this week said they would press ahead with the £155million-a-year plan from next March. Scottish Conservative social security spokesman Alexander Stewart said the consultation responses 'show how out of touch the SNP are with the ordinary Scots who pick up the tab for the Nationalists' ballooning benefits bill'. He said: 'The vast majority of the public back the two-child cap because it strikes the right balance. 'Social security payments must be fair both to people who are struggling and to taxpayers who have to weigh up their own finances when deciding how many children to have.' The consultation carried out after the move was announced last December received 260 responses. Of these, 190 said the SNP should keep the cap. They were predominantly individuals, while the minority who backed the plan were mostly charities and anti-poverty organisations. One said: 'Having children is a financial choice - it is not for the taxpayer to pay for people's choice to have more children.' Another said 'taxpayers should not be responsible for bringing up children' and 'if you can't afford them, don't have them'. Angela Rayner says lifting 2-child benefit cap not 'silver bullet' for ending poverty after demanding cuts for millions One respondent said the policy was not about helping children but 'about the SNP helping themselves in next year's election', while another said the Nats were 'addicted to benefits' and saw them as 'a great vote booster'. An 'easy read' summary of the consulation, published today, added that 'some people said mitigating the two-child cap might encourage people to have bigger families' or 'make people rely more on benefits and not work'. The Scottish Government is currently spending around £1.3 billion more on benefits than would have been spent in Scotland if devolution of welfare hadn't taken place, due to additional spending decisions, and is forecast to be spending £2.1 billion more by 2029-30. The minority that supported scrapping the cap mostly worked in organisations that work with impoverished families. They highlighted the plight of families struggling to fee their children and the traumatic impact of the 'rape clause' the allows women to claim for addtional children if they were impregnated without consent. Lifting the two-child cap is forecast to cost £155million next year, rising to £194million in 2029-30. Polling in 2023 suggested just one in three Scots think the two-child benefits cap should be axed. The rule was backed by 50 per cent of over-16s, according to YouGov. Only 32 per cent said it should be abolished, with 19 per cent of people unsure. The policy applies to benefits including Child Tax Credit and Universal Credit, and stops parents from claiming for a third or additional child born after April 2017. It does not apply to Child Benefit. Scottish Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville told MSPs this week that the two-child cap 'punishes people for having children'. She said: 'The Scottish Government will deliver the effective scrapping of the two-child cap when Labour has failed to do so.'
