Tories demand John Swinney sacks SNP MSPs who backed Maggie Chapman
The comments sparked a backlash from Scotland's legal profession, with both the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates speaking out against Chapman.
But Chapman survived the vote as three SNP MSPs – Marie McNair, Evelyn Tweed, and convener Karen Adam – and Chapman herself all voted down Tess White's motion.
Now White has written to the First Minister saying he must 'show some backbone' and remove the SNP members of the committee.
READ MORE: Alba leader slams 'pointless' calls to ban Kneecap from Scottish festival
Swinney said Chapman's comments were wrong adding 'at no stage should we question the independence of the justiciary and the judicial system'.
White said: 'John Swinney must finally show some backbone and remove the SNP members of the equalities committee who openly defied him by shamefully backing Maggie Chapman (below).
'If he fails to remove and replace them, he will be sending out the message that he has no respect for women or the rule of law.
(Image: PA) 'Maggie Chapman's comments were an outrageous attack on the highest court in the land and demonstrated her utter contempt for women and girls.
'By defending the indefensible, the three SNP members have brought parliament into disrepute.'
White argued the positions of the SNP MSPs are now 'untenable'.
READ MORE: Labour MP pans party's broken pledges as Grangemouth refining ends
After the victory in the vote, which means she will remain in post on the committee, Chapman said she was 'grateful' to have held on.
"I have never questioned the court's right to make the ruling that it did. But that does not mean that I must agree with it. I don't, and I am very concerned about the impact it will have and is already having,' she said.
'I will always stand up and advocate for trans and non-binary people. Not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is also my job to stand up for my constituents.'
White hit out at the SNP MSPs on the committee who had voted her motion down, saying that had 'put political allegiance before Parliament'.
The SNP have been approached for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
14 minutes ago
- Reuters
Exclusive: Judge in US crosshairs warns Brazil banks not to apply sanctions locally
BRASILIA, Aug 20 (Reuters) - Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who recently had sanctions imposed on him by the U.S. government, told Reuters that courts could punish Brazilian financial institutions for seizing or blocking domestic assets in response to U.S. orders. Those remarks raise the stakes in a standoff that has hammered shares of Brazilian banks caught between U.S. sanctions and the orders of Brazil's highest court. In a late Tuesday interview from his office in Brasilia, Moraes granted that U.S. law enforcement regarding Brazilian banks that operate in the United States "falls under U.S. jurisdiction." "However, if those banks choose to apply that law domestically, they cannot do so — and may be penalized under Brazilian law," he added. His remarks underscore the potential consequences of a Monday ruling by fellow Supreme Court Justice Flavio Dino, who warned that foreign laws cannot be automatically applied in Brazil. That ruling was followed by a sharp rebuke from the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, which warned on social media hours later that Moraes was "toxic" and that "non-U.S. persons must tread carefully: those providing material support to human rights abusers face sanctions risk themselves." The U.S. Treasury Department slapped the sanctions on Moraes last month under the Global Magnitsky Act, a law designed to impose economic penalties on foreigners deemed to have a record of corruption or human rights abuse. The order accused him of suppressing freedom of expression and leading politicized prosecutions, including against former President Jair Bolsonaro, a staunch Trump ally on trial before Brazil's Supreme Court on charges of plotting a coup to reverse his loss in the 2022 election. Bolsonaro has denied any wrongdoing and denounced the case as politically motivated. In his interview, Moraes said decisions by foreign courts and governments can only take effect in Brazil after validation through a domestic process. He said it is therefore not possible to seize assets, freeze funds or block the property of Brazilian citizens without following those legal steps. The global reach of the U.S. financial system means foreign banks often restrict a wider range of transactions to avoid secondary sanctions. Moraes said he was confident that the sanctions against him would be reversed via diplomatic channels or an eventual challenge in U.S. courts. But he acknowledged that for now they had put financial institutions in a bind. "This misuse of legal enforcement places financial institutions in a difficult position — not only Brazilian banks, but also their American partners," he said. "That is precisely why, I repeat, the diplomatic channel is important so this can be resolved quickly - to prevent misuse of a law that is important to fight terrorism, criminal organizations, international drug trafficking and human trafficking," he added. The U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to request for comment. Moraes had "engaged in serious human rights abuse," said a Treasury Department spokesperson. "Rather than concocting a fantasy fiction, de Moraes should stop carrying out arbitrary detentions and politicized prosecutions." The clash could have serious consequences for Brazilian financial institutions, said two bankers in Brazil, who requested anonymity to discuss the matter candidly. Most large banks are supervised by the U.S. government in some way due to their international presence or exposure, either through a foreign branch or issuance of foreign securities, said the former director of an international bank in Brazil. The choice for these banks, under pressure from the U.S., may be to invite sanctioned clients to seek a different institution to keep their assets, the banker added. The director of a major Brazilian bank said that, in practice, Monday's court ruling means any action taken by Brazilian banks based on rules involving the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, which oversees U.S. sanctions, will need approval from Brazil's Supreme Court. At the same time, he added, failing to comply with an OFAC decision could cut a bank off from the international financial system. "Brazil doesn't really have a choice," said the banker. "Given how interconnected everything is, and the disparity in economic power between the U.S. and Brazil, we're left in a position of subordination. There's not much we can do." He stressed that the court would need to come up with a solution "that doesn't put the financial system at risk." Shares of state-run lender Banco do Brasil, where most federal officials including judges receive salaries, fell 6% on Tuesday, the largest drop among Brazil's three biggest banks. The bank said in a Tuesday statement it was prepared to deal with "complex, sensitive" issues involving global regulations.
The National
25 minutes ago
- The National
Could Scotland challenge hotels housing asylum seekers? Legal insights
On Tuesday, the High Court granted a temporary injunction to Epping Forest District Council, blocking refugees from being allowed to stay at a former hotel. The ruling blocks asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in the Essex town, and current residents must be removed by September 12. While the court ruling that asylum seekers be removed from a hotel in Epping, Essex was won by the council against the hotel over the breach of planning rules, Reform UK and far-right protesters are taking the injunction as a "victory" for them. READ MORE: 'Emboldened' far-right advertise Perth asylum seeker hotel protest Nigel Farage has stated that the Epping community "stood up bravely, despite being slandered as far-right, and have won". He has further called for peaceful protests outside hotels housing asylum seekers "across Britain" to put pressure on local authorities. Questions are being asked on what the implications of the ruling are for Scotland, and whether Scottish councils could take similar action. Nick McKerrell, senior lecturer in law at Glasgow Caledonian University, told The National that his view was that Scotland is unlikely to see councils block hotels housing asylum seekers, despite the potentially landmark ruling in Essex. What happened in the Epping ruling? The ruling from Mr Justice Eyre is significant but framed in "quite a specific way in the framework of English planning law", McKerrell explained. "Essentially the argument of Epping Council is that the hotel, by housing asylum seekers, is no longer acting as a hotel therefore it is in breach of the planning permission that was granted to allow it to operate in such a way. 'In legal terms, the council are arguing there is a change of use but not only that there has been a 'material' change of use – which means the change is so significant that it requires a new planning permission application if it wants to house asylum seekers." READ MORE: 'This rhetoric leads to firebombs': Humza Yousaf issues warning over asylum debate McKerrell added that a significant point was that the court did not make a ruling on whether they agreed with the council's position. The interim injunction (a court order banning behaviour – an interdict in Scots Law) is about the use of the hotel until a resolutions at a later hearing. "So he is saying that he will not make a ruling on whether the hotel is breaching planning law but it is saying that because of the broader issues raised it should not operate as a location for asylum seekers in the interim." Ultimately in his ruling on Tuesday, the judge conceded that "housing destitute asylum seekers is an important public policy," McKerrell summarised, "but there is also a public interest in ensuring that planning control is followed within local authorities which are ultimately responsible for it." Could Scotland challenge hotels housing asylum seekers? The judge in the Epping Forest case was keen to emphasise that his decision was very 'fact sensitive' so could not be seen as a precedent, McKerrell stressed. "He actually outlined a number of different contradictory decisions in the English courts on whether using hotels to house asylum seekers is a 'material' difference from operating 'usually' as a hotel. Scotland also has its own planning laws. 'Here it would require a local authority to challenge a hotel for breaching planning law. Scots planning law uses similar terms to those argued in the English court over change of 'material use'. Generally though that would be difficult in this context given councils in Scotland generally have been involved in discussions with the Home Office and contractors to agree to bring asylum seekers into the local area." He added: "A group that was angered by asylum seekers being housed for example as seen in Falkirk at the weekend would not be able to raise such an action." 'In England the numbers of asylum seekers are much greater and enter into direct contracts with the hotels which may not involve the council as can be seen in Epping where the District Council brought the action'. How many asylum seekers in the UK in 2025? The most recent Home Office data showed there were 32,345 asylum seekers being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March. This was down 15% from the end of December, when the total was 38,079. New figures – published among the usual quarterly immigration data release – are expected on Thursday, showing numbers in hotels at the end of June. Figures for hotels published by the Home Office date back to December 2022 and showed numbers hit a peak at the end of September 2023 when there were 56,042 asylum seekers in hotels. How many hotels are in use for asylum seekers? It is thought there were more than 400 asylum hotels open in summer 2023. Labour said this has since been reduced to fewer than 210.
Western Telegraph
31 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Former Salmond staffer rejects Sturgeon claims in book as ‘obviously false'
Geoff Aberdein, who worked for Mr Salmond when he was first minister, hit out at Ms Sturgeon, saying: 'I was brought up that you didn't speak ill of the dead. 'But I think if you're going to speak ill of the dead, at least make your claims accurate.' Former first minister Nicola Sturgeon with her memoir, Frankly, which was published last week (Jane Barlow/PA) He told the Holyrood Sources podcast that Mr Salmond's widow Moira was 'particularly upset and frustrated at a lot of what has been said' about her late husband, who died suddenly in October 2024. Mr Aberdein continued: 'I think it was important to set out and correct the record not just because Alex is not in position to defend himself, but for myself as well and the series of other officials and civil servants that have contacted me.' Claims that Mr Salmond was the person who leaked the story of the sexual harassment allegations against him are 'obviously false', Mr Aberdein insisted. He said that when his former boss took the phone call to say the story about the allegations was being published by the Daily Record he was actually meeting lawyers to 'draft a legal summons to prevent Nicola Sturgeon's Government from making the allegations public'. Mr Aberdeen said: 'To suggest Alex was simultaneously leaking documents deeply damaging to his reputation whilst at the same time paying lawyers a lot of money to get a court order to prevent publication of the same material is just utterly absurd.' Mr Salmond went on to be acquitted of all the charges against him in a court case in 2020. Mr Aberdein also dismissed claims by Ms Sturgeon that Mr Salmond 'didn't read' the white paper on independence which had been produced by the Scottish government in the run up to the 2014 referendum. In her recently published memoir, Frankly, Ms Sturgeon spoke out about her 'cold fury' with her former leader over his 'abdication of responsibility' on the key document. Mr Aberdein – who said he would not be reading the book – accepted that his former boss 'delegated the responsibility for drafting the white paper to Nicola Sturgeon'. Mr Aberdein said he wanted to 'correct the record' following comments made about his former boss, Alex Salmond (Andrew Milligan/PA) However he insisted: 'To suggest, as I think was the purpose of this story, that he wasn't engaged in the process of a prospectus for independence is utterly nonsense. The former Salmond chief of staff also rejected claims that Mr Salmond was 'apparently against same-sex marriage' – saying that this was 'demonstrably false'. Mr Aberdein told the podcast Mr Salmond had 'declared his personal support for gay marriage for the first time' in a newspaper article in April 2011. And he added that while the SNP election manifesto that year had pledged to consult on the issue Mr Salmond 'chose to come out… excuse the pun, the turn of phrase, ahead of that result, to say that he personally supported it.' With the SNP having won the 2011 Holyrood election, Mr Aberdein recalled 'being in the room with advisors, civil servants and indeed ministers about how we would go about reassuring different sections of our society about that legislation, particularly religious leaders and other civic leaders'. He also made the 'obvious point' that 'if Alex Salmond didn't want legislation to be progressed, he was the first minister of a majority SNP government, it wouldn't have been progressed'. Mr Aberdeen said: 'The point falls down on that alone.'
