The Disgrace Of Holyrood
At the weekend, Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman was filmed applauding as a notoriously unhinged transactivist ranted through a megaphone to a small and almost exclusively male crowd of protestors about how he was going to openly break the law by continuing to use women’s public toilets, and addressing JK Rowling with the words “We should all take a shite on you, you heinous creeping old bitch”.
At another protest, Chapman herself asserted that the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling on the correct interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 was motivated by not by a solemn consideration of the law or by the arguments of counsel who appeared before it, but by “bigotry, prejudice and hatred”.
Chapman is – incredibly – Deputy Convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament, and as such her comments sparked a storm of wholly justified outrage over her flagrant breach not only of Parliamentary rules but also of the law – specifically the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, which requires all MSPs to uphold the independence of the judiciary.
But Chapman today refused to back down.
And the call for consequences has grown far beyond the usual suspects.
In a rare intervention, the Faculty Of Advocates – the professional body of Scotland’s senior lawyers – issued a lengthy and uncompromisingly-worded public rebuke.
To:
Karen Adam MSP, Convenor of the Scottish Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Maggie Chapman MSP, Deputy Convenor of the Scottish Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Dear Ms Adam and Ms Chapman
I write on behalf of the Office Bearers of the Faculty of Advocates, all of whom have agreed to what follows. As you know, Faculty is the representative body of the Bar in Scotland. It does not get involved in politics. But for 500 years part of its role has been the protection and advancement of the Rule of Law.
Fundamental thereto, and in line with both the Latimer Principles and the Goa Declaration on preserving and strengthening the independence of the Judiciary, is what Faculty considers to be its duty to speak out in defence of the judiciary when it comes under attack: especially given the constitutional restrictions which prevent the judiciary from defending itself publicly.
In light of the above, it was with considerable concern and dismay that we read reports of Ms Chapman MSP addressing a public gathering in the wake of the recent ruling in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers. In video footage which is circulating widely online, she is seen to condemn what she claims is the “bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court”.
These are appalling comments to come from any elected politician. They are all the worse when they come from someone who holds the post of Deputy Convenor of the Scottish Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee.
It really should not require to be said, but the Supreme Court – indeed, all judges – are in post to apply the law. They do not take sides. They decide without fear or favour, consistently with the judicial oath. For Ms Chapman to claim that they were swayed by “bigotry, prejudice and hatred” is outrageous.
We are talking about the apex court of these islands, in this instance made up of a bench which included two of Scotland’s finest legal minds, as well as two women. No sensible person could read their dispassionate analysis and conclude that they were swayed by such matters.
The atmosphere following the ruling in FWS is toxic. Not only do comments such as these – which as they stem from an elected politician and Deputy Convenor many will take seriously – fail to respect the Rule of Law; not only do they constitute an egregious breach of Ms Chapman’s duties to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary (s.1(1)(a) of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008); but they go further than that, and create a risk of danger to the Members of the Court themselves. This behaviour is irresponsible and reprehensible.
Faculty has previously required to speak out in light of political attacks on the judiciary and legal profession. It did so when the Court of Appeal was, in light of its ruling in the Brexit case, described as “enemies of the people”. It did so when the previous UK Conservative government repeatedly attacked so-called “activist” lawyers. It did so very recently, in support of the American Bar Association in the wake of attacks on the judiciary in the US. We are absolutely certain that Ms Chapman agreed with Faculty’s stance on those occasions.
This is no different. Indeed, in attributing such emotive descriptions as “bigotry, prejudice and hatred” to the judges of the Supreme Court, Ms Chapman’s attack is far worse.
In these circumstances, we respectfully request Ms Chapman to reflect on her words, and whether they allow her to properly discharge her responsibilities as Deputy Convenor in line with the impartiality requirements of the Guidance on Committees issued by the Scottish Parliament.
As to the former, we suggest that a fulsome and swift apology is warranted. As to the latter, and notwithstanding that the requirements apply only whilst acting in the capacity of Convenor, we suggest that her comments are not compatible with her role as Deputy Convenor, or, arguably, her continued membership of the Committee.
In line with our own role, however, we leave that matter to Ms Adam and her colleagues on the Committee. In addition to the suggested apology, and whatever action is taken by Ms Adam or her colleagues relative to Ms Chapman’s position on the Committee, we suggest that, in order to restore credibility in that Committee, Ms Adam should speak out publicly in defence of the Court and of the Rule of Law.
Faculty very much regrets having to write this letter. However, Ms Chapman’s words have left it with no choice. Her behaviour in this instance is utterly beyond the pale.
We look forward to your considered reply in early course.
Roddy Dunlop KC, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates
Remarkably, the Faculty’s governing board who approved the statement includes two office-bearers (Ruth Crawford KC and advocate Lesley Shields) who were the Scottish Government’s own counsel in the For Women Scotland case.
A chorus of leading legal figures also endorsed the statement.
One of them, experienced Edinburgh University law lecturer Scott Wortley, also wrote to his own MSP Michelle Thomson, calling for action to be taken.
To: Michelle.Thomson.msp@parliament.scot
Subject: Query regarding conduct of the deputy convener of the Equalities, Human Rights, and Civil Justice Committee
Dear Ms Thomson
I am a constituent living at [REDACTED] and am also a lecturer in private law at the University of Edinburgh. I am writing to you as my constituency MSP to raise an issues of concern regarding the conduct of Ms Maggie Chapman MSP, the deputy convener of the Equalities, Human Rights, and Civil Justice Committee.
As you are aware the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom last Wednesday decided the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. This case was on the interaction of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010.
While section 9 (1) of the 2004 Act provides that where a person born in one sex had a gender recognition certificate in accordance with the requirements of the 2004 Act that gender recognition certificate provided that for legal purposes the person was treated as being the gender stated in the certificate rather than natal sex – subject to the qualification in section 9 (3) of the 2004 Act that any enactment could provide otherwise.
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Equality Act 2010 was an enactment covered by section 9 (3) of the 2004 Act meaning that the approach in section 9 (1) did not apply within that Act.
Instead, the Supreme Court held – applying basic principles of statutory interpretation about consistency and coherence of legislative language – that for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 sex (and man and woman) was given a meaning in accordance with biological sex. In carefully reasoned argument noting the ways in which the terms of section 9 (1) if applied to the Equality Act 2010 would make some provisions of the Equality Act 2010 absurd or impossible to operate, while creating lacunae in the effect of the legislation, the Court noted that it was engaging in an act of statutory interpretation.
And in paras 248 ff the Supreme Court was careful to set out the protections against discrimination that were held by trans individuals who in their lived gender benefit from the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and certain provisions relating to direct or indirect discrimination against sex where the individual is discriminated against because they are perceived to be a sex other than their biological sex or because of association.
I appreciate the judgment has been controversial with some, although the controversy seems related to a misunderstanding as to the effect of the decision, or based on an assumption that sex in the Equality Act was based on self identification, a position asserted by various lobby groups who provided training to organisations in the private and public sector, but a position authoritatively rejected by the Court of Session some time ago.
As a legal academic I think it is important for us to accept that judgments can be legitimately subjected to criticism. However, such criticism requires to be made within the appropriate parameters of discourse (for example, noting legal arguments that were not made, or questioning particular conclusions or arguments made within the reasoning of a decision). In addition any legitimate criticism should be made while respecting the independence of the judiciary and the importance of upholding the rule of law.
I was astonished though to see at the weekend that the deputy convener of the Scottish Parliament committee on Equalities, Human Rights, and Civil Justice – which in its remit has responsibility for “matters relating to civil justice within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs”) thereby including “courts” and the “justice system” – said the following:
“We say not in our name to the bigotry, prejudice and hatred coming from the Supreme Court”
Ms Chapman’s comments are suggesting that the decision of the Supreme Court is one of bigotry, prejudice and hatred – an assertion made without any argument or attempt at justification. This is an unfounded and unwarranted attack on an institution that in her role as deputy convener of the committee with responsibility for civil justice Ms Chapman has a crucial role in oversight of.
All Members of the Scottish Parliament are under a statutory obligation to uphold the independence of the judiciary. Section 1 (1)(d) and (e) of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 (accessible here provides that
“The following persons must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary—
…
(d) members of the Scottish parliament, and
(e) all other persons with responsibility for matters relating to—
(i) the judiciary, or
(ii) the administration of justice,
where that responsibility is to be discharged only in or as regards Scotland.”
The Supreme Court, in its role as a Scottish court, is covered by section 1 (3)(a) of the 2008 Act.
Ms Chapman has a dual role here. First, as a Member of the Scottish Parliament she seems to fall within section 1 (1)(d) but also in her role on the committee on civil justice, not just as a member but as the deputy convener, she seems to fall within section 1 (1)(e).
I have checked the code of conduct for members and am surprised to see that this statutory duty on Members of the Scottish Parliament is not protected within the code of conduct. I wonder then what, if any action, can be taken against a member within the Scottish Parliament when section 1 of the 2008 Act appears so flagrantly to be breached.
I am also concerned to note that the committee of which Ms Chapman is deputy convener has asked for evidence on the decision in the For women Scotland Ltd case, albeit a limited short notice call for evidence from various organisations and not for example, from legal academics, other organisations, or others with an interest (and relevant observations on the case).
Given Ms Chapman’s comments I am not sure first, how credible the committee can be in any review of the case when the deputy convener has already stated that the decision came from a place of bigotry, hatred and prejudice (thereby undermining the institution of he Scottish Parliament); and second, how credible the committee can be in any review of matters where the civil court system is at issue when the deputy convener has such blatant disregard for judicial independence and the rule of law.
I wonder if you would be able to raise this issue with the appropriate authorities within the parliament as I am concerned for the reputation of the parliament if no action is seen to be taken.
Best wishes
Scott Wortley
Lecturer in private law
These are people who tend to remain aloof from the grubby world of politics, but have been stirred by their total revulsion at Chapman’s behaviour. It can only be hoped that someone can be found to explain the long words in their letters to the Committee’s jawdroppingly brainless chair, Karen Adam, or perhaps depict them in the form of simple cartoons so that she can understand the basis of their complaints.
The latest development as we write this is that Chapman has given a panicky interview trying to squirm out of her comments by saying they were not about individuals, but institutions, and doubling down on her refusal to resign.
But that’s no defence. Quite apart from the fact that the ruling was made by a group of individual named human judges, not an “institution”, the JCSA 2008 makes plain that the Supreme Court is explicitly and specifically included under “the judiciary”, as one of the bodies that MSPs must defend.
Chapman is a deranged lunatic who has always been an embarrassment to the Parliament, whether it was facilitating the appointment of a misogynist male as CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis or excusing the terrorist murders of 1400 innocent civilians or associating publicly with actual rapists, nappy fetishists and paedophile apologists or calling for children as young as 6 or 7 to be subject to gender transition treatment.
But these comments have cut through far beyond political-bubble sorts like ourselves. If she is still in post on the Equalities Committee at the end of this week, the Scottish Parliament will have completed its descent into ignominy to the point where it may as well be closed down altogether before it shames the nation any further.
Jesus…. That dude from the first video seriously needs mental help
Is that not a Musk N salute the Trannie keeps doing at the repetitive end?
No question whatsoever that she should quit.
Also, the Equality Act 2010 was motivated by not by a solemn consideration…
Just as it is impossible to make subtlety clear to an extraordinary dull reader,it is also impossible to have dialogue with a violent misologist, who would rather just scream about their horrors,their hallucenations.
Let’s just get straight to the point.
Bullshit does not baffle brains.
RESIGN NOW
Never did I think that I’d be ashamed of the Scottish Parliament. I took a day off work to travel to Edinburgh celebrate its opening. In recent years, a decade at least, it has been captured by, dare I say, a corrupt ideology. I’m so glad the UK Supreme Court has made a mature and sensible interpretation of the law. I have no respect for the SNP any longer, nor the Greens. Ms Chapman should go, and quickly, at least in my opinion.
I know you won’t like to hear this but there’s only one party which was, is and continues to be on the right side of history on this and as long as you continue to to vote like sheep in the hope that something will change, then this nonsense won’t be going away…
Over to you.
Is that the Scottish Family Party? You can’t mean the “Conservatives”, surely
She is a fucking disgrace, not even Scottish, send her back to South Africa were the laws might suit her better
Mater and Pater Chapman must be so proud of their Maggie!
Or if the old (un pc) trope of sub Saharan colonial births go: Pater Chapman had a drunken chug on a Friday night over the khazi floor and the flys did the rest..
The result: an infestation in oor very own parish cooncil/ “parliament”..
Given Michelle Thompson voted against GGRB and is not standing in the next election, I’ve no doubt she will raise this matter. Ash Regan has already written to the Presiding Officer asking for action against Chapman. I doubt the Tories will waste any time in demanding action either and on this, if little else, I agree with them! I’ve watched the Chapman reverse ferret video and no not convinced. I can’t believe anyone watching Chapman speak can come to any other conclusion than they should NEVER have been elected to any parliament, far less a deputy convenorship of any committee in the first place. A dangerous zealot, though I suppose parliament’s loss was Edinburgh Rape Crisis centre’s gain since that is where Chapman used to work.
People of North East Scotland, I don’t care if your middle name is environment, please do not vote that unhinged creature back into parliament next year!
Chapman has never been elected to anything.
Sadly, you’re incorrect. She had recently been elected Rector at Dundee Uni and is quite frankly unsuitable given the current financial crisis going on there atm. Hooefully, she will fall on all of her swords
“Remarkably, the Faculty’s governing board who approved the statement includes two office-bearers (Ruth Crawford KC and advocate Lesley Shields) who were the Scottish Government’s own counsel in the For Women Scotland case.”
TBF KCs and advocates are there to argue a case whether they agree with it or not. But I don’t think whichever of them who asked the judges if they could consult a flowchart over lunch as to who qualified as a woman should ever really live it down!
Spot on, Panda Paws: advocates have no choice and must defend if engaged to do so. That is there nature of the profession. However, having to take a wee break to find out more information that might help or hinder your defence or prosecution is relatively commonplace and judges are asked to adjourn in order to facilitate such a thing. It could prejudice a trial or civil case not to do so, and could lead to appeal.
Yes, of course they are. Which is precisely why it’s so remarkable that they’ve done this.
I wish folk would stop asking why on earth anyone voted for Chapman. A cretin like her could only have come from the list, a list chosen by even more cretins when they put her at the top.
You should only get one term on the list to show your skills thereafter transfer to the constituency opportunity. That at least clears out the individuals like Chapman who bring poison to the parliament
The cleaning up of the «Scottish Parliament» is augean in scale.
Is there a Scottish Hercules?
Is there a chasm deep enough to deposit the ordure?
In another case that should never have been needed to be taken to court are the two parents of a boy who have won their case to return their child’s school to single-sex spaces. The School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967 states that half the sanitary accommodation shall be for boys, and half for girls, and outlines the required number of appliances per number of pupils. The EQA 2010 also protects sex-based rights in schools as well as elsewhere.
LGBTYS has been feeding schools false information based on Stonewall Law for years now. Time to get all these lobbying groups out of out children’s environment. It is shocking that the SG has stood back and allowed these sexually-motivated morons to ruin our children’s schooldays.
No resignation permitted. Sacked. And if at all possible, banned outright from parliament until her contempt is purged.
An elected parliamentarian has a privilege of free speech. The real problem is the electoral system which allows list MSP’s to remain in parliament forever because there is no way to remove them. They should only be allowed to serve one term.
Your coverage, has been outstanding. I laughed so hard at the video of the angry trans woman.
It’s time for some funeral music. Be not, afraid! I go before you always. Come follow me. And I will give you rest!
Hahaha yess. The women have won!
“Your coverage, has been outstanding. I laughed so hard at the video of the angry man in a skirt.”
Fixed it for you, David!
Agreed. Two genders: Male & Female! Watching the coverage is like the end scene of the 1966 Planet of the Apes film!
It’s as if Maggie Chapman’s just discovered that they/them blew it up!
Damn you all to hell you bigots! Damn you all to hell! She cries! Ahahaha. Wrap it right roon ye Maggie!
@ David: There are two SEXES, not two genders. Why can’t people get this into their heads? Sex is binary and a fundamental biological fact. Gender, inasmuch as it exists, is an infinite continuum. It refers to degree of masculinity or femininity, but it’s just an invented theory with no objective basis.
Hard to believe Maggie Chapman is the rector of Dundee University. It’s time to defund Dundee! The students on campus won’t be safe to speak freely!
She’s more of a rectum of Dundee isn’t she? She’s lost! And it makes me very happy to see her tears!
Fruits of the closed list version of the D’Hondt voting system inflicted on Scotland by Labour’s messrs Dewar and Blair … the gift which goes on giving.
Fruit so rotten that even wasps body swerve it.
Grace? Magnaminity? Remorse?
I really have to resist saying anything about this tortured soul as informed by Romans 8.1, but she has to be just about verneer getting herself sectioned. She does have that unfortunate mad dog look.
Shouldn’t John Swinney be stepping in by instructing Karen Adam to remove Maggie Chapman from the committee, if Karen Adam doesn’t do it voluntarily?
I suspect the SNP and Greens are worrying about their electoral prospects, given their previous stance on gender reform. They clearly regard these things as more important than supporting the judiciary.
MaryB
Swinney is stuck in “rabbit caught in the headlights” mode and has decided to play chicken hoping that the oncoming political car will swerve..
Keir Starmer no longer believes trans women are women, says No 10 at briefing. I told you that this trans carry on was dead and buried, its now time to focus our efforts in shaming the SNP on Independence.
Watch the world turn its back on Stonewall.
Surely Contempt of Court.
Interviewed today (Tuesday) by the BBC, Ms Chapman has doubled down on her comments and says that she will not be issuing an apology.
Perhaps when Enric Miralles designed the Holyrood building based upon upturned boats, he had a vision of the shipwreck(s) that might ensue.
The people who advocate for this horse manure are, inevitably, as mad as a box of frogs, Rev. However, you are so right in that parliamentarians should not be advocates for lobbyists, although this is becoming something of a trend lately. It stinks of corruption. Great piece, again, and very much in point.
Judges have no right of reply to defend their position, and, in this case, they were clarifying the law, not rewriting it. These total bams have breached the law so many times that they have lost all sense of propriety. As a member of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre board, she broke the law on a daily basis, first by allowing that man to become head of ERCC when he had lied about his sex and his qualifications, then allowing him to continue as head of ERCC.
As per, no due diligence done. This has to be stopped, and the best way to do it, to ensure that due diligence his done and that legal scrutiny and impact assessments are made, by government and all public bodies, including the NHS, is to make those responsible, fiscally liable on a personal level, if they fail to do their legal duties. Unless the actual proponents of this nonsense, and all the other nonsense, at the top are held to account very strictly by joint and several liability, good governance will continue to be a pipe dream.
The utter and total lack of any empathy for what women and girls have had to endure from these TRAs and the illegal policies is stark. I have believed for a long time now that females do not count at all in any government or public body, or private one either, for that matter, but this has managed to bring a tear even to my very cynical eye.
Iorn I have consistently agreed with your opinions and comments re this perversion and deviance and I continue to do so, BUT surely the justiciary have been failing in their own duty towards the Scottish people and Scots law
That the GRA deviance was allowed to pass through HR without objection or guidance from senior Scottish legal professionals has led to this abomination,was it not Scottish judge Dorian who ruled that a GRA certificate did bestow legal and biological definition as a WOMAN on a MAN, THAT was the whole reason that an appeal had to be made against her judgement and that is the reason that FWS were FORCED to continue with a legal challenge and BEG for finances to attempt to find a modicum of sanity within the justice system
In light of her obviously WRONG ruling and having brought extreme amounts of anxiety to the appellants with additional threats of violence and even death from mentally ill men surely Judge Dorian should be considering her immediate RESIGNATION
In relation to fiscal responsibility I would like to see a legal challenge to the individuals who FORCED this legislation on to an electorate who vehemently opposed it,as has been stated many times there was NO MANDATE within ANY parliamentary political party that this legislation was going to be discussed or brought into law
No, twathater, that was Lady Haldane. The judiciary (the judges) have no way to affect or effect law. They may only interpret it, although they have some leeway in setting precedent. Lady Haldane must have followed the GRA 2004 and applied it to the EQA 2010, itself enacted to ward off the worst TRA incursions – and her judgement was simply wrong. was simply wrong. Had it not been challenged, it would have set a precedent in Scots Law and cemented in the GRC legal fiction. Had that been left as the law, everyone and his dog would have been applying for a GRC at £5 a pop, they would have been granted one and self-ID would have been achieved through the back door.
Anyone who had studied the two Acts and was not captured by this stuff, would have been in no doubt that, although the FWS case involved boards, all female rights would have been lost, even though the GRA 2004 has all but been subsumed by subsequent legislation. No way should men have been allowed to change birth certificates, etc, without their birth sex having been noted for the records (I suspect this was the case, anyway, although the government would never admit it).
Neither should men who have gone through physical gender reassignment ever be allowed to call themselves women. They are not; ‘trans’ women should become the accepted term for them, too, and unisex or third spaces allocated to them. Many will have a meltdown because of the thwarting of their fetish or AGP which requires women and, often, children, particularly female children, to be present.
It was parliamentarians, union bosses, local authorities and other institutions, however unwillingly, who enabled this madness to flourish. A very tiny minority of people ever experience ‘gender dysphoria’, which is a sub species of body dysMorphia, a recognized mental illness. ‘Gender dysphoria’ was taken off the list of mental health illnesses through blatant and persistent campaigning.
The fact that so few present with ‘gender dysphoria’ is why there are so few GRCs, although still far too many. It was never up to the judiciary or the courts to change the law or to make laws. The separation of powers ensures this, which is why Maggie Chapman is in deep doo-doo. She was advocating for the removal of the separation of powers and parliament taking control of the law itself by calling the judges bigoted, hateful and anti trans. It is a shocking attitude from a parliamentarian and is probably illegal as well as breaching standards.
What we must try to avoid in Scotland is the SNP trying to weasel out of Starmer’s definition today of a woman. They will try to if only to be different, in lieu of actual independence, which is why we are so much further down the rabbit hole than England or Wales.
Who ever found Chapman should just have left her tied to the lamppost.
And to think first cuck Swinney has the brass neck to hold a conference on an imaginary far right when all the time the real extremists are in his own party.
Agree!
Unfortunately, if Chapman were to resign as an MSP (unlikely), she would be automatically replaced by Guy Ingerson, who had this to say:
link to x.com
The SNP and Scottish Greens are very lucky that this is all happening now and will be mainly forgotten by the time of the elections last year.
Or will it!
The first individual is like the Just William character who promises to “scweam, and scweam and scweam” until she gets her own way. Maggie Chapman is a different matter. She should be arrested under child protection laws for her statement that six and seven year olds should be encouraged to make decisions which they cannot understand and which would have devastating effects on their lives.
Can’t they see that this is their chance to start again. The GRA was bad legislation and the Scottish Government were told so by individuals and groups which made submissions to the SG’s own consultation. I read the submissions and by and large the Trans lobby’s submissions went along the lines of “
“Justice Secretary Angela Constance was asked about figures obtained from Police Scotland by the Scottish Conservatives which revealed they were notified of 506 instances of sex criminals changing their names within a 23-month period between April 2023 and March 2025.
Pressed on this, Constance said she would look into it but stressed that the way information is recorded meant it would be less than that.”
——————————————-
Will be interesting to see the result of this.
Bring back caning.
That’s all.
Alison Clueless wants to return to front line politics.
Of course you do Allison. It’s a bitch out there in the real world with all those grown up people, scary ain’t it.
They truly believe they are the chosen ones and are above the law..
I’m sure that the UN is going to phone up Westminster any day now
And will tell them that scotland is a colony and it MUST be realeased from slavery
And power will be handed over immediately to Holyrood and the SNP
And the very first act they will do for an independent Scotland will be to make it illegal to deny a transwomen a blowjob should she want one
And if you even think of questioning a beautiful trans women going into a space where she has every right to be in
10 years hard labour
I would say good fir the faculty had they only spoken up at the conspiracy against Salmond, the post case vilification of the decision of a jury and the imprisoning if Craig Murray.
Interesting position but dont talk to me about how they uphold the independence of the judiciary.
Well said, Shug
Seconded
Well said!
Starmer now says that a woman is a adult female.
link to msn.com
That is very different from the UK Supreme court ruling which says a woman is a biological female. Maybe he clarify what a female is?
I am sure that is very important to you.
For me it is not.
agent x says: 22 April, 2025 at 7:59 pm
It’s none of my business what Starmer says or not says nor is it any of my business of the potential consequences of this issue on the Labour party who are facing significant challenges from Reform in the English local election in under a fortnights time.
If I was Starmer, I would have come out immediately after the ruling and said woman are biological woman. There would be a lot of heat with accusations of flip-flopping from previous comments but getting it out in the open as quickly as possible would limit the damage in the forthcoming elections.
I’m not Starmer though so good luck to him and his party.
Is this a comedy post? From what I’ve seen the Scottish judiciary are almost entirely corrupt! As to the supreme court’s ruling, it was simply doing what it was told, otherwise it would have turned down the request to make a ruling. Is there a list of those that advised the Supreme Court?
‘We are here, We are queer, We will never disappear’ Some of those around this angry man in a skirt actually looked non-plussed and slightly embarrassed. Ha
“The Scottish government has “no plans” to return to its controversial bill on gender recognition, the high-water mark of Nicola Sturgeon’s progressive agenda, as it attempted to reassure the trans community that “you are valued”.
In a statement to MSPs on Tuesday afternoon, the social justice secretary, Shirley-Anne Somerville, said Holyrood “fully accepts” the judgment of the supreme court, which ruled against Scottish ministers last Wednesday in the culmination of a long-running legal action brought by the campaign group For Women Scotland.”
——————————————
What does Sturgeon say about this?
Has “mrs” murrell actually said ANYTHING about the Supreme Court judgement???
Silence is golden and auks
Whae cares whit that vengeful wee psycho says aboot onyhing? Hus she no done enough damage tae Scotland withoot listening tae ony mair pish spewing ootay her deranged gub?
How in the name of the wee man has scotland got into to this utter revolting shambles
I was slow on the uptake with this issue and the wider extreme and fake social justice theory that surrounds it. I was also far too slow to set aside the benefit of the doubt regarding the SNP leadership. I was confused for a time but not now. What I am still confused about is how this ideology (if it is an ideology) can, out of the blue, take over so many countries at the same time.
“her comments sparked a storm of wholly justified outrage over her flagrant breach not only of Parliamentary rules but also of the law – specifically the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, which requires all MSPs to uphold the independence of the judiciary”
Not just that law, actually. The Claim of Right too.
The following (long) quote was extracted from the paper:
Aidan O’Neill (2013) The Sovereignty of the (Scottish) People: 1689 and All That, Judicial Review, 18:4, 446-463
“On the Scottish consensual/republican model, if the king misused his powers, he could be wholly lawfully deposed by the people. It may be said that this radical revolutionary tradition within the Scottish constitution reached its apotheosis with this decision by the Scottish Parliament to declare James VII deposed on the basis of their claims that he had over-reached the lawful limits placed on his executive power.
But such radical revolutionary views were never permitted to form part of the accepted pre-1707 Union constitution of England, which had characterised the regicidal republican regime of 1649 to 1660 latterly governed under the personal rule of the self-styled Lord Protector of the Commonwealth, Oliver Cromwell, as simply an “inter-regnum”.
This desire to avoid incorporating the notion of lawful revolution within the constitution of England becomes clearer yet when a comparison is made between the different
ways in which the Glorious Revolution of 1688–1689 was offcially represented in Scotland and England respectively by contrasting the constitutional concepts underpinning the Scottish Claim of Right with those contained in the English Parliament’s
Declaration and Bill of Rights of 1688. The English document – rather than straight-forwardly admitting the fact that the king had been deposed – employed, instead, the
legal fiction that the king, in feeing to France, had chosen to “abdicate” his throne, thereby preserving the fiction that the existing constitutional order in England continued and that there had been no usurpation of power.
The English Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688 is again to be contrasted with the Scottish Claim of Right 1689 in that the
English document makes no reference to the king’s oath on entering government that he will “rule the people according to the laudable laws”. Nor does the English document claim that the king has expressly breached any of the terms of his (English
Coronation) oath. And the English document, while asserting that James “did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Laws and Liberties of this
Kingdom”, makes no reference – unlike the Scottish text – to the king invading the “fundamental Constitution of the Kingdom” and of that constitution properly being understood as a “legally limited monarchy”. Nor do the English, in terms, accuse James
Stuart of attempting to subvert the constitution that he was in offce to uphold, complaining instead only of specific acts of “arbitrary power” (namely “prosecutions in the
Court of King’s Bench for Matters and Causes cognizable only in Parliament and by diverse other Arbitrary and Illegal Courses”), rather than the root and branch corruption of power which the Scottish document identified.
The Scots, by contrast, complained in terms that James VII had acted in violation of the
basic constitutional principles including, crucially, the fundamental principle of the separation of powers as understood in terms of due respect owed by the executive for the workings and constitution of the legislature (“subverting the right of the Royal Burghs, the third Estate of Parliament”) and of the judiciary (“sending letters to the courts of Justice Ordaining the Judges to stop or desist from determining Causes or
ordaining them how to proceed in Causes depending before them the changing the nature of the Judges’ gifts ad vitam aut culpam Into Commissions durante beneplacito”).
In failing to respect the limits upon his powers and to give due deference to the workings of the other branches of government, the erstwhile king is said to have exercised
the royal powers with which he was entrusted in an arbitrary despotic manner “to the violation of the laws and liberties of the Kingdom inverting all the Ends of Government”.
Avowedly, just “as their ancestors in the like cases have usually done for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties”, the document then goes on to declare
as unlawful a number of specific acts or practices of the Crown. Importantly, however, the Claim of Right does not seek to list or enumerate (and thereby to define and limit) precisely what its authors considered to constitute “their undoubted right and liberties” which they sought to defend. By referring only to the king’s abuses of rights, the document then leaves open the possibility of there existing further unenumerated
rights which have not been mentioned simply because they have not (yet) been the subject of abuse by the executive powers.
Because the document complains that they had been violated by the Crown’s actions, it can be established that among those fundamental rights and liberties which the authors
of the Claim of Right considered to exist in late seventeenth century Scotland were:
(i) the right to a trial before properly appointed civilian judges and, in capital cases, also before a jury;
(ii) the privilege against self-incrimination, at least in capital cases and in treason trials;
(iii) the right not to be arbitrarily imprisoned without trial;
(iv) the presumption against the ordinary use of torture;
(v) the right not to be subjected to excessive fines or other monetary penalties;
(vi) a right, for Protestants at least, to bear arms;
(vii) the right, at least in peacetime and then only with proper parliamentary authorisation, not to have soldiers compulsorily garrisoned upon one’s home or otherwise quartered or provisioned from one’s property;
(viii) the independence of spouses inter se in matters of religious observance;
(ix) the right of the people to petition the king;
(x) the right of the people to regular Parliaments in Scotland;
(xi) the right to freedom of speech and debate for those within the Scottish Parliament;
and
(xii) the right to appeal to the Scottish Parliament from decisions of the Court of Session.
Certain additional fundamental rights were also specifcally written into the Scottish constitution by the (still) independent Scottish Parliament around this same period. For
example, the Evidence (Scotland) Act 1686 affirmed the principle that witnesses should be examined by the judges in the presence of the parties and/or their advocates, and that the evidence of these witnesses should be recorded and published and made available without charge to the parties. ”
End of quote.
According to the quote above, the separation of the executive and the judicial power is a basic principle of the constitution of Scotland, as recognised in the Claim of Right.
The Claim of Right is a fundamental condition of the Treaty of Union in all times.
In line with this, that idiot Chapman should be sacked and ejected from our parliament with immediate effect for attempting to undermine the Claim of Right, for disrespecting Scotland’s constitution and for attempting to deliberately blur the boundaries between the judicial and the executive power.
In other words, that idiot seems to consider herself entitled to impose a decision by a corrupt executive over the judiciature. That is unconstitutional under Scots law and Scotland’s tradition.
Either that idiot is an ignorant that has not bothered in learning the fundamentals of Scotland’s constitution necessary to carry out her role, or she is quite deliberately attempting to bulldoze the boundaries between the powers. Any of the two options is completely unacceptable, therefore that idiot should be sacked with immediate effect for gross misconduct.
By refusing to maintain the separation of powers and muscling in, she is evidently following a type of authoritarianism that is unconstitutional and does not belong in Scotland.
I think we, at the very least, must demand from ALL those who sit in our parliament and who claim to represent us, to actually represent us by upholding, AT ALL TIMES, our rights protected in our constitution. In other words, unless they understand and know what our rights are under that constitution, they can never represent us.
This woman is acting like a despot and absolute ruler who acts as if she is above Scotland’s constitution. I wonder who does this woman actually represent when she is so obviously trying to bring down the boundaries that separate both powers.
We already had enough violation of that separation of powers (and violation of the claim of right) with the abuse of the colonial crown office and the colonial UK civil servants working in the Scottish government for the crown, rather than for the Scottish people. The last thing we need now is an MSP also pissing over our constitution and imposing absolute rule by the back door by normalising the bulldozing of boundaries.
She should be sack from the executive with immediate effect and suspended from her MSP post too.
The only beneficiary when demolishing the boundaries between the judiciary and the executive powers is the English crown. So, my question is, who is really Ms Chapman working for? Is she working for the English crown? Is she deliberately attempting to bring down the boundaries of those powers exposing us to direct abuse from the crown? Is she another MI5 plant trying to undermine the Scottish government, Scotland’s parliament and Scotland’s constitution?
Frankly, one has to wonder, because there have been in recent years far too many assaults on the boundaries of those powers to simply be “coincidence”.
Now, going back to that quote above, it says that, in line with the Claim of Right, “the people of Scotland have the right to a trial before properly appointed civilian judges and, in capital
cases, also before a jury”
Right, that other idiot Sturgeon and her wagon of corrupt ilk were trying to remove juries from the trials for rape. Weren’t they? Now, isn’t that, in line with the above, another direct violation of the constitutional rights of the people of Scotland?
Again, who and what were the political fraud Sturgeon and all those individuals who sought to deny us a jury, really working for?
The alarming issue for me is that some of those seeking to deny us a jury were actual lawyers and judges who should know better and who should uphold the constitution and constitutional traditions of Scotland. So, who where those people really working for? And what exactly were they pursuing by undermining our fundamental constitution in that disgusting fashion?
Bring back the trials for treason, I say, because I am not sure in what other way one can treat and see such blatant, deliberate violations of Scotland’s constitutional traditions, protected by the Claim of Right.
I think Chapman and all those who sought to deny us a jury should be shown the door. We do not need despotic people like those who cannot be arsed in respecting our constitution and think they can, just on their say so, piss on the boundaries between the different powers, claiming to represent us when they are simply working for the benefit of a crown that has a lot to win from destroying the boundaries between the powers.
Wow. Even by your standards Mia that is an extraordinary length of shite. I wonder if anybody actually has the stamina to read it to the end?
What and where exactly is the “shite”?
Is Scotland’s constitution, according to you, “shite”?
Is trying to stop the bulldozing of the separation of powers which leads directly to absolute rule, “shite” according to you?
Is Scotland’s Claim of right, “shite”, according to you?
Is the Treaty of Union, one of whose fundamental conditions is to uphold the treaty of union at all times, “shite” according to you?
Is the right to have a jury “shite” according to you?
Is Scotland’s law “shite” according to you?
Is the right to demand that ALL Scotland’s MPs and members of the executive respect Scotland’s constitution at all times?
Is our right to constrain the powers of the monarchy “shite” according to you?
Is Scotland “shite” according to you?
Or is anything that I write “shite” to you because you have neither the arguments nor the knowledge nor the intelligence to credibly rebuke it?
Or is the article published by Aidan O’Neill, or indeed Aidan O’Neill himself, according to you “shite”?
This is the description of Mr Aidan O’Neill KC from Ampersand Advocates:
“King’s Counsel at the Scottish Bar, Bar of England and Wales and Bar of Ireland. A wide ranging legal practice in both London and Edinburgh, with particular experience and expertise in commercial judicial review, environmental/Aarhus law and in employment/equality law. A specialist in EU law, in human rights law and in UK constitutional law. Awarded the Legal 500 UK Bar Award for Scottish Silk of the year for 2020 and EU law Silk of the year in 2015 and Scottish Legal Awards 2017, 2018 and 2019 Silk of the year.
A highly experienced pleader before the top courts. Senior counsel in almost thirty cases to date from across the UK before the UK Supreme Court/ House of Lords, as well before the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights.
Previously teaching fellow at Princeton and Edinburgh universities. Author of substantial academic articles, blog posts and legal practitioner texts”
So, if I was you, I would engage my brain before making a complete fool of yourself by claiming a quote of his writings regarding the Claim of Right are “shite”.
Chas, your comment fails to address any of the substance of Mia’s comment. Yours is a weak insult and a total waste of space. It would be to the benefit of all if you would desist from making comment on ‘Wings’.
To be fair, Jay, posters demanding this and that on Wings BTL doesn’t even amount to a hill of beans constructed with no beans.
Perhaps your self-righteousness stems from your basic inability to recognise that truth.
Perhaps you could do us all a favour by running Mia’s verbal diarrhea through one of those AI summarisers and posting the result.
Or would “It’s nae fair and we wus robbed” spoil the illusion for you?
Powerful writing. Remind me never to argue with you Mia.
Very interesting take on it from A O’Neill.
Chas. Please inform us by way of detailed explanation of what you think is shite?
Or, is it that you have no knowledge or understanding on this subject.
Excellent find, Mia.
Where can we hire him for indyref2?
“So, who where those people really working for?”
The home grown ones, for the British State. They’re another set of eejits with an identity crisis. They can’t serve two masters & so they’ve become confused.
The foreigners who blew in to Holyrood with zero background? America. It’s well documented they interfere in everyone else’s government (along with their best pals) & parachute in wee helpers like the Kat Carys of this world. Probably dropped off by USAID.
So may blow ina appeared after indyref & it was amazing they were given top jobs while have next to nothing backstory. Wikipedia couldn’t even give them more than a few sentences so there’s that. When the American encyclopedia even struggles to invent a past – the games a bogey …LOL
yep You are 100% right
Scotland must immediately declare UDI using the right of claim
and we can again have chicks with dicks
Fly in yer ointment there, Yoon scum..
Chicks with dicks happened while being in this toxic Union.
Told you before – you’d be far better sorting out yer own shite government than you are on a wee diddy branch office. Maybe then the Union wouldn’t be as shite.
I was born in scotland
BUT I am a YOON
How do you keep my type out of holyrood after the right of claim is used to dissolve the union?
So David Tennant is shutting the fuck up now. Perhaps! or he could just Fuck off.
Till his next televised Tranny awards hosting paycheck that is..
Then he comes out “handbag swinging” as the saying goes to the select recipient audience.
No hurty feelz then eh?
A poncy little pantomime of a man.
No hurty feelzys at all my good Lochiniver. I’ve been watching a lot of episodes of “A Troubled Land” on Tube lately.
It is perhaps the case that the people of Scotland should reflect on what a wise decision it was to reject ‘indy’ at the referendum-can you even imagine life under this lot ?
Nope!
Because it was unionists who introduced this shit to Holyrood.
If we’d had Indy this would never have entered parliament because it had no mandate & no consent.
It was because we remained in the Union it was entirely outside of our control.
I’m a bit thick
Explain to me how us English trash managed the selection process of the SCOTTISH nationalist party
The same way they do it to overthrow every other government they’ve been involved in all over the world & they have done it to the SNP before too.
They parachute in puppets to key positions in government & dismantle it from within.
They also have a legion of NGOs & lobbyist to steer policies in certain directions & call upon activists when the ‘colour revolution’ is ripe for the take over.
An example is USAID. Paid rent-a-mob under the guise of NGO *charities*
& There is no better example of that than Sturgeons NuSNP & NGOs like Rape crisis Scotland & this equalities & human rights groups. All a front shop. If they were really that fcking interested in human rights they’d have concentrated on Scotland being denied democracy instead of this gender fantasy.
It wasn’t unionists who introduced this, it was left wingers. Something many countries have in common. Unless you’re trying to claim that unionists are responsible for the whole of the western world delving into this madness? Until people like you understand why it happened it’s likely to happen again, or something similar. I know that you like to make every bad thing come from England but it makes you look desperate.
After indy
how will you stop enemy agents like myself who is English but born in Scotland
From infecting Scottish politics?
Instant death for anyone suspected of being an enemy agent?
and you think that power won’t be abused?
@Pat Blake
“It wasn’t unionists who introduced this, it was left wingers. Something many countries have in common.”
Well, quite – hole in one. The Left has a great deal to answer for, including this – and as ever, with trademark conceit and narcissism, will never admit to any of it and will instead blame Engerland/The Toories/Trump/Yoons [delete as applicable] etc.
It’s all rather pathetic, not least because anyone with eyes to see with knows the truth of the matter perfectly well. It can hardly be avoided.
Even now, lessons could still be learned. Will they though, in this post-truth, post-reality, social echo chamber, dumbed down dystopia? I seriously doubt it.
I am sure I am not the only one who sees a pattern here.
A pattern that started when Ms Joanna Cherry trashed the buffoon Johnson by getting Scotland’s supreme court to rule his prorogation of parliament unlawful.
Since then, what we have seen is a relentless and systematic attempt to bring down the boundaries between the executive and the judicial powers as a way of disabling the power of our courts.
We saw this in its most blatant form during Mr Salmond’s case. The destruction of the boundaries between the executive power was effected by the colonial crown office and the colonial UK civil service in Scotland. Now we know that was unlawful under the Claim of Right.
Once the criminal case was over and Mr Salmond was acquitted of all charges, the political fraud Sturgeon disgustingly abused her position of power to openly going against the ruling of the jury. She is a narcissist, no doubt there, but what she was doing, whilst still FM, came across as a deliberate attempt to impose absolute rule by overruling the judicial power by the executive she led. She was attempting to blur the boundaries between both powers and this is beautifully reflected in the way she installed that crown outfit, the “Lord Advocate” in the middle of the executive.
Then we had, again, the political fraud Sturgeon and her wagon of “yes madam” women seeking to deny males the right to a jury in rape cases. Again, another attempt to impose the wants of a corrupt executive over the judicature. Another form of absolute rule.
Now we have this Chapman attempting the exact same, this time using the bandwagon of the trans shite.
Both Chapman and Sturgeon are linked to the case of that male dressed as a woman leading the Rape center in Edinburgh, despite that man publicly stating that he completely and deliberately ignored the requirement to be a female to be eligible for the job.
The people who sought to deny us a jury were also somewhat linked to all that.
Both Chapman and Sturgeon, and indeed those individuals linked to the rape center appear to be obsessed with this trans shite.
On top of that, some of those individuals were very active in attempting to criticise Mr Salmond and attempting to destroy his reputation.
Garavelli was not slow in seeking to destroy the reputation of Mr Salmond. In the Rev’s previous article, we saw how that “reporter” also tried to push the trans shite wagon and attempted to undermine the ruling of the judicial power.
What is the link between Mr Salmond and this trans shite?
Or more pertinently, WHO or WHAT was above those individuals and directing them to:
a/ destroying the reputation of Mr Salmond
b/destroying the boundaries between the judicial and the executive powers
c/ pave the way for imposing absolute rule on Scotland for the benefit of the crown.
What was the extent of the intervention of the English crown in Mr Salmond’s case, in this trans shite and in the deliberate destruction of the boundaries between powers and the undermining of Scotland’s constitution?
I think we need to ask those questions. The attacks on those boundaries between powers and the assault of Scotland’s constitution have increased significantly since 2019, which is when the Scottish court declared the prorogation of parliament unlawful.
So, who/what is really behind the trans lobby in Scotland and who/what allowed that lobby gain so much power so quickly among the UK public services and administrative structures?
Who/what was behind Mr Salmond’s case?
Was it the same entity/individuals?
Bravo Mia.
Bravo!
Well said.
According to Orban of Hungary & some African Nations, appalled at the very notion they’d to implement this crap in their Christian/Conservative countries & have refused, it is the World Bank & the IMF behind this trans bullshit.
The world mafia & both are run by the USA….because if they don’t do it they are punished. They’ll not receive favourable rates on loans, investments & infrastructure will be blocked, trade can be blocked via removing the swift payment system & they’ll crash their economy. This is why America is charged with weaponising the $. It doesn’t just cover the oil.
World Bank is America.
IMF is Europe (with a permanent American overlord)
A geopolitical analyst I follow suggests the TRA movement is the Oligarchy. The Oligarchy only fear one thing – a military coup. It’s the only thing that can bring down a government & seize control of assets – ending all of their Christmases at once – so they set about stupifying governments & the military with TRA. Suddenly Biden was inviting trans women to the White House lawn (who got drunk & went topless lol) He also offered soldiers free surgery, TRA generals were appointed to military positions. TRA appointed to banking too. Z is even TRA LOL & they can all play piano with their penis. It must’ve been a wee snippet of joy the Oligarchy & rich elites wanted to share with us peasants..
& Of course, The city of London is in the thick of it too. Just there – minding their own biz, obvs…
“a wee snippet of joy”
Careful there, Barbs, it sounds like you’re getting in touch with your inner trans
I see a pattern but it started before BoJo the clown.
I wonder if my post will eventually show up further up the discussion…
But if not, this shit show was started under Evans. Funny innit, the one responsible for policy & the legalities of changing it.
Holyrood had no authority from her handlers to change UK legislation.
Evans was up to her armpits in the blurring of the boundaries between the executive and the judicial powers. This was blatant during her attempts to get the colonial crown agent to direct the police into the investigation against Mr Salmond. It was unconstitutional.
Evans was also linked to the pushing of the stonewall crap down through the throat of every public service.
You are right. The blurring of the powers and the assault of our judicial power started sooner, when the political fraud Sturgeon parachuted the unelected crown minion, Lord Advocate, to the executive.
I see two different things here colluding. On one part the “neutralisation” of Mr Salmond as leader of the independence movement. I am convinced this was planned at the other side of the Atlantic and was somewhat successful. Sadly, Mr Salmond never recovered from the frontal assault of those undemocratic forces to his reputation.
On the other part, I see a relentless attempt by elements of the crown to take control of all the three powers in Scotland (legislative, executive and judicial). I see the undermining of Scots law and the imposition of absolute rule which increased exponentially during the political fraud Sturgeon’s tenure.
But in the case of Mr Salmond, the attack on the judicial power and the undermining of the jury did not start until Mr Salmond was acquitted. That was clear not what the culprits had been planned. Mr Salmond’s case was used as the first excuse to undermine the credibility of the Scottish courts under the eyes of the public.
The next attempt to neutralise Scots constitutional law was made during the Keating’s case, were the colonial lord advocate teamed up with the Advocate General to deliberately obfuscate and stop democracy for Scotland, so we did not get a clear answer regarding the power of Holyrood to call that independence referendum. The conclusion was something as ridiculous as undermining the pursuer because of the bollocks that he was not “a parliamentarian”. Translated into layman words: because Keatings did not swear allegiance to the English crown, so instead of acting in the interests of the crown, he was acting in the interest of the people of Scotland.
Then they attempted to undermine the judicial power by seeking to remove juries from rape cases. That, so far, has also failed.
When neither of those previous strategies yield the results these gangsters were after, a different strategy was deployed: to use the trans trojan horse to take over the judicial power.
We have seen how gender critical women have been relentlessly attacked with this and we have also seen how pro-independence supporters have been persecuted and even sent to jail by some of those very elements linked to the eradication of juries on rather risible charges (and even more risible reasoning for those charges) and the elements who participated in the blurring of the boundaries between the executive and the judicial power.
I am sure this strategy will fail too but all those attacks have served to undermine the worth of the judicial power already in the eyes of the public. This is probably what they were after, to weaken that judicial power.
I wonder what will be the next trojan horse they will use as the excuse to undermine our constitution. If I had to bet for something, it would be the excuse of “fighting the rise of the far right”. We are already seeing signs of that shite being deployed. The closeted unionist Swinney is already starting to peddle it under the nonsense that this is more urgent than independence. More unionist bullshit different packaging. Everything/anything is always more “urgent” for closeted unionists like Sturgeon, Yousaf and Swinney than independence. Same shit different FM, different year or different century. We have heard all the rehashed and regurgitated excuses before, haven’t we? This continuous procrastination is getting rather tiresome.
In summary, I don’t think Scots constitutional law has ever been under a bigger assault than it has been since the political fraud Sturgeon took control of the executive power. It has been relentless. Democracy might have never existed in Scotland, but absolute rule was never as evident and any veneer of democracy pretence has never before being blown down to pieces in such an spectacular fashion as during Sturgeon’s and STurgeon’s minions regimes.
I question therefore who/what Sturgeon and now Maggie Chapman have been/are working for and what has been the real purpose behind their continuous assaults of our constitutional law and their undermining of our courts and juries. I of course question who is Swinney working for, who, by the way, was forced on us as FM, and was never elected as party leader never mind FM.
Sturgeon, Swinney and co are certainly not Scottish nationalists, that much is true. No doubt in my mind they were working us away from Independence not towards it. No doubt at all. I see the interference with the courts, corruption in the prosecution service, juryless trials etc a mix of Sturgeon’s control freakery and, as Alec Salmond put it, a failure of leadership in the polis, civil service AND crown office. I suspect she had been tapped up years ago. Who knows though?
Sturgeon’s regime had zero interest in Independence and everything was geared to making that bleak character look good. I think she is mad actually. The photoshoot in Vogue you mind that one? Away with it she was. I wonder how that came about?
lloyd? AS is reported as saying he thought Lloyd was working for the security services.
Gm
Cackling, evil Hilary would’ve landed Sturgeon the Vogue gig.
She was Sturgeons hero & she does seem to have a bit of a kink for war criminals & fellow psychopaths. There’s no doubt a club somewhere where these cretins rub shoulders, murder pets & *ewww…ewww!* Never mind. I’m off to bleach that thought…
Do you think Leslie Evans was its originator in Scotland? A true believer willing to go against her bosses for her faith. Did she induct Sturgeon into the faith?
“Do you think Leslie Evans was its originator in Scotland?”
No. I am more inclined to think it was Lloyd.
1
GM. Tend to agree with Mia. Defo Lloyd.
This was deliberate.
Evans was/is responsible for bringing this gender nonsense to Scotland but, as Mia points out, this wasn’t her only Rodeo as permanent secretary RESPONSIBLE for government policy. She continually marched the SNP into the courts numerous times (UN rights of the Child, The Equality act, Alex Salmond, Indyref to name a few)
My post has gone missing & it didn’t post for some strange reason. So annoying & I can’t be arsed to type it all out again.
Bottom line – Unionists did a real number on Holyrood. Evans was responsible for government policy & what was legal. A vital part of her job description. Yet we’ve to believe a branch office could alter the Equality Act & off they all went pounding on the doors of the courts, repeatedly, on reserved UK legislation. This was their crap. All of this lawfare will cost Scotland dear & it was during her tenure.
SNP was stupid but not surprising really – Sturgeons NuSNP drive to only pass loyal nodding dog feckwits helped immensely to destroy Holyrood & the SNP too but her unionist handlers are squarely responsible for setting them up to fail because it was their job to scrutinise policy. That goes for the secretary of Scotland too.
It’s infuriating reading Unionists gloat. They brought that shit here in the first place & voted for it too.
There does seem interference in politics by the courts. One of them now sits in the cabinet incase someone dares scratch their arse without permission.
Kinda odd that she was another eejit that marched the SNP off to court too over indy Ref. I could’ve told her a ref wouldn’t be granted by a branch office LOL The seat of power is Westminster.
Just to clarify..
I know Leslie Evans was obsessed with Stonewall & pushing this through Holyrood.
Liz Lloyd was Sturgeons adviser & they were probably working as raptors going in for the kill.
What a shambles. Salmond was correct when he said Evans should consider her position after her failed lawfare on him but Sturgeon stood by her which only suggests to me that she’s in Westminster’s infamous “wee black book of dastardly deeds to blackmail ppl by”
Mia is far more up to speed on the procedures of Holyrood than I am but Evans was batting for Stonewall from the very beginning up here & the Labour party, south of the border, was batting for it too with their first TRA “Woman’s officer” which, unsurprisingly, was another movement they wanted to see the back of. The Corbyn bounce just couldn’t be allowed to continue & neither could indyref2. Two of the biggest threats to UK international standing.
Scotland is now running out of Petards……..
But we have an infinite supply of retards
‘GENDER-CONFUSED KIDS PUSHED INTO LIFELONG HEALTH PROBLEMS’, US CONGRESS TOLD
Trans-affirming procedures cause “irreversible physical changes” to gender-confused children, the US House of Representatives has been told.
In a hearing on ‘Ending Lawfare Against Whistleblowers Who Protect Children’, Dr Eithan Haim told the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government how he was threatened with up to ten years in prison for whistleblowing about Texas Children’s Hospital’s (TCH) ‘transgender programme’.
The surgeon reported that despite TCH’s claim that it had already ended such practices, gender-confused youngsters with “serious mental health issues” and autism were still being given cross-sex hormones and mastectomies up to June 2023, when such procedures were banned.
‘DESTROYING LIVES’
Dr Haim, the charges against whom were dropped earlier this year, said puberty blockers lead to “irreversible physical changes – sterility, altered bone development, permanent stunting of growth, and many more both known and unknown”.
He explained that at TCH, “We would take children to the operating room, and we would make them better. But in the same operating room they were taking them there and making them sick.
“They are destroying the lives of these children. They’re putting them down a road where they become a chronic medical patient that they can never come back from. Could I call myself a doctor if I didn’t speak against it?”
‘FRAUD’
Dr Haim highlighted the hospital’s use of a guide from LGBT activist group Campaign for Southern Equality, which he claimed informs medics how to “commit medical fraud” by misleading insurance companies into providing cover for trans-affirming procedures.
Nurse Vanessa Sivadge, who also worked at the hospital, stated: “I discovered how Medicaid was being billed for transgender interventions in direct violation of Texas law. I also observed how TCH had misdiagnosed patients for the purpose of justifying those.
“Additionally, the hospital had changed medical records by listing the preferred ‘gender identity’ on the medical record instead of the birth sex, making fraudulent billing difficult to detect.”
FUNDING
In Canada, Prime Minister Mark Carney has stated that he will defend the “fundamental right” of healthcare for “all Canadians without exception”.
He made the comment during a press conference, in response to a question on the restriction of gender-affirming procedures.
Since 2016, the Canadian Government has spent over $250 million on LGBT initiatives. Last month, it announced C$1.4m in funding for four groups to “address barriers and facilitate systemic change by developing knowledge, tools, and support for 2SLGBTQI+ communities across Canada”
(From The Christian Institute website, 23 April 2025)
Pretty clear then where the poison is coming from..
Good ol’ US of A is inadvertently setting itself up to be the downfall of the West, itself included.
Not because of the Rs, not C, not I, just themselves as they’ve dived into full on degenerate.
The world will however continue to turn and history books will just add another chapter.
This idiot is unfit for public office.
Does the Scottish Parliament have powers to invoke a recall petition.
I believe she supported the planned degradation of the Scottish Justice system and removal of the right to a free trial and safeguards preventing wrongful conviction.
Peter McAvoy @ 02.09.
As far as I know, the Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill is still at Stage 1 of its passage through the Scottish Parliament. There are three stages to pass before it can become an Act.
I really don’t know if there is any procedure for removing an MSP from office presently. Think of at least one former SNP MSP who remained collecting pay, expenses and pension contributions for over a year without even attending Holyrood.
They’d be far better introducing a bill to block foreign interference & exactly whose interests they’d be serving, if elected.
It’d empty overnight lol
Some in Europe have done this & three guesses of who lost their minds & threatened lawfare & sanctions.
It’s ironic really – my understanding is that the Tories started this to bill to attack the SNP. They’re one to talk but also the skulduggery they pull by electing paper candidates who don’t take their seats & are a complete waste of taxpayers money & elections. Ruth the month was famous for that trick & then refused to trigger by-elections.
The whole system is corrupt. It’s the public who should remove tyre kickers, not parliament, imo.
I think I need to get myself an ai paragraph generator.
First poll conducted with field work In aftermath of Supreme Court decision.
More in Common, Westminster voting intention, field work 17 – 21 Apr, sample population 2,004.
RefUK has a 2% lead over the pack. A record result for RefUK from this polling company.
Scottish sub-sample (111): Con 17%, Lab 19%, LibDem 10%, RefUK 18%, Green 5%, SNP 27%
Word is that TRA marches and rallies are planned for just about everywhere in the UK over the next weeks. They are not going to accept the ruling, and some politicians are deliberately stoking the fires.
This is very similar to the anti female rallies when female public toilets were attacked, the first-ever having been burned to the ground. The rampant and vicious misogyny is embedded in this movement, as women having been saying forever.
These dangerous men should be allowed in female spaces, eh? Aye, right! At least, in their fetishistic/AGP rage, they are showing us just who and what they are, and the wider public can see through them at last – unless they are totally captured.
I’m afraid it was always going to come to this because these men are p**n-addled, thwarted toddlers, throwing tantrums because they are told, no, they can’t have access to women and girls as their fetish props.
Chapman and her ilk are the gifts that will keep on giving. She should be promoted, not asked to resign.
Can I say that those here who insist that the whole gender mess in Scotland has nothing to do with real Scottish politicians, real Scottish people and that it’s all an English plot are very much damaging your credibility. Admitting that mistakes are made and that there are homegrown bad politicians is an important step to growing up. It helps you work out how these things happen and helps protect society from them happening again. Why is the SNP such a woke mess?
If all this was coming from London, explain the phenomena across the Western World? Are unionists responsible for the US gender wars? While unionists come together on the union, they differ greatly on many other issues, including gender. Until you can explain why the SNP decided to lead on gender issues, you’ll be at risk of letting the same types of crusaders into any future independence party. Be honest with yourselves why this happened.
I’m also very curious to know how an independent Scotland will prevent unionist agents like myself to interfering with the process of Scotland becoming the richest country on earth
As we have seen that the Scottish people have been fooled into voting for the unionist party that is the SNP
Maybe the great ruler will have the power to jail unionist agents
I’d love to know
but I am 99% certain that the answer will be
LOOK AT THE FLAG
Happy St George’s day YS and anniversary of the battle of Lintalee.
A’ Douglas!
I’ve told you before.
A written constitution & Parliamentary oaths are put in place to stop eejits going off Script & treating parliament as if it was their own to pass all their wee pet projects & screw running the country.
Scotland didn’t vote for this shit. SNP & Scotgov had no mandate for this shit. Scotland also couldn’t remove them from office. Scotland can’t call early elections either, or a vote of no confidence, because there wasn’t the numbers to eat it passed.
Breaking those two conditions above is likely to have politicians removed, forcibly if need be, & a possible hefty prison term for breaking their constitution.
Who writs this constitution?
And how do you prevent filth like me getting involved with writing it
Us English agents are everywhere
You know how evil the English are
All got two heads
and eat babies
Geri, you haven’t even thought about how and more importantly who will write those constitutions. While many of you want to cause the break up of the union, you don’t really want to be elected. So you won’t be part of forming the future rules.
You know who like to get involved in actual politics? Activists. Tra ns activists, left wing activists, SNP type people.
It’s amazing innit? How other countries all over the fucking world manage to conduct their affairs without running it past yoons first, joining a union or beating down the UKs door to sign themselves up!
How do other countries manage it eh?
the ignorance of a Yoon never fails tho.
We already have one, ya rocket.
(On Chucky becoming King..)
“However, the meeting is not entirely free from principles of contractual government or monarchy. In Part II of the Council, the new King is required to swear an oath to uphold the separation of church and state in Scotland, in accordance with the Claim of Right (3/7)
The Claim of Right of 1689 is not the bee’s knees in many quarters because of its 17th century anti-Catholicism, and very understandably so. But the idea of a contractual monarchy was first introduced into Scottish thought in the 14th century appeals to the Avignon Papacy (4/7)
And the high principles of equality in the American Declaration of Independence, co-existed with the evil of slavery for the best part of a century – but these principles of equality were still well worth saying (5/7)
The Claim of Right is properly seen as part of a golden thread of Scottish constitutional thought stretching from the Arbroath Declaration to the present day, that government is contractual and the people, or Community of the Realm, are ultimately sovereign (6/7)
In any event, it can hardly be argued that the Claim of Right is merely a historical curiosity, when one of the first acts of the new King is to be required to swear an oath to uphold it! This is the sort of history which can shape the future (7/7).
Alex Salmond.
Scots shall decide it’s constitution built upon the one we already have.
You should wonder why the UK doesn’t have one written down anywhere. But we all know why. It’s so Perfidious Albion can chop & change as the need arises. Slippery barstewards.
In solidarity with Mia’s valued contributions above, and in particular her referencing of Aidan O’Neill KC’s profoundly relevant constitutional thinking, I would draw attention to the following webpage which quotes at length part of a Brexit Appeal submission Aidan O’Neill made to the UK Supreme Court on behalf of The Independent Workers Union of Great Britain in 2016:
SCOTTISH AND ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL HERITAGES CONTRASTED
link to gobha-uisge.blogspot.com
Thanks for the link!
Well fuck what the English Supreme Court has decided! If we’ve got shit going on in our country we’ll deal with it ourselves! We should not collaborate with this.
P.S. I don’t dislike English for being English, I refer to institutions.
“Alexander Gavin”
No such thing as the “English Supreme Court” !
The Supreme Court is a UK institution !
Poor stuff “Gavin” !
Damn poor !
YS: 4.41 23/04/35
No, eating babies and suchlike was the staple fare of the so called “venerable” Bede: the archetype Anglocentric myth fabricating historian..
I think you will find that the common conception back in the day was that the English had tails; all to do with with the church not being best pleased by the English braining archbishop Beck (or whatever his name was) and being branded a nation of “dogs” for the act by the Vatican as a result..
Woof woof..
Ooo err!
Then again there is Niggle Farages “blessed” no incomers ruling ensuring continuing English in-breeding and the resultant rash of simian tails on newborns just to remind us what our ancestors already here and abroad commonly thought of the English.
Pinkie 1547 wasn’t a great day out ultimately but the Scots cry of “c’mon ya tykes an’ well cut yer tails aff” still reverberates..
In amongst all the banter, you do realise don’t you that Germans still refer to English – yes English – as “Island Monkeys”..
Them, not me.
Just saying..
I wonder how many genuine English people there are in England. Maybe 40 million as a ballpark figure?
I wonder how many genuine Scots there are in Scotland. Maybe 4 million as a ballpark figure?
Given the unarguable disparities in population sizes, by a factor of 10 to 1, you really have to marvel at anybody who would want to start accusing the far larger group of being inbred.
Still though, it makes you think … Could he have a point? Is congenital idiocy widely recognised as a consequence of inbreeding within a small population?
Haha, will the next pope be a catholic?
SNP. Spineless cowards. You have continued to support this disgrace. Shame on you.