Sturgeon accused of 'moral cowardice' as she swerves parliamentary statement on gender ideology ruling
Nicola Sturgeon was accused of 'moral cowardice' after skipping a parliamentary statement on the Supreme Court 's emphatic rejection of her gender ideology.
The former First Minister was missing from the Holyrood chamber as MSPs returned from Easter recess to hear the Government respond to the landmark defeat.
She cast two votes online instead.
Ms Sturgeon, who found time to post a gym selfie of herself on Monday, has yet to comment on the judgment, despite claiming the issue was hugely important to her.
An SNP source said she was working on constituency business but refused to say if she was in her Glasgow Southside office or elsewhere.
Ms Sturgeon also pulled out of an event about children and young people in care - another subject she says is a personal mission.
She had been due to speak at the One Voice Summit in London on Thursday alongside ex-Tory minister Michael Gove.
After watching from the Holyrood gallery yesterday, former SNP MP Joanna Cherry KC said 'the author' of the SNP's gender mess should have been there and apologised to women.
Asked if it was 'moral cowardice' not to attend, Ms Cherry said: 'Yes, absolutely. She should have the courage of her convictions.
'If Nicola Sturgeon believes the Supreme Court got it wrong, she should come out and say so and explain why she thinks that. The silence, to my mind, is just redolent of cowardice.'
Susan Smith, co-director of For Women Scotland, added: 'She needs to take responsibility for her actions. She made an incredible mess, she caused huge divisions, and now she's turned tail and fled. It's despicable.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
20 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
SNP and Reform feed off each other – but Labour is still hungry
Nats activists never tire of referring to Labour & Tories as two cheeks of the same a*** - the same charge can now be levelled at SNP and Nigel Farage's Reform CHRIS MUSSON SNP and Reform feed off each other – but Labour is still hungry SNP activists never tire of referring to Labour and the Tories as two cheeks of the same a***. Well, the same charge can now be levelled at the Nats and Nigel Farage's Reform UK. 1 Reform came a close third to the SNP and winners Labour Neither will want to hear this, but their equally destructive stances on funding Scotland's public services reveal yet another similarity between the two parties, vying for power at Holyrood next year with Labour. Both claim to be the outsiders standing up to the Westminster establishment, though for the SNP this is also not-so-subtle code for England. The stock-in-trade for both is to blame others for all ills. Both engineered referendums to leave major economic unions, and both lean heavily on populist rhetoric. And as we discovered in the run-up to last week's crunch by-election, they both want to cut Scotland's funding off at the knees. They want to do so to further their own narrow, political aims. For the SNP, that's independence. For Reform, electoral domination down south. As underlined by the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election — where Reform came a close third to the SNP and winners Labour — support for Farage is surging amid falls in backing for traditional parties. Scottish Labour have been buoyed by that Hamilton result. and remain hungry for power. But they still face a huge battle. Because the more Reform's support grows, the more likely it becomes the SNP can win the 2026 Scottish Parliament elections with a far lower vote share than they got in 2021. And the two parties don't just share ideas — they are feeding off each other. There may be a point in the coming years — with Farage in No10 and the SNP in power at Holyrood — that these competing forms of nationalism create a perfect storm. Moment John Swinney is heckled by Reform UK campaigners as FM breezes past warring activists heads of Hamilton by-election Both parties have set out how they want the Scottish Government to have more independence in terms of funding, a move that would go a long way to ending the current 'pooling and sharing' of resources which Scotland voted to keep in 2014. The common theme is the scrapping of the Barnett Formula — the funding mechanism which drives Scotland's significantly higher share of public spending than the UK average. Last year, this meant thousands of pounds per person extra to spend on Scots services like the NHS and schools. Scotland spent £22.7billion more than the £88.5bn it raised in taxes in 2023/24. Including oil revenues, we brought in just £60 per head more in tax than the UK average. But we spent £2,417 per head more. Not a bad deal, you may think — unless you look for the worst in everything, as the SNP do. But Holyrood Finance Secretary Shona Robison wants to scrap this 'Union dividend'. She has resurrected an SNP aim to ditch the pooling and sharing — which means that extra spending is covered — and turn that £22.7bn overspend into Scotland's problem. Robison says that short of independence, 'moving to full fiscal autonomy for the Scottish Government would create a fairer system that would protect public services and allow investment in our economy'. Ms Robison knows full well that the opposite is true. Full fiscal autonomy may mean keeping all taxes raised in Scotland — income tax, VAT, corporation tax, oil revenues and so on. HOLYROOD sits just three days a week, when it's not enjoying long holidays. When it does, MSPs spend an inordinate amount of time debating meaningless motions. Last week, the Scottish Government staged a debate and vote congratulating itself for making 'significant progress' towards becoming one of 'Europe's fastest-growing start-up economies'. Some brass neck, given how anti-business and anti-growth the SNP have been. And the previous week, it had emerged that because Scotland's economy has lagged behind the UK average, we are losing hundreds of millions of pounds a year in funds for public services. That's the reality. So how about knuckling down to sorting that out, rather than grandstanding about this imaginary world? But it also means we have to pay for everything. And we simply can't afford it. It means the end of the Barnett Formula, and the Scottish Government having to find ten per cent of its GDP to fill that £22.7bn gap. Borrowing at these levels, even if it were possible, would provoke a response from the markets making Liz Truss's mini-budget disaster seem small fry. If you think the NHS and schools and roads are bad now, just wait for the super-charged austerity under full fiscal autonomy. It would be economic suicide, and Robison is not thick. Which leads me to think this is a kamikaze policy. Scots public services are the target, leading to the inevitable conclusion from SNP chiefs that things are so terrible the only way out of the wreck is independence. And what about Farage? Last week this newspaper tried to get some Scots policies out of him. Reform UK are quite light on those — meaning they really haven't got any. He did confirm he no longer wanted to axe MSPs — good news for the ones who could be elected for Reform in 2026. But one thing he did speak on during his Scots trip was scrapping the Barnett Formula. In his own words, he said it 'seems to me to be somewhat out of date', adding: 'What I'd like to see is a Scottish Government that's able to raise a bit more of its own revenue, and a Scottish economy that has genuine growth.' Like the SNP's funding policy, the consequences would be the opposite of what Farage says. It would strangle spending and growth. With a reduced settlement for public services here — while people in England get the same, or closer, to the current Scots levels — it would mean savage cuts, tax rises, or both. This would also suit the SNP's independence argument. Does Farage care much about that? I'm not sure he actually does. Scotland has never been his priority. Domination in England is. There would be a bit more money for England, styled as one in the eye for 'subsidy junkie' Scots, playing well to potential Reform voters down south. At the heart of it, like the SNP's stance, it's about making Scotland poorer, not wealthier. As the SNP's Trade Union Group put it last week: 'This is code for a bonfire of public services. And the effective end to devolution.' Correct. But they may want to look in the mirror, as SNP chiefs are proposing the same.
Spectator
33 minutes ago
- Spectator
The battle of the Channel has been fought
Kemi Badenoch says the Conservative party will take a look at withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), freeing us at a leap and a bound from the tyranny of human rights lawyers. The Tory leader would give Britain the power to deter the cross-Channel influx of asylum seekers, by withdrawing protections from those arriving in Britain without papers. As there is unlikely to be a Conservative government in the foreseeable future, this announcement it's going to have no effect now, or any time soon, on the actual boats. And read the fine print: Badenoch hasn't really even made up her mind; she is going to set up a committee to look into it. In the real world, the boats aren't being stopped, the gangs aren't being smashed and the French judges and police are shrugging.
Press and Journal
an hour ago
- Press and Journal
'Stop passing the buck and help Aberdeen Raac families'
A campaigner fighting for Aberdonians caught up in the Raac housing crisis is pleading with politicians to stop passing the buck over responsibility days before another UK spending review. Torry Raac campaign supporter Raymond Davidson reacted to the blame-game between political leaders in the week the UK Chancellor is under more pressure from the Scottish Government to find funds at Westminster. In the run up to the spending review on Wednesday, SNP and Labour leaders again kept the row going in a series of letters and statements shared with the P&J. Meanwhile in Aberdeen, Balnagask homeowners are trying to convince the city council it already has the money to meet everyone's needs. Mr Davidson said the constant back-and-forth between London and Edinburgh is a distraction. 'It's like a game of pass the parcel to them,' he said. 'No one wants the music to stop and take responsibility, it just keeps going round and round. 'It's as though people don't matter in this. Politicians are playing party-political games.' One of the big problems is what happens to homeowners who bought properties with Raac which is now posing a risk. The council has a 'voluntary acquisition proposal' which would cost more than £12 million to take the homes and demolish them. For those who want to stay, a massive repair bill would fall to them personally. The share could be between £20,000 and £44,000 depending on the size of property. 'Why can't the council provide the lot?' asked Mr Davidson. 'They can spend now whatever Holyrood and Westminster are saying. 'If there's extra money down the line, fine. But that shouldn't stop them now.' A proposal from residents would see people relocated to a cluster of homes which would then be repaired at what campaigners say is a reduced cost to the taxpayer. Councillor Allard, the SNP co-leader in Aberdeen, said the local authority is already getting on with helping Raac residents – but is under no obligation to fully fund private owners. 'By law we don't need to give them anything,' he said. 'Morally, we are helping.' The full cost, regardless of what happens, should involve government help, he added. 'I don't understand why the UK Government will not pay more. It should be like the Grenfell cladding crisis and a UK-wide issue.' In the UK's Scotland Office, Labour MP Ian Murray agreed the council's voluntary purchase scheme must give homeowners 'fair compensation.' But in a letter copied to residents and the P&J, he wrote: 'While I have the utmost sympathy with what you and your neighbours are going through, our powers are limited, given this is an issue devolved to the Scottish Government, which received a record £50bn funding settlement at the Autumn Budget. 'Some of that could – and I believe should – be used to tackle this problem.' Meanwhile, the housing minister in the UK Government said Raac is 'low' in English housing so there will be no additional extra government scheme. This is crucial because if Westminster does spend extra on English housing on Wednesday, it would generate a compensating figure for use in Scotland. In a letter to his Scottish counterpart, Mr Norris said building safety and local government finance are Holyrood's responsibility. 'Any decisions on funding to support building owners to manage Raac are for the Scottish Government and impacted local authorities,' he wrote. The P&J put the UK Government position to the SNP Government. Scottish housing minister Paul McLennan said: 'Raac is a cross-UK problem, and we have been clear from the beginning that it requires a cross-UK solution. 'We have repeatedly called on the UK Government to make available a dedicated Raac remediation fund, which they have unfortunately failed to do. 'We are continuing to call on them to take action – and at next week's spending review the Chancellor has the opportunity to take action to support people affected by Raac, including those in Aberdeen. We will keep up the pressure on the UK Government on behalf of homeowners in Aberdeen and across Scotland.' The P&J asked a spokesman for the prime minister in the Commons last week if any money can be expected on Wednesday. But the spokesman would not disclose any details ahead of the statement.
