Latest news with #EqualitiesCommittee
The Herald Scotland
11-05-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
MI5 plants in the SNP? No, they destroyed indy hopes all by themselves
Adding further weight to their theory is that in the decade since then the SNP are now known to have conned almost their entire support base that they remain serious about Scottish independence. Put simply, these poor, deluded, desperate people are so thirsting for independence that they're prepared to swallow each now pledge on it by first Nicola Sturgeon and then her two hapless successors. It's now reached the stage where the SNP are fighting every Westminster and Scottish election with only one single intent: to provide jobs for a cohort of remarkably incoherent and low-calibre chancers, some of whom (and I'm talking about some sitting MSPs) should be put on permanent state gardening leave to protect the national infrastructure. This being the week, when we've elected a new Pope, I've taken a vow of kindness in Leo's honour, so I won't name them. But you all know exactly who I'm talking about. And Holy Mother of God, have you checked the social media accounts of some of the SNP newbies? These people look like they should be raising funds for their gap-years engaging with yaks in Kathmandu. In fact, I'd be for introducing the concept of a gap-decade for them. I'm just not buying the spy theory, though. And in any case, nothing the British security forces could ever do to undermine Scottish independence can match the damage already done to it by the SNP. COURTING CONTROVERSY THE collected responses of the Scottish political establishment to last month's Supreme Court verdict that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act referred only to biological women and biological sex have worried me. There's no polite way of putting this: Scotland with this lot at the helm is not fit for independence. Cheered on by their favoured media glove-puppets, they have embarrassed this country on the global stage. Many of us thought Shona Robison's declaration in 2022 that 'There is no evidence that predatory and abusive men have ever had to pretend to be anything else to carry out abusive and predatory behaviour,' could never be beaten in terms of sheer, crass stupidity. But since their Supreme Court Lordships and Ladyships clarified what it means to be a woman in law the Scottish political elites have been jostling to take Ms Robison's crown. First up was Maggie Chapman, the Deputy Convenor of Holyrood's Equalities Committee and a member of a party which has never actually managed to win a democratic vote in its entire existence. She accused the brightest legal minds in the UK of expressing 'bigotry, prejudice and hatred' in their judgment. A few days later, her own committee – helped by the votes of some SNP hillbillies – endorsed her stupidity by voting to maintain her presence on this influential committee. The response of John Swinney, the coward's coward, was to pledge that trans rights would be the bedrock of society. This was a deliberately alarmist and misleading statement by the First Minister. The Supreme Court merely clarified the existing law while at the same time reinforcing all the human rights of trans people. If Mr Swinney could tell us which 'rights' trans people are missing then I'll back any campaign that seeks to install them. Roz Foyer (Image: PA) STUC UP ATTITUDE? SADLY, the malady of stupid which has come to settle on Scotland's political classes has also extended to our trade unions. Who'd have thought that an organisation tasked with fighting for the rights of workers could be so easily captured by a self-indulgent, middle-class caprice? In a recent interview in this newspaper, Roz Foyer, General Secretary of the STUC, agreed with the interviewer in finding it 'amusing that the commentators most animated about this debate are straight white blokes of a certain age'. Later, she declared that Maggie Chapman had nothing to apologise for in accusing the highest court in the UK of being hate-filled bigots. We're now in 'jumping the shark' territory here. A clutch of law lords have intervened to protect the rights of women from someone like Ms Foyer who is actually paid a huge salary to do that job. I'll remind Ms Foyer and her interlocutor that among the loudest and most articulate voices in this debate are people like Joanna Cherry, JK Rowling, Ash Regan, Joan McAlpine, Mandy Rhodes, Susan Dalgety, Jenny Lindsay, Johann Lamont, Dr Kath Murray, Lucy Hunter Blackburn, Lisa Mackenzie, Trina Budge, Marion Calder, Susan Smith and Elaine Miller. Gentle clue here for Ms Foyer: they're all real women. As ever though, with Ms Foyer and some journalists who ought to know better, it's always been about the men. Still, I'm sure her career is as safe as houses. Read more: Kevin McKenna: An extra 20k for ministers? John Swinney's now trolling Scotland Kevin McKenna: How the SNP and Labour killed off left-wing politics TAKING THE NIC NICOLA Sturgeon whose fanatical belief in the primacy of men over women has destroyed Scottish political engagement has also weighed in. At Holyrood last week, the former First Minister said that she too had concerns about the Supreme Court verdict and the interim advice about it published by the EHRC. She also said that certain interpretations of this 'potentially makes the lives of trans people almost unliveable'. Ms Sturgeon doesn't need me to tell her that amongst the most vulnerable people at risk of being forced into a trans identity by invasive medicalisation are young people experiencing confusion about their sexuality and those with a neuro-diverse condition. This was the original purpose behind the Cass Report and at the root of its conclusions. The consequences of an influential politician, once the leader of her country, saying that trans lives may become 'unliveable' hardly bear thinking about. Does she really need me to spell it out for her? Of all the responses to the Supreme Court judgment, Ms Sturgeon's is the most dangerous and sinister. Three cheers for the Union in protecting Scotland from the excesses of its dreadful politicians.
Scotsman
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Scotsman
Readers' Letters: Equalities Committee decision on Chapman 'spineless'
Green MSP Maggie Chapman should not have been allowed to stay on Holyrood's Equalities Committee, says reader Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... If any doubt remained as to the effectiveness and competence of the Scottish Parliament's Committee system, then this was surely dispelled yesterday. The vote by the members of the Equalities Committee not to remove Maggie Chapman MSP was as shocking as it was gutless. The three spineless SNP members in effect wholly disagreed with their own leader and First Minister that the comments made by Ms Chapman about the Supreme Court's decision on gender reform were 'wrong'. Further, Ms Chapman was able to vote on the motion herself. The fact is that her reference to the Judges of displaying 'bigotry, prejudice and hatred' were not compatible with her position as Deputy of the Equalities Committee or her position as an elected MSP. These comments were described by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates as 'reprehensible'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It seems our MSPs are free to say absolutely anything they like, however dangerous, damaging and divisive, without repercussions. It seems it will be down to the electorate of the North East of Scotland to demonstrate to MSPs how to remove Maggie Chapman, who is not just an embarrassment to the Scottish Parliament but an embarrassment to the people of Scotland. Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman yesterday survived a crunch vote to keep her top job on Holyrood's Equalities Committee after controversial comments about the Supreme Court (Picture: Jeff) Richard Allison, Edinburgh Backwards step Twenty years ago I was the Scotland representative on a UK Government task force which drew up detailed proposals for the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Under the subsequent Equality Act 2006, the EHRC has the duty to promote equality (including on grounds of both sex and gender reassignment) and human rights, and in particular, rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The EHRC has just published new guidance about trans people, which asserts, put simply, that trans people must now be barred from any facilities or services, at work or anywhere else, that match their lived gender. The guidance will mean that trans people will be excluded from, and put at risk in, a whole range of services, and their privacy will be fundamentally undermined. The guidance goes on to say that if I, as a gay man, set up any kind of gay men's group, and it has more than 25 members, I am now legally barred from letting trans men join. If my husband or partner was trans, even he would not be allowed to join my group. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The guidance amounts to a form of apartheid. It clearly breaches the European Convention, which guarantees to trans people a way to change their legal gender, and privacy about having done so. I am sure that trans people will take cases to the European Court of Human Rights. They will win, and these policies will eventually be overturned. However, that process takes many years, and in the meantime many trans people's lives will be made far more difficult. Two decades ago I was enthused by the prospect of the EHRC; today I am truly shocked by what it has become – it is now unfit for purpose. Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh Difference is real I am sure many readers have read with horror that the people we used to call 'junior doctors' have responded to the eminently grounded decision by the Supreme Court to rule that a woman means a biological woman, not a 'trans woman', by calling it 'scientifically illiterate'. These doctors say the ruling is also 'biologically nonsensical', which is interesting, as it suggest that there is no difference between XX and XY chromosomes in deciding one's sex, or gender, which I would maintain are one and the same thing. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad If the Supreme Court's decision is incorrect, perhaps these medical luminaries can explain why there is no point in giving trans women cervical smear tests – because they don't have a cervix, perhaps? – or why it is pointless testing trans men's prostates, because they don't have them either? Both tests are necessary and applicable only to one gender or the other, and can indicate potential threats to the lives of the patients being tested. Surely these basic points highlight the fundamental and obvious difference between men and women in medical terms, proving that defining a woman in biological terms is entirely scientific. I do not know how many junior doctors voted on this motion, or how junior, 'junior' is. Pre-O Grade Biology comes to mind. However, if they are so convinced that something so eminently obvious to the population at large is wrong, I would concur with Helen Joyce of Sex Matters, who commented that 'these junior doctors are an embarrassment to their profession'. Andrew HN Gray, Edinburgh Empty record A puerile jibe from Alan Woodcock (Letters, 26 April) about unionist correspondent David Millar needing 'new glasses to help him see the light' is rather ironic, given that Mr Woodcock suffers from the extreme myopia of Scottish separatism. Splashing around in toxic, muddy nationalist puddles, he indulges in the usual empty crowing over Brexit and the UK economy being 'in tatters', not to mention familiar far-left whinges about Labour supporting Israel and cutting benefits. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Take a long, hard look at the SNP record in government. Nothing to show for 17 years in power apart from a spiralling social welfare bill, one costly failed extremist policy after the next, deteriorating public services and taxation which disincentivises both investment and private enterprise. No wonder the CBI has called on tin-eared John Swinney to end 'the tax divergence with Westminster' (your report, 28 April). There's about as much chance of that happening as there is of the First Minister finally acknowledging that a man does in fact have a penis. Martin O'Gorman, Edinburgh Plan for future The crashing of the US economy by Donald Trump is now predicted and likely. He has created uncertainty and chaos. He has declared a trade war, inflation is hurting the ordinary US consumer, the wellbeing of US companies and their workforces is being threatened. And the likely result is companies not investing. He is busy wrecking the US Revenue Service, which is like the HMRC here, and destroying its ability to collect taxes which he needs. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Unfortunately, Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves still want a trade agreement with Trump. It is incomprehensible that they think this will be beneficial to the UK. Mr Starmer will come off much worse in any Trump deal eg selling off the NHS to private US health companies or giving them free passage, including on our health data, giving tax breaks to the massively rich US IT companies and/or downgrading our food standards and undercutting our food products. Mr Starmer needs to speedily show some political and economic understanding, morality and vision. The UK urgently needs to work with other countries in a protective alliance and he could turn to Europe to uphold the rule of law, democracy and economic and political standards. For Scotland, independence is our best hope to take control over the economy for the benefit of the majority: nationalising energy and health, supporting Grangemouth, restoring human rights, managing immigration for good and getting away from austerity. The Scottish Government urgently needs to plan and protect Scotland's future in the face of world events Pol Yates, Edinburgh Learn to co-exist I was appalled to read on the BBC news about the killing of 68 African migrants by a US air strike in Yemen. Another 47 migrants were injured, most of them critically. Donald Trump had ordered an intensification of the air campaign against the Houthis on 15 March, and the strikes were reported to have 'killed hundreds of Houthi fighters and numerous Houthi leaders'. No mention of the innocent migrants. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad One injured man could be heard calling out for 'My mother', in Ethiopia's official language, Amharic. Reading that brought tears to my eyes. Those young men are sent into war zones, and they have no experience of combat. No-one who has never been involved in the savagery of warfare could know what was before them when they left their homes to 'do their duty'. The situation in Yemen is appalling. More than 150,000 people are dead, and 4.8 million people have been displaced. Half the population, 19.5m people, are in need of aid. Humans are more dangerous than any other species on our planet. I can't see any future for us if we don't learn to co-exist with each other. Carolyn Taylor, Broughty Ferry, Dundee Blame Hamas Ian Petrie writes a pointed letter on behalf of the residents of Gaza but, as always, misses out the elements that don't fit his argument (Letters, 29 April). Israel did not "ruthlessly expel" Palestinians in 1948. The very day the nascent state of Israel was founded it was attacked from all sides by its Arab neighbours, intent on its swift destruction. Similarly, the current war in Gaza was started by Hamas and is only continuing because Hamas is using the Palestinian population as shields, even to this day, and still will not release the hostages. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad If Hamas cared about the welfare of the citizens of Gaza the solution would be to give back the hostages unconditionally, not with strings attached. Hamas has used everyone in order to promote its own policy of genocide. Why was Gaza turned into an armed camp from 2006 onwards instead of the peaceful state it could have been? Mr Petrie is blaming Israel but the real culprit is Iran and its proxy. Gerald Edwards, Glasgow Write to The Scotsman
The Independent
29-04-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Vote to retain trans comment MSP risks undermining trust in Holyrood, say Tories
The Conservatives have said the vote to keep Maggie Chapman in her committee position 'risks undermining trust in Holyrood', after the Green MSP survived an attempt to oust her as deputy convener. The motion to remove Ms Chapman as deputy convener of the Equalities Committee was defeated after the three SNP members on the committee backed her. Conservative Supreme Court gender ruling made her position 'untenable'. On April 16, the UK's highest court ruled the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'. During a subsequent transgender rights rally in Aberdeen, Ms Chapman had condemned what she called the 'bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court'. Other political leaders have said these remarks were wrong, while the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates branded them 'appalling'. After Ms Chapman survived the committee vote on Tuesday morning, MSPs discussed the Supreme Court ruling in the chamber during the afternoon. She said: 'Maggie Chapman has shown contempt for the rule of law and has brought the committee into disrepute. 'The SNP's decision to keep her in post on the committee risks undermining trust in Holyrood itself.' Responding on behalf of the Government, Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said: 'We respect the rule of law and we respect the judgment of the Supreme Court. 'It is important that everyone in this matter is aware of their tone and their temperament during this. 'It is very important that Scottish ministers do not take a view on what happens on a parliamentary committee, I think that is inappropriate for Government ministers to opine on such a matter.' Ms White's motion was the first item of business when the Equalities Committee met on Tuesday. It was supported by her Conservative colleague Pam Gosal and was eventually backed by Labour's Paul O'Kane – who first invited Ms Chapman to withdraw her remarks about the Supreme Court. The motion fell after it was opposed by the three SNP MSPs on the committee – including convener Karen Adam – along with Ms Chapman herself. The SNP's Marie McNair argued the committee could have no control on what members say in a personal capacity. Ms Chapman attended the committee remotely on Tuesday, saying: 'I will not stop being a vocal trans ally.' The Green MSP declined to apologise for her remarks, but said she would 'reflect and consider what people have said' at the meeting. Following the meeting, she released a statement saying: 'I am grateful that the committee has rejected this motion and the attempt to remove me. 'I am also very grateful to the many trans and non-binary people and allies who have been in touch with me over the last two weeks to tell me their stories. 'It's been devastating to hear about the exclusion and prejudice they or their loved ones have faced, and how worried they are for the future. 'The focus should not be on me, it should be on the outcomes of the ruling and the serious threat that is being posed to the rights of trans and non-binary people.' While Ms White's motion has been defeated, the Conservatives have indicated they will explore other ways to bring the matter before the full Parliament. Even if the committee had agreed the motion, it would have to be approved in a vote of the full parliament before Ms Chapman could be removed from her position.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Vote to retain trans comment MSP risks undermining trust in Holyrood, say Tories
The Conservatives have said the vote to keep Maggie Chapman in her committee position 'risks undermining trust in Holyrood', after the Green MSP survived an attempt to oust her as deputy convener. The motion to remove Ms Chapman as deputy convener of the Equalities Committee was defeated after the three SNP members on the committee backed her. Conservative MSP Tess White submitted the motion, arguing Ms Chapman's comments about the Supreme Court gender ruling made her position 'untenable'. On April 16, the UK's highest court ruled the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'. During a subsequent transgender rights rally in Aberdeen, Ms Chapman had condemned what she called the 'bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court'. Other political leaders have said these remarks were wrong, while the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates branded them 'appalling'. After Ms Chapman survived the committee vote on Tuesday morning, MSPs discussed the Supreme Court ruling in the chamber during the afternoon. She said: 'Maggie Chapman has shown contempt for the rule of law and has brought the committee into disrepute. 'The SNP's decision to keep her in post on the committee risks undermining trust in Holyrood itself.' Responding on behalf of the Government, Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said: 'We respect the rule of law and we respect the judgment of the Supreme Court. 'It is important that everyone in this matter is aware of their tone and their temperament during this. 'It is very important that Scottish ministers do not take a view on what happens on a parliamentary committee, I think that is inappropriate for Government ministers to opine on such a matter.' Ms White's motion was the first item of business when the Equalities Committee met on Tuesday. It was supported by her Conservative colleague Pam Gosal and was eventually backed by Labour's Paul O'Kane – who first invited Ms Chapman to withdraw her remarks about the Supreme Court. The motion fell after it was opposed by the three SNP MSPs on the committee – including convener Karen Adam – along with Ms Chapman herself. The SNP's Marie McNair argued the committee could have no control on what members say in a personal capacity. Ms Chapman attended the committee remotely on Tuesday, saying: 'I will not stop being a vocal trans ally.' The Green MSP declined to apologise for her remarks, but said she would 'reflect and consider what people have said' at the meeting. Following the meeting, she released a statement saying: 'I am grateful that the committee has rejected this motion and the attempt to remove me. 'I am also very grateful to the many trans and non-binary people and allies who have been in touch with me over the last two weeks to tell me their stories. 'It's been devastating to hear about the exclusion and prejudice they or their loved ones have faced, and how worried they are for the future. 'The focus should not be on me, it should be on the outcomes of the ruling and the serious threat that is being posed to the rights of trans and non-binary people.' While Ms White's motion has been defeated, the Conservatives have indicated they will explore other ways to bring the matter before the full Parliament. Even if the committee had agreed the motion, it would have to be approved in a vote of the full parliament before Ms Chapman could be removed from her position.
Spectator
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
SNP politicians back anti-gender ruling Green MSP
Despite denouncing the Supreme Court judgment that backed the biological definition of a woman, Green MSP Maggie Chapman has bafflingly managed to survive an attempt to remove her from her role as Deputy Convener of the Equalities Committee in the Scottish parliament. It seems the eco-activists can get away with anything these days… When Chapman took to the streets of Aberdeen some weeks ago to fume about the 'bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court', women's rights campaigners, fellow politicians and legal experts were quick to hit out at her remarks. Not only does she hold a leadership position in Holyrood's equalities committee (a group that has been urged to interact with For Women Scot in the wake of the judgment) but, under the Judiciary and Courts Act, MSPs must uphold the independence of the judiciary – which the eco-zealot quite demonstrably failed to do. Scottish Tory MSP Tess White last week tabled
