25 years ago, Scotland repealed an infamous piece of government legislation that prevented the “promotion of homosexuality” in schools and local authorities across the UK. The legal scholar and activist Brian Dempsey was part of the campaign to end the law. In a new long read, he looks back on that time and draws lessons for today.
25 years ago, in June 2000, the Scottish parliament passed the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000. Section 34 of the act repealed Thatcher’s notorious “Section 28”, which banned what it called the “promotion of homosexuality”. The parallels with the current reactionary war on so-called “gender ideology” are not difficult to see.
What was Section 28?
Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 banned local authorities from “intentionally promoting homosexuality” in any of their activities. It also banned them from “promoting, in any maintained school, the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”. (A side-note: references to Section 28 being called “S.2A”in Scotland are unhelpful despite their proliferation. Section 28 of the 1988 Act created a new “2A” part of the Local Government Act 1986 for England, Wales, and Scotland. It was Section 28 that we were fighting in all cases).
The general marginalisation and violence against LGBT+ people at the time is, thankfully, difficult for people today to imagine. Or, at least, it was until the recent demonising of trans and non-binary people in the UK and internationally.
Living in London in 1988, I took part in the protest march against what was then known as Clause 28 (because the bill had not yet become law), along with over 50,000 people. This was an unprecedented number for any LGBT+ event. Having returned to Scotland in 1993, I was also able to assist in a small way with supporting its repeal in 2000 as Scotland’s first (and very part-time) paid LGBT+ lobbyist.
Being LGBT+ in the 1980s
The general marginalisation and violence against LGBT+ people at the time is, thankfully, difficult for people today to imagine. Or, at least, it was until the recent demonising of trans and non-binary people in the UK and internationally. Thatcher had been in power since 1979 and was still politically dominant along with her partner in crime Ronald Regan. Section 28 was in part a tool to stifle any sort of progressive opposition to Thatcherism by local authorities, by labelling support for LGBT+ rights a “loony left” position.
Through the 1970s-80s we had built strong links with many trade unions and rank and file Labour activists, as well as organisations such as the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties and some liberal church groups.
Again, the parallel with the recent attacks on politicians who support the rights of trans people is striking. In 1988 LGBT+ communities were dealing with the devastating impact of AIDS. They were also facing the use of that crisis by government and tabloid newspapers to demonise and marginalise them—gay and bisexual men in particular.
But through the 1970s-80s we had also built strong links with many trade unions and rank and file Labour activists, as well as organisations such as the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties and some liberal church groups. That meant we were able to protest against the introduction of Section 28 even if we were unable to stop it.
The Lark in the Park festival in Edinburgh’s Princes Street Gardens in May 1988 was, at the time, the biggest and most public lesbian & gay event ever stage in Scotland. Attendance was boosted by a local Tory councillor condemning the event as a “poof’s picnic on the rates”. Lark in the Park led more or less directly to the annual Pride marches in Scotland.
The effects of Section 28
Despite determined opposition, including the famous abseiling lesbians in the House of Lords, Section 28 was to be in place in Scotland until March 2001. It stayed in place for a further two and a half years in England and Wales.
Albeit badly written (for example, homosexuality is not a relationship), Section 28 caused significant harm. Local authorities were warned that giving even tiny grants to arts events that mentioned the existence of LGBT+ people, or allowing colleges to recognise student “lesbian and gay societies”, would likely be a breach of the prohibition on “promoting homosexuality”. Schools denied pastoral care to LGBT+ children. Teachers policed the exclusion of any mention of the existence of LGBT+ people, for fear of getting caught promoting “pretended families”.
Section 28 bolstered “gay bashing” and the murder of LGBT+ people, as well as harassment and violence towards people living with AIDS.
Equally damaging was the more general role of Section 28 in the relentless demonisation of LGBT+ people. This meant, for example, that courts were primed to remove children from the care of their mothers if mum was found to be lesbian. Gay dads, meanwhile, were more or less anathema. Section 28 bolstered “gay bashing” and the murder of LGBT+ people, as well as harassment and violence towards people living with AIDS.
The fight to save repeal
1997 saw the end of 18 years of Tory rule and the arrival of the New Labour government. With devolution legislated for in 1998, demands for repeal of Section 28 and for a national policy of inclusion in Scottish schools were raised by Scotland’s two LGBT+ rights organisations, Outright Scotland and the Equality Network.
Nonetheless, we were somewhat taken by surprise when Wendy Alexander, then a junior minister in the new Labour/LibDem Scottish Executive (government) at Holyrood, announced that the policy commitment to repeal Section 28 was going to be honoured just four months into the new era.
The campaign to retain Section 28 was hugely well financed, deeply homophobic and threatening and, thankfully, ultimately unsuccessful. Most of the campaigners were motivated by their strongly held conservative religious views.
The campaign to retain Section 28 was hugely well financed, deeply homophobic and threatening and, thankfully, ultimately unsuccessful. In 1999, no one had any idea how much influence the old forces of reaction in Scotland might have over newly elected members of the Parliament and society more widely.
Opposition was spearheaded by the “Keep the Clause” campaign bankrolled by Brian Souter, CEO of Stagecoach. Most of the campaigners, including Souter, Cardinal Winning, the Evangelical Alliance, the Christian Institute and more, were motivated by their strongly held conservative religious views. Some influential committees within the Church of Scotland were also strongly opposed to repeal. As usual, they claimed a monopoly on “decency” and to speak on behalf of a silent super-majority of people.
Many LGBT+ people felt intimidated and targeted in their own communities.
Many LGBT+ people felt intimidated and targeted in their own communities. Every household in Scotland received Souter’s referendum literature. There were also famous “Keep the Clause” billboards on many streets, and posters in local shops. The otherwise Labour-supporting Daily Record, at the time Scotland’s mass-circulation tabloid, ran many scurrilous banner headlines on its front-page denouncing “Gay Sex Lessons for Scots Schools”.
Several LGBT+ groups and individuals countered this by speaking to MSPs, writing letters to the press, and building support in various organisations. The STUC, many trade unions, civil liberties groups, children’s charities, and others were vocal supporters of repeal. So too were many individual church members. Crucially, the SNP supported repeal and resisted the temptation to take advantage of the pressure on the LibLab government. We really need to capture that history soon.
Repeal
During the repeal of the legislation at Holyrood, the Scottish Executive included a duty on local authorities to “have regard to the value of stable family life in a child’s development”, This was something of a sop to those opposed to repeal and also perhaps gave some cover to less courageous MSPs with homophobic constituents.
Conservative religious groups threatened retribution on those who had dared to vote for repeal of Section 28
An attempt to include a similar “have regard to” for the supposed “importance of marriage in a child’s development” was rejected. However, there was to be reference to this in non-statutory guidance, re-enforcing the second-class status of children born “out of wedlock” or brought up by a single parent.
The vote to repeal Section 28 eventually passed with 99 votes in favour and 17 against (the entire Tory block) on 21 June 2000. Conservative religious groups threatened retribution on those who had dared to vote for repeal of Section 28. But they made no discernible impact with voters at the next Scottish general election in 2003. Indeed, all of the high-profile supporters of repeal were re-elected and the number of pro-LGBT+ MSPs was significantly increased.
Conclusion: a progressive Scotland?
The repeal of Section 28, an act with significant cross-party support, showed that a devolved Scotland was not going to be in thrall to social conservatism. While far from radical, the Scottish Parliament has delivered a range of socially progressive or at least liberal gains that may not have happened had Keep the Clause won. However, given the recent victories of populist anti-trans prejudice and right-wing fundamentalism, it is hard to feel sure that these gains will be retained.
Right-wing authoritarian leaders such as Thatcher, Viktor Orban, Ron DeSantis, Vladimir Putin, and others know that bans that demonise “homosexual propaganda” are powerful populist tools of intimidation and control.
Right-wing authoritarian leaders such as Thatcher, Viktor Orban, Ron DeSantis, Vladimir Putin, and others know that bans that demonise “homosexual propaganda” are powerful populist tools of intimidation and control. Anti LGBT+ laws fit perfectly alongside other gender-fundamentalist campaigns against abortion access and sex education, and intolerance of all types.
Support our campaign work, make a donation today
Our campaign work is funded by the generous support of our members and supporters. Support our campaign work and help to create a fairer Scotland and world.
Join us!
Your membership will help to fund our campaign work to make Scotland a more secular, rational, and socially just country, and to ensure everyone in Scotland has access to humanist ceremonies to mark important life events.
Latest Related Stories
June 25, 2026
Draft bill to end conversion practices in England and Wales published at Westminster: what does this mean for Scotland?
June 1, 2026
Humanist Society Interview Series: Roslyn Mould on LGBT+ rights in West Africa and more
June 27, 2025
Humanist Society interview series: Maggie Chapman MSP on ending conversion practices
May 20, 2025