Scotland’s political landscape has been rocked by a fierce row over the conduct of Justice Secretary Angela Constance, culminating in a high-stakes vote of no confidence at Holyrood. The controversy, which has dominated headlines and parliamentary debate in recent days, centers on accusations that Constance misrepresented the views of leading child sexual abuse expert Professor Alexis Jay regarding the need for a public inquiry into grooming gangs in Scotland.
The issue first erupted back in September 2025, when Constance opposed a Conservative amendment to the government’s Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. The amendment called for an inquiry into grooming gangs—a subject fraught with emotion and political tension. During the debate, Constance told Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) that Professor Jay, who chaired the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in England and Wales, “did not support further inquiries into child sexual abuse and exploitation.”
That assertion quickly became the focus of scrutiny. According to emails released in early December and reported by BBC, Professor Jay clarified that her comments had been made strictly “in the context of the England and Wales Public Inquiry on Child Sexual Abuse, which I chaired.” She emphasized, “It had nothing to do with [the Conservative] amendment, or the position in Scotland, as could be interpreted from your statement.” Jay went further, requesting that her position be clarified publicly and urging Scottish ministers to gather “reliable data” on the problem of child sexual exploitation north of the border.
Despite the government issuing a clarification in official meeting notes, no correction was made in the Holyrood chamber itself. This omission, opposition parties argue, amounts to a breach of the ministerial code. As the debate intensified, survivors of grooming gangs and their advocates voiced their frustration. One alleged victim, known as Taylor, described Constance’s position as “untenable.” The sense of urgency only grew as Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay, and the Liberal Democrats all called for Constance’s resignation and tabled motions of no confidence.
“This motion and today’s vote are not about the fact we disagree. They’re about the conduct of the justice secretary. This is about the fundamental importance of honesty and integrity in government and in parliament,” Russell Findlay declared as he introduced the motion, according to BBC. Sarwar was equally direct in his criticism, writing in a letter to First Minister John Swinney and the Greens’ co-leaders that “Angela Constance misled Parliament on perhaps one of the most serious issues in her brief. She has repeatedly refused to correct the record despite getting multiple opportunities to do so.”
Sarwar continued, “If the public are to have trust in government, Ministers should be held to the highest standards. A core part of the Ministerial Code is a responsibility to provide honest and accurate information to the Parliament and by extension the public. Angela Constance misled Parliament on perhaps one of the most serious issues in her brief. She has repeatedly refused to correct the record despite getting multiple opportunities to do so. Professor Alexis Jay, the expert whose views Angela Constance misrepresented, has on multiple occasions contacted the Justice Secretary to urge her to correct the record on this matter but to no avail. It is a clear and indefensible breach of the Ministerial Code, made all the more appalling by the incredibly serious subject matter.”
Scottish Conservative deputy leader Rachael Hamilton echoed these feelings, stating, “Angela Constance’s position is untenable. Because she lacks the integrity to resign and John Swinney lacks the backbone to sack her, it falls to MSPs to do the right thing and make the First Minister see sense. The justice secretary misled parliament and the country by twisting the views of Professor Jay and then ignoring repeated calls to correct the record – all to sustain the SNP’s government’s illogical efforts to block a Scottish grooming gangs inquiry. Her actions mean she has lost the trust of victims – and that alone is reason for her to go.”
Yet, not all parties were convinced that Constance’s actions warranted her removal. The Scottish Greens, whose votes could have tipped the balance, refused to back the no confidence motion. In their view, the debate had become too politicized, with the risk that the core issue—protecting children from sexual abuse—was being lost in a swirl of party politics. A Greens spokesperson told The National, “Protecting children from sexual abuse and securing justice for victims and survivors is our priority, as it should be for every MSP. The vote does neither of those, so we will not back it. Survivors deserve so much better than this being turned into a party political issue.”
First Minister John Swinney and senior cabinet colleagues stood firmly behind Constance, insisting that her comments had been “general” and that Professor Jay’s position was clarified in the minutes of the National Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation Group. Government sources rejected the notion that Constance had breached the ministerial code, dismissing the opposition’s campaign as cynical point-scoring ahead of the next election.
Despite the storm, Constance herself remained focused on her ministerial duties. “I am focused on the job that I have to do,” she told reporters when asked about the looming vote. Swinney’s administration, meanwhile, attempted to steer the conversation back to the substance of child sexual exploitation and the need for robust action—though, as BBC noted, those attempts “fell flat” amid the political drama.
The no confidence vote, scheduled for December 16, 2025, had already garnered the necessary signatures to force a debate. With the SNP and Greens holding a combined majority, it was widely expected that Constance would survive, but the episode marked a bruising day in the chamber and left her handling of the grooming gangs issue under fierce scrutiny.
Against this backdrop, further developments are set to unfold. Professor Jay has agreed to oversee a national review of grooming gangs in Scotland, a move welcomed by many campaigners who feel urgent work is needed to address the problem. She will appear before Holyrood’s Education Committee on December 17, 2025, alongside Constance, providing MSPs with a chance to question both women directly—not only about the misrepresentation row, but also about the broader extent of child abuse and exploitation in Scotland.
On the same day, Education Secretary Jenny Gilruth will deliver a statement outlining additional steps the government plans to take in tackling child abuse. Ministers are hoping that, by the time parliament returns in the new year, attention will have shifted away from the controversy surrounding the justice secretary’s future and back onto substantive policy action. Whether opposition parties will allow that shift to occur remains to be seen.
This episode has laid bare the tensions at the heart of Scottish politics: the struggle to balance political accountability with the need to address grave social issues, and the risk that survivors’ voices can be caught in the crossfire. As the dust settles from the no confidence vote, all eyes will be on the promised review and the government’s next steps in protecting Scotland’s most vulnerable children.
