John Swinney has been left feeling "humiliated" after his own Scottish National Party (SNP) Members of Parliament (MSPs) voted against a motion to remove Green MSP Maggie Chapman from a key committee role. This decision came despite Swinney's previous condemnation of Chapman's remarks about the Supreme Court, which many have deemed inflammatory and disrespectful.
On April 29, 2025, the SNP members on the equalities committee voted 4-3 to retain Chapman as deputy convener, a move that has sparked outrage among opposition parties and raised questions about the integrity of the parliament. The Scottish Conservative MSP Tess White, who brought forward the motion to oust Chapman, expressed her dismay, stating that the vote was a "defiance" of Swinney's leadership and an affront to the rule of law.
White criticized the SNP members—Karen Adam, Marie McNair, and Evelyn Tweed—for their decision, asserting that by keeping Chapman in her post, they had brought the Scottish Parliament into disrepute. "John Swinney has been humiliated by his own MSPs defying him and shamefully voting to keep Maggie Chapman in post," she said. "Maggie Chapman’s appalling comments were a totally unjustified attack on the rule of law. Her position as deputy convener of the committee ought to be untenable."
The controversy began after the UK’s highest court ruled on April 16 that the terms "woman" and "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 refer specifically to biological definitions, a ruling that has significant implications for transgender rights in Scotland. Following this ruling, Chapman spoke at a transgender rights rally in Aberdeen, where she labeled the court's decision as an expression of "bigotry, prejudice and hatred." Her comments drew immediate backlash from various political leaders, who called for her to retract her statements.
Despite the mounting pressure, Chapman stood firm, refusing to apologize. Labour MSP Paul O’Kane had invited her to formally withdraw her remarks before the committee meeting, emphasizing the need to respect the judiciary and uphold the rule of law. However, Chapman instead chose to defend her position, stating, "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."
Following the committee meeting, Chapman released a statement expressing gratitude to her colleagues for rejecting the motion against her. She asserted her commitment to advocating for trans and non-binary rights, emphasizing her role as a representative for constituents who identify as such. "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," she stated.
Despite Swinney's condemnation of Chapman's comments, his party's decision to support her has raised eyebrows. The SNP's rationale for backing Chapman was that her remarks were made in a personal capacity rather than in her official role as an MSP. However, this defense has not assuaged critics, including former SNP MP Joanna Cherry, who described the committee as "not fit for purpose" following the controversial vote.
Cherry took to social media to voice her concerns, questioning the integrity of a committee that would allow one of its members to vote on a motion regarding her own position. "Whatever happened to the principle that no one should be a judge in their own cause?" she asked. For Women Scotland, a campaign group that advocates for women's rights, also expressed their disappointment, stating they were "mortified" by the outcome and criticizing the SNP for protecting what they termed a "rabble-rousing ideologue."
In the wake of this incident, the Scottish Conservatives have indicated they will pursue other avenues to bring the matter back before the full parliament. White reiterated her stance, stating that the decision to keep Chapman in her role sets a "dangerous and unacceptable precedent" that allows MSPs to attack the integrity of the highest court without consequence. "Words matter, especially when they are weaponised. But rather than take the heat out of a sensitive situation, Maggie Chapman doused it in petrol," she said.
As the political fallout continues, the SNP finds itself at a crossroads, facing internal dissent while trying to navigate the complex and often contentious landscape of gender politics. The party's decision to stand by Chapman, despite her controversial remarks, may resonate with some constituents but alienate others who prioritize respect for the rule of law.
In conclusion, the unfolding drama surrounding Maggie Chapman and her comments about the Supreme Court illustrates the deep divisions within Scottish politics regarding gender identity and the law. As reactions continue to pour in from across the political spectrum, it remains to be seen how this incident will affect the SNP's standing in the eyes of the public and its internal cohesion moving forward.
