Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC, the Scottish Government’s most senior law officer, told the Court of Session in September that the reasons used by Mr Jack to justify the veto were “theoretical” and “very unlikely to arise in practice”.

She argued the evidence base he used before making the decision was too narrow and argued that he had really blocked the legislation because he disagreed with the self-ID policy.

Claiming that he had acted unlawfully, she said a Scottish gender recognition certificate issued under the self-ID system would be “of no effect elsewhere in the UK”.

But Lady Haldane rejected her arguments, stating that the documents submitted in the case do “not support the inference or conclusion that a policy disagreement lay behind the making of the Order.”

The judge also threw out Ms Bain’s claim that the Bill had no impact on UK-wide equalities laws and this meant that “the first precondition” for using the veto was met.

Lady Haldane noted that “the whole purpose” of the legislation was to “widen the category of those who may apply” for a GRC “and to simplify the overall process by which a certificate may be obtained”.

Rejecting the claim that Mr Jack had acted irrationally, she said he had received advice and information on whether a veto would be lawful and “to what extent adverse effects were anticipated” from the Bill.

These included a submission from Reem Alsalem, UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences.

Although not “exhaustive”, Lady Haldane said Mr Jack was “constrained” by the four-week deadline he had for issuing a veto and the approach he took was “reasonable in all the circumstances”.