Joanna Cherry, the former SNP MP and women's rights campaigner, says Nicola Sturgeon owes her an apology for criticising her support for “the rights of women and lesbians”.

"I'm a long-term feminist," she said. "I'm a lesbian who came out in the '80s and campaigned against Section 28.

"I've had to put up with my own party leader, Nicola Sturgeon, calling me a bigot and a transphobe for sticking up for the rights of women and lesbians.

"I think she owes all of us, not just me, and more importantly the women of Scotland, an apology."

Cherry, who lost her seat in last year's general election, also urged Scottish First Minister John Swinney and Sir Keir Starmer to "respect this judgement" and protect women's rights, as well as single-sex spaces.

Leading LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall has issued a statement on today's Supreme Court ruling, calling it "incredibly worrying" for the trans community.

"Stonewall shares the deep concern at the widespread implications for today's ruling from the Supreme Court," Simon Blake, Stonewall CEO, says.

"It will be incredibly worrying for the trans community and all of us who support them. It’s important to be reminded the court strongly and clearly re-affirmed the Equality Act protects all trans people against discrimination, based on Gender Reassignment, and will continue to do so.  

"Once we read and fully digest the judgement, we will work with stakeholders across all sectors to provide as much clarity as possible.  

"Stonewall will continue its work with the Government and parliamentarians to achieve equal rights under the law for LGBTQ+ people."

We've just had a statement from John Swinney, the Scottish first minister - as you know, the ruling this morning was in the case For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers and was the culmination of a years-long fight between the Scottish government and campaigners.

Posting on X, Swinney says the Scottish government accepts the judgment...

Here's the moment that women in Edinburgh broke out into song after the Supreme Court's ruling this morning.

Our Scotland correspondent Connor Gillies was there to witness it...

We've heard from the UK government - here's the reaction from other politicians, including Kemi Badenoch.

The Tory leader lauded the "victory" at court, adding: "Saying 'trans women are women' was never true in fact, and now isn't true in law either.

"This is a victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.

"The era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end."

'Apology letters'

Rosie Duffield, a former Labour MP and outspoken supporter of For Women Scotland, the campaign group that brought the case, posted on social media: "We're all going to need industrial-sized postboxes to accommodate all the grovelling apology letters - biggest one for all the women in Scotland who were never ever going to weesht!"

Weesht is a term used in Scotland meaning "hush" - or "whisht".

In a separate statement, she said she was "just thrilled and relieved".

'Government must clarify guidance'

Mims Davies, the shadow minister for women, shared a "well done" message for For Women Scotland, but added the government must clarify guidance to reflect the Supreme Court's ruling.

"This morning's decision is important for women right across our country," she added.

"This is a clear victory for common sense - and should never have taken a court case to prove the biological definition of a woman."

By Sarah Hajibagheri, at the Supreme Court

Loud applause erupted in court, followed by tears of joy and warm embraces among the For Women in Scotland campaigners as the judges left the room. 

The outpouring of emotion, group hugs, cheers and tear-stained smiles were in stark contrast to the austere portraits of men in uniform that adorn the dark wood panelled Court 1 of the Supreme Court. 

The packed room had been warned at the start of proceedings that, despite the "strength of feeling on all sides", everyone was to respectfully listen to proceedings as "some people will be pleased, others will be disappointed" by what was to be said. 

Everyone complied. 

But there was an audible collective inhale of breath by those gathered inside when Lord Hodge announced the "unanimous decision" that "woman" and "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 referred to "a biological woman". 

He cautioned against "seeing this as a victory for one side or the other" but the beaming faces of the women sat below the stained-glass windows at court suggested they felt vindicated. 

Seats on the carved wooden pews were ticketed and highly sought.

The media benches were full, but no laptops were allowed inside and those that didn't make it in were in an overspill room. 

In a nuanced hand down, Lord Hodge said: "We counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not." 

But as those inside Court 1 spilled out to meet with fellow supporters - the cheering and singing began.

Their appeal had been successful, and this was being celebrated as a win for them. 

For Women Scotland has been backed by a number of famous campaigners, including bestselling author JK Rowling.

The Harry Potter writer has been at the centre of transphobia accusations for years and faced considerable backlash for her comments, including from cast members of both the Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts film franchises.

In 2020, Rowling shared an essay on her website on sex and gender issues, which included speaking out on the "five reasons for being worried about the new trans activism".

The essay explained that her views on women's rights sprang from her experience of domestic abuse and sexual assault.

Other FWS supporters include Graham Lineham, creator of The IT Crowd and Father Ted, who was present at the ruling in London this morning.

We've had the first response from the government to the ruling, indicating how the judges' decision may be implemented and affect everyday services.

A UK government spokesperson says: "We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex.

"This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.

"Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government."

We've just had an official statement from Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman.

She calls today's ruling "deeply concerning" for human rights and a "huge blow to some of the most marginalised people in our society".

"It could remove important protections and will leave many trans people and their loved ones deeply anxious and worried about how their lives will be affected and about what will come next," she says.

"Trans people just want to be able to live their lives like any of us, without the fear of prejudice or violence, but today they have been badly let down.

"Trans people have been cynically targeted and demonised by politicians and large parts of the media for far too long. This has contributed to attacks on longstanding rights and attempts to erase their existence altogether.

"Whatever happens next, we will continue to stand with trans people and resist the nasty and aggressive culture war that is being waged against them and challenge any attempts to remove their rights.

"We will always stand up for human rights, dignity and respect for all people. We will stand with the trans community today, tomorrow and always."

In the 88-page ruling from the Supreme Court, published in full after the judgment, Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler say: 

The definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man.

They continue: "Persons who share that protected characteristic for the purposes of the group-based rights and protections are persons of the same sex and provisions that refer to protection for women necessarily exclude men.

"Although the word "biological" does not appear in this definition, the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman.

"These are assumed to be self-explanatory and to require no further explanation. Men and women are on the face of the definition only differentiated as a grouping by the biology they share with their group."

The ruling added that interpreting sex as "certificated sex" (through a gender recognition certificate) would create "heterogenous groupings" by cutting across definitions of man and woman in the Equalities Act in an "incoherent" way.

They said there would be an "odd inequality of status" between trans people who have a GRC and trans people who do not, with "no obvious means of distinguishing between the two groups".