The row over the Scottish government's gender reform bill has dominated proceedings at both Holyrood and Westminster today, but our live coverage is now drawing to a close.

If you're just joining us here are the key points on a very busy day:

• Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon says row over Scotland's gender reforms will "inevitably" end up in court

• Sturgeon was speaking as the UK government formally moved to block the legislation passed by MSPs last month
• The reforms are intended to make it easier for trans people to change their legally-recognised sex
• But the UK government says the changes could impact on equality laws that apply across Great Britain
• Scottish Secretary Alister Jack will use a Section 35 order, external to prevent the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from gaining Royal Assent
• Jack told the Commons the reforms would have an adverse impact on single sex clubs, associations and schools and protections such as equal pay
• Sturgeon told BBC political editor Chris Mason that Alister Jack was making a "profound mistake" and accused him of launching a "direct attack on the institution of the Scottish Parliament"

While our coverage may now be ending, this constitutional row is set to run and run. Thank you for joining us today.

Angela Brown, of Broxburn, Scotland, has a 16-year-old trans son.

He has been living in his gender since 2018, and the mistreatment he has experienced has led him to suicidal thoughts.

“Gender dysphoria is considered a mental health illness. If it really us an illness, why are there barriers for treatment? This logic is not applied to any other medical condition," she says.

When asked whether 16 is too young to decide on ones recognised gender identity, Angela says: "In the eyes of the law, 16 is old enough to make the decision to get married and start a family. Why is it not old enough to know your gender?

"So is it a phase? No. If it was, you’d stop after the first beating."

She adds, "some may be following a trend, and there should be safeguarding to protect people from this, but for most, it is not”.

The Acts involved in the rowpublished at 18:16 Greenwich Mean Time 17 January 2023

18:16 GMT 17 January 2023

Philip Sim
BBC Scotland political correspondent

The UK government has published its “statement of reasons, external” for blocking the Holyrood bill.

Broadly, the main issue they highlight is the way the 2004 Gender Recognition Act – which set up the process being reformed – is intertwined with the 2010 Equality Act, which Holyrood is not allowed to cut across.

The 2010 Act applies in Scotland, England and Wales, setting out different "protected characteristics" including those of sex and gender reassignment and underpins the rights and protections afforded to these groups.

The UK government contends that the 2010 Act was "carefully drafted" to work alongside the 2004 one, and that it is "highly problematic" to have two different gender recognition systems within the UK.

An example would be a single-sex association or club, which is allowed to have exclusive membership rules under the protections of the Equality Act - for example a support group for women who have been victims of sexual violence.

In the UK government argument, such groups might now need to have different membership rules north and south of the border. The new system would "significantly change the profile and number of individuals that associations will be unable to exclude".

It also argues that groups could be at "greater risk of being found to be operating unlawfully", and could opt to close down due to perceived risks.

However the Scottish government rejects the idea that its bill cuts across the Equality Act. Ministers in Edinburgh insist they have only made changes to the process of getting a gender recognition certificate, not the effect that certificate then has.

Rajdeep Sandhu
Political Correspondent, BBC Scotland's The Nine

The Scottish Secretary Alister Jack has denied blocking the Scottish government’s gender bill was politically motivated and said legal advice the UK government received said safeguards for women and children would be weakened.

He said: “this is entirely about safeguarding safe spaces for women and children”.

Jack said it would be difficult to have two different gender recognition certificates in the UK he said “no state in Europe has a devolved administration with different gender rules”.

He said the prime minister and he “didn’t come to this decision lightly but were as one on it”.

Asked if he thought the UK government could win if the the issue ended up in court he said:

“We know our legal team is strong and we know their advice is strong”.

Holyrood's Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, external has invited Scottish Secretary Alister Jack and Social Justice Secretary Shona Robison to give evidence at its meeting next Tuesday.

Back at Holyrood SNP MSP Christine Graham points out that there are 41 countries on the UK government website, external which do not require medical reports when applying for gender recognition in the UK, adding that this "presumably... does not impact on the equalities act."

With this in mind, she asks why "apparently breaching the equalities act" only applies when the Scottish Parliament proposes changes that "many other countries have done".

"Will this result in the UK removing 41 countries from that list?"

Image source, House of Commons

The UK and Scottish governments should be locked up in a room together until they come to a solution over the gender reform bill row, says Labour.

Shadow Scotland secretary Ian Murray tells the Commons debate the two sides need to "get around the table and resolve" the issues between them.

"Let's lock them in a room until they find it [a solution], and I can assure you there's a way through they but they are unwilling to take it," he claims.

Meanwhile at the Scottish Parliament, Labour MSP Monica Lennon says the Gender Recognition Reform bill was passed because a majority of MSPs believed that "trans people should be able to live, work and die with dignity".

Lennon argues the legislation is about "dignity, fairness and equality for a marginalised group of trans citizens".

She adds the UK government is determined to wreck the Holyrood legislation at any cost.

Craig Mackinlay of the Conservative party says he finds the idea that people could decide to change their gender at 16 "scarcely believable" under the proposals set out in the Scottish gender recognition reform bill.

Speaking during the emergency debate in the House of Commons, he recalls how as a 16-year-old himself he "rather wanted a tattoo and an earring," but now at the age of 56 he's "damned pleased" he didn't get them.

Image source, bbc

At Holyrood, Social Justice Secretary Shona Robison says the decision by the UK government to make an order under Section 35 of the Scotland Act (1998), preventing the Gender Recognition Reform Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent, is a "dark day for trans rights and a dark day for democracy".

The minister questions what the implications are for future Holyrood legislation.

Robison insists the UK government had multiple opportunities to engage on the proposed legislation but it didn't.

"The decision they have taken is political and it is a sad day for democracy and for devolution."

She says the Scottish government will seek to uphold the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament.

Image source, HoC

Things are getting heated in the Commons chamber, with Labour’s Lloyd Russell-Moyle describing remarks by Conservative MP Miriam Cates as “one of the worst transphobic, dog-whistle speeches that I have heard in an awful long time”.

Cates had said there was a risk of “predators” exploiting the bill “to get access to children”, comments that Russell-Moyle described as “disgusting”, and said Cates should be “ashamed” of.

Deputy speaker Rosie Winterton was then forced to intervene and call for calm before the debate continued.

Image source, House of Commons

MPs should think "long and hard" about what they say, the Speaker of the House of Commons warned earlier as one Parliamentarian was accused by another of spreading "disinformation".

Speaking during the debate on Scotland's gender reform bill, Conservative MP Jonathan Gullis claimed people involved in the argument are facing "continued aggression and violent abuse... from certain people in this place and across the Scottish Parliament".

Raising a point of order later during the debate, the SNP's Amy Callaghan highlighted Gullis' comments and brands them "misinformation".

In response, Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle warned that "nothing should inflame the tensions that will already be running high... please think long and hard before you speak because messages that you say in this House can be reflected in a way that I do not wish to see".

The BBC has spoken to a genderfluid, trans woman who is not yet out to family and close friends.

They said: "It is unlikely that I will personally be in a position to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) even if England were to relax the process.

"However, I do rely on the protections of the Equality Act and I am really concerned that this government will seek to row back on protections, particularly for trans people.

"We are a small part of the community, at high risk of abuse and it seems that the profile given to us far outweighs any risk to society and in particular cis women's rights.

"I am also concerned that many issues are all being lumped together. This bill gives no new rights but merely eases the route for people."

The trans woman went onto explain: "How often do we show our birth certificate? As I understand it with a GRC you can change tax records, get married in the correct gene and be buried as such, but it has nothing to do with toilets.”

Interview by Emily Roberts

Meanwhile at Holyrood, the Scottish Parliament's presiding officer selected an urgent question on the constitutional situation.

Labour MSP Monica Lennon asks the Scottish government what its response is to the Secretary of State for Scotland making an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998, preventing the Scottish Parliament’s Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent.

You can watch events in Holyrood by clicking the play button at the top of this page.

Current constitutional row predicted in 1998published at 16:50 Greenwich Mean Time 17 January 2023

16:50 GMT 17 January 2023

James Cook
Scotland Editor, BBC News

Downing Street insists that using Section 35 of the Scotland Act to veto this Holyrood bill is not a political choice but a legal necessity.

That argument is complicated by the fact that when the mechanism was proposed in 1998, the Conservatives’ Constitutional Affairs Spokesman Michael Ancram was highly critical of it.

The MP for Devizes invoked the notion of colonialism by referring to it as a “governor-general clause” , externalwhich appeared “to place draconian powers in the hands of the Secretary of State”.

Nicola Sturgeon is now trying to frame the decision to use Section 35 (confusingly known at the time as Clause 33) as an attack on devolution itself.

But her position is complicated by the fact that SNP MPs voted for the Scotland Act after abstaining on Ancram’s amendment

It sought to raise the bar for invoking Section 35 albeit in a way that would probably not have made a difference in this case as it simply required the minister to seek legal advice before making a decision, which the Scottish Secretary Alister Jack appears to have done.

Labour, which designed the devolutionary framework, is in more of a pickle about the gender law itself. UK leader Sir Keir Starmer expressed concerns about it on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg even though Scottish Labour MSPs had voted for it.

So we are now heading for the courts. In the meantime, you might want to ask Ancram for his lottery numbers because, in the House of Commons debate on 12 May 1998, he made this prediction:

“…the purpose of the Opposition throughout the passage of the Bill has been to try to identify the areas in it that could lead to dramatic confrontation between the Parliament and Government in Edinburgh and the Parliament and Government in London.

"I can see within this draconian power—were it used in a way that ran counter to the wishes of the Scottish Parliament—the epitome of such a confrontation.”

David Deans
BBC Wales politics reporter

Mark Drakeford has condemned UK government moves to block a Scottish law making it easier to change gender.

It is the first time Westminster has blocked legislation from the Scottish Parliament since the institution was set up in 1999.

The Welsh Labour first minister said the moves to block the law sets a "very dangerous precedent" for devolution.

Conservative ministers say the changes could impact on equality laws that apply across Great Britain.

Read more here

Image source, bbc

Scotland Office Minister John Lamont echoes his boss by saying use of the Section 35 order "is not a decision that has been taken lightly".

Lamont says this is a decision based on the Gender Recognition Reform Bill's consequences for the operation of reserved matters across Great Britain including on equality legislation.

SNP MP Kirsty Blackman intervenes to ask if it is acceptable for the minister to read out the statement that has already been made, changing the order of some of the sentences.

The speaker says it's up to the minister what he wishes to say.

Lamont continues saying the Holyrood legislation would have "serious adverse impact" on the operation of the Equality Act 2010.

This would include impacts on the operation of single sex clubs, associations and schools and protections such as equal pay, he claims.

Lamont adds that it would also cause significant complications due to creating different gender recognition regimes in the UK.

More now from the SNP’s Westminster leader Stephen Flynn who ends his speech by saying the role of the Scottish Parliament is to ensure Scottish voices are heard.

Flynn urged the Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack to hear those voices, and to “reflect upon the damage that he seeks to do to his own Union” by invoking Section 35.

Flynn says he hopes Jack “shows he does respect Scotland’s democracy, and he allows this legislation to pass as it should”.

Stephen Flynn, who has been the leader of the Scottish National Party in the House of Commons since December 2022, says: "It is an outrage Mr Speaker, that we have a situation in this United Kingdom where this government is seeking to overturn the mandate and the legislation put down by the people in our Parliament in Scotland."

He then gives way to the SNP's Hannah Bardell who points out the other European and Commonwealth nations that have legislation around gender reform and how Scotland would be brought into line with that.

She then explains the original measures, without the reform, include the medicalisation of the process of identifying trans people and the "breach of human rights".

She says this: "includes a trans person having to present themselves to a panel just to justify their existence are the very things that we sort to remove because it made the rights of trans people so affected."

Earlier in the Commons debate Labour's Ian Murray responded to the Alister Jack's statement.

He said there is now a situation where the Scottish government in Edinburgh is "hellbent on breaking devolution", and a Conservative government in Westminster that's "intent on ignoring it".