Justice Secretary Angela Constance has emerged from a stormy period in Scottish politics, surviving a vote of no confidence in Holyrood on December 16, 2025. The controversy centered on allegations that she misrepresented the views of Professor Alexis Jay, a leading expert on child sexual exploitation, during a heated debate over whether Scotland should hold a public inquiry into grooming gangs.
The no-confidence motion, tabled by Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay and backed by Scottish Labour and the Liberal Democrats, ultimately failed. Constance retained her post with 67 Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) voting against the motion, 57 in favor, and one abstention. The outcome was secured thanks to the support of the Scottish National Party (SNP) and the Scottish Greens, a coalition that has weathered its share of political storms in recent years.
The origins of the dispute date back to September 2025, during the debate on the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. At that time, Constance argued against a Conservative amendment calling for a public inquiry into grooming gangs, asserting that Professor Jay "shares my view" that such an inquiry was unnecessary in Scotland. Jay, who led the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham in 2014, is widely respected for her expertise and her pivotal work exposing failings in the English system.
However, emails released by the Scottish government in December revealed that Professor Jay had contacted Constance shortly after the debate, requesting clarification of her position. Jay stated that the comments Constance had attributed to her were actually made in January regarding England and Wales, following remarks by Elon Musk, and "had nothing to do" with Scotland or the specific amendment under discussion. According to The Herald, Jay pressed for a public correction, describing the situation as "unsatisfactory" and asking that her letter be published to set the record straight.
Despite these requests, Constance continued to insist publicly that she had accurately quoted Professor Jay. Opposition leaders seized on this, arguing that the justice secretary had a duty to correct the parliamentary record and accusing her of misleading Parliament, the public, and, most significantly, the victims of grooming gangs. "She had 20 days to do so. But she did not," Findlay told MSPs during the debate. "And after all of this, misleading the public, parliament, and grooming gang victims, Angela Constance has still not admitted her mistake. She's still not corrected the record. She's still not apologised."
Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar echoed these concerns, stating, "This has now stopped being an error and become a matter of honesty and transparency. The justice secretary misrepresented Professor Jay's views in order to find an excuse not to have an inquiry into grooming gangs. Victims and survivors should be able to rely on their justice system and their government to tell the truth, to act with integrity, and to put them first. On this, the justice secretary has failed." Sarwar even read aloud a letter from the mother of a grooming gang victim, underscoring the emotional weight and public scrutiny surrounding the issue.
On the other side of the aisle, First Minister John Swinney stood firmly behind his justice secretary, describing her as "a sincere minister who would never address parliament in a way that would in any way mislead parliament or the public." Swinney argued that Constance had made a "general point drawing on the publicly stated views of Professor Jay" and that "members of parliament and members of the public will draw different conclusions from the words we all use." He also highlighted Constance's record over the past two years, including her role in steering four crucial acts through Parliament and her candor in addressing Scotland's rising prison population.
Scottish Greens co-leader Ross Greer took a different tack, accusing opposition parties of politicizing the issue. "The Scottish Government can and should have handled this better – far better – but I doubt that would have dissuaded those who have used this issue for political advantage," said Greer. He lamented the fact that the afternoon's debate focused on politics rather than legislation to help victims of child sexual abuse, emphasizing, "I've got no time for that, which is why the Greens will vote against the motion."
Jamie Greene of the Scottish Liberal Democrats called the vote "regrettable as it was avoidable," expressing personal goodwill toward Constance but arguing that the situation could have been resolved had she corrected the record earlier. The Liberal Democrats, along with Labour and the Conservatives, maintained that honesty and integrity in government were at stake, not just differences of opinion on policy.
Amid the political wrangling, the Scottish Government announced earlier in December that it would set up its own inquiry into grooming gangs, a move that may ease some of the pressure on Constance. Both she and Professor Jay are scheduled to appear before Holyrood’s education committee, where further clarification and accountability are likely to be sought.
The vote itself, 67 to 57 with one abstention, reflects the deep divisions within Scottish politics over both the handling of child sexual exploitation and the standards of ministerial conduct. For many, the debate has become a proxy for broader questions about trust in government, the responsibilities of public officials, and the balance between political loyalty and accountability.
As the dust settles, it is clear that the controversy has left scars on all sides. Victims and survivors of grooming gangs, already let down by failures in the justice system, have watched the debate unfold with a mixture of hope and frustration. For them, the stakes are personal and profound. As one letter read out in Parliament put it, the real question is whether MSPs can "look yourselves in the mirror knowing that you are supporting her to remain in position against the will of the victims?"
For Angela Constance, surviving the vote of no confidence offers a reprieve, but not a resolution. The calls for transparency, accountability, and a renewed focus on justice for victims are unlikely to fade any time soon. The coming months will be a test not only for her leadership but for the Scottish Parliament’s ability to restore public trust in the wake of a bruising and emotional episode.
