This is actually pretty serious.
Because, y’know, you can call us old-fashioned purists or sticklers or whatever if you like, but government ministers probably shouldn’t openly lie in prepared statements to the High Court in order to pervert the course of justice.
As recently as this weekend, the Scottish Government claimed that it has “made clear it accepts the Supreme Court ruling [in For Women Scotland] and is taking forward the detailed work necessary”.
But as with so much the Scottish Government says, it’s a barefaced lie.
We thought we should keep track of all the issues with the Peggie tribunal judgment, now that Sandie Peggie has officially announced her intention to appeal it.
Because this story has some distance left to run.
This is absolutely extraordinary.
In the light of revelations exposed and detailed by Wings that the original contained several misleadingly-edited or completely made-up citations from previous cases, the Employment Tribunal today issued a corrected version of its judgment in the Sandie Peggie case. And much like NHS Fife’s repeatedly-edited previous statement on the tribunal, we suspect it’ll only be the first of many.
According to a new poll, fewer than a third of SNP voters even think independence is in the top three priorities facing Scotland.
It’s only five points ahead of immigration in fourth place, and seven ahead of housing. So it’s hardly surprising that the SNP aren’t bothering themselves about it. Their own support, like the party, is very comfortable with the way things are.
One must assume from reading the Sandie Peggie judgment that the tribunal was more concerned with discouraging further litigation than with giving full and fearless effect to the Equality Act.
At the heart of this case lies a straightforward question: does a biologically male employee have a legal right to undress in a female-only changing room? For Women Scotland answered that question at the Supreme Court: women-only spaces are for biological women.
Yet instead of applying that binding precedent, the tribunal awarded Sandie Peggie a technical win based primarily on procedural failings and delay, while simultaneously undermining the legitimacy of her core complaint. The effect is a ruling that says: “You were treated badly, but only because you reacted to a situation we pretend has no legal significance.”
The first and most important thing to note about yesterday’s judgment in the Sandie Peggie tribunal is that it’s a very big victory. The tribunal found that Sandie Peggie was gravely and heinously harassed by her employer through no fault of her own, and she’ll be entitled to substantial compensation as a result.
It also ruled, repeatedly and unequivocally, that Dr “Beth” Upton (who’s referred to in the judgment as “the second respondent”) is a man.
After that, it lost its mind.
On 5 April 2021, I sent a short and simple Freedom Of Information (FOI) request to the Scottish Government asking for:
“All written evidence to James Hamilton’s QC investigation into the FM under the ministerial code. This includes evidence from the FM, her chief of staff Liz Lloyd and any other individuals within the Scottish Government who have submitted evidence.”
Over four and a half years later, because of the government’s pathological aversion to transparency and accountability, we’re still not there.
But we’re inching closer.
For several years now, this site has recorded how the SNP’s continued existence is now entirely dependent on UK state funding. The party would simply go bust without Westminster money. And how precarious a position that puts it in is sharply illustrated by the latest release of donations income from the Electoral Commission.
In a 12-month period running up to the last UK general election, the UK state gave the SNP a little over £1.3 million.
In the corresponding period for the last year, after the party was reduced to just nine seats, that figure plunged to just over £0.4 million, a drop of over £0.9 million.
And that’s money the SNP can’t afford to lose.
It is our solemn duty to inform you we’ve received another legal threat, readers.
Should we cease and desist? Let’s see.
We miss the days when this was parody, not “progressive” ideology.
But we are where we are.
And hey, it’s great news that their adult roles are still open to all.
For lack of anything more interesting to write about, we thought we might do a monthly rundown of polling in the leadup to next year’s Holyrood election, with seat projections from a neutral source, in the shape of the newish Devolved Elections website.
And very quickly, things got a bit weird.
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
