worked out in a consensual manner. so we ll hear later on today the full reasoning behind their decision, westminster s decision, to trigger a section 35, but nicola sturgeon, scotland s first minister, has said that this is a full frontal attack on the scottish parliament and its ability to make its own decisions on devolved matters. her socialjustice secretary, shona robison, has been speaking this morning. she said on bbc radio scotland that this would simplify the process for obtaining a gender recognition certificate. it wouldn t affect the purpose or use of such a certificate and, indeed, she pointed out that there was an amendment put into the bill, but she said put beyond doubt its impact on the equality act 2010, but, of course, as is clear, alisterjack and the westminster government
included by the architect of devolution for a reason, he noted the power stroke and important balance. the section 35 provide a sensible measure to ensure devolved legislation does not have adverse effects, including the equality act 2010. it isn t about preventing scottish government from legislating but ensuring we do not have legal frameworks in one part of the uk which have adverse effects on reserved matters. we should be clear, this is not about the united kingdom government being able to veto the scottish parliament whenever it chooses, as some have implied. it can only be used on specific grounds, and this is the first time it has been used in nearly 25 years, which emphasises it won t be used lightly. in the instance of the gender recognition
adverse impact, among other things, on the operation of the equality act 2010. those adverse effects include impacts on the operation of single sex clubs, associations and schools and protections such as equal pay. i have set out to the scottish government that should they choose to do so i hope we can work together to find a constructive way forward. labour won t say whether they d have done the same thing as the conservatives or let the scottish legislation become law, saying instead they want to see the government s legal advice. trans people who suffered intense discrimination will now not see this legislation take effect any time soon, if at all. and women s rights groups who will likely not see their concerns, address or their fears alleviated because this simple truth is that this has turned into a constitutional bunfight. back in the scottish capital, the architecture of the coming political argument is taking shape. you ve talked about this as an outrage, but is it
are adamant they have to protect the legal status of that equality act. this has got some way to go. this is going to be one mighty battle. goodness! brian, good to talk to you again, and that suggests we will absolutely be discussing this again, but for now, thank you very much. brian taylor with his thoughts there in glasgow, on the story we will be following. let s talk a little bit more about strikes. two rail unions have announced more strikes in the first week of february. members of the aslef union will strike on 1 and 3 february after the union rejected a pay offer, affecting 15 train companies. and this afternoon, train driver members of the rmt at 1a rail operators will strike on the same days. the first strike will coincide with industrial action by civil servants, teachers and nationwide protests against the government s controversial new strike law.
back in the scottish capital, the architecture of the coming political argument is taking shape. you ve talked about this as an outrage, but is it not simpler than that, that this is an argument between two sides, perhaps both acting in good faith? there s not an iota of good faith on the part of the uk government on this issue. all through the progress of this legislation. how do you know that? maybe theyjust disagree with you. well, trust me, i am certain. it is an opinion, i grant you that. but it s an opinion i m very, very certain of. and this is not the first attack on the scottish parliament we ve seen. it is the most serious to date. but it s also. hardly an attack, though, if they re using a lever in the existing, legal rulebook? because there is no justification for it. 0n the face of this bill, the argument of the uk government appears to be that it interferes with the equality act, but it doesn t have any impact on the equality act. that ll be the crux of the coming politic