For a brief moment at PMQs this week Boris Johnson told the truth when a Labour MP challenged him on the UK’s inability to guarantee the territorial integrity of Ukraine. While stressing that nobody wants war, Chris Bryant made a fair point by drawing a contrast with the energy and sacrifice expended when Belgium and Poland were similarly invaded in the first half of the 20th century. 

Last week I wrote about what the constitution of an independent Scotland might look like and reminded readers that, back in 2014, it was the intention of the Scottish Government to enshrine the protected characteristics of the Equality Act into our fundamental law. If that had happened then current efforts to redefine what it is to be a woman may well have been unconstitutional, while at the same time the rights of trans people as defined by the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” would have continued to enjoy equal protection. 

Instead, it took Scotland’s Supreme Court, the Inner House of the Court of Session, chaired by Lady Dorrian, Scotland’s second most senior judge and the first woman ever to hold the role, to remind us that at least under the Equality Act, a piece of legislation largely reserved to Westminster, a woman is a female of any age and provisions in favour of women, by definition, exclude those who are biologically male. 

Last week I wrote about the Tories plans to water down the Human Rights Act. The implications for Scotland are stark. The Joint Committee of Human Rights (JCHR) at Westminster took evidence on this last year. We heard from Judith Robertson, the Chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, who reminded us that the Human Rights Act (HRA) is intertwined with the Scotland Act and the whole establishment of devolution, and that weakening or changing that framework might have complex implications that are not yet fully understood. 

I hesitate to mention the Hate Crime Bill. Last month, when I praised the Scottish Government’s free speech amendment to the bill, I unleashed a backlash which led to my removal from the SNP Westminster front bench and a tsunami of abuse including a threat of rape from a fellow party member. That should concern us all. So should the fact that the amendment was subsequently withdrawn. Some might say what happened proves that those of us concerned about free speech are right to be concerned. However a chink of light has appeared with the announcement that, together with opposition parties, the Scottish Government have prepared a new draft free speech amendment which will be discussed at a public roundtable on Monday. 

I shall refrain from further comment on this bill until the amendment has been debated save to say that free speech really does matter. So does the use of language in legislation. Last week Westminster debated a bill about maternity leave which didn’t mention women. Given that it is women who give birth and women who benefit from maternity leave this seemed more than a little odd. A number of MPs from across the chamber raised the bill’s use of language with the Minister leading on the bill. We did not get a satisfactory answer. I fear that the drafters of the bill have been influenced by the ideological trend which has seen moves across schools, universities and the NHS to discourage the use of the words “woman” and “lesbian”. Most women don’t even know that this erasure of their sex class is going on – when they find out they are appalled. They cannot believe it.