Maggie Chapman MSP slanders Supreme Court

Perhaps the joking nickname Maggie Personperson is more prescient than we thought. Perhaps Maggie is in fact two persons, who have different views and do different things from one another.

It makes as much sense as anything else

I don't know which way is up anymore.

Our Maggie attends the meeting on the 8th May where the SPCB committee agree the following points, amongst others:

Update on facilities and services at Holyrood: Paper 26

9. The SPCB agreed its interim stance, to ensure the Parliament fulfils its legal responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010, and Workplace Regulations, in light of the Supreme Court ruling that, in the context of the Equality Act 2010, “sex”, “man” and “woman” mean biological sex and the interim update on the practical implications of the judgment issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

10. The SPCB agreed to communicate its interim stance as soon as possible to provide clarity to passholders and visitors using the building. (my bold)

And now Mags is questioning these decisions she was involved in making? I mean, like, what?

This letter is essentially Chapman publicly lobbying against, and criticising, herself.

Well, she voted to exonerate herself a week or two ago, so its consistent at least.

She's got a touch of the Prince Harrys going on there....

Chapman's part in the toilets for men and women saga is revealed:

Levi Pay

The minutes from the 8th May meeting of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) - essentially the body that oversees the property, services and staff of the Scottish Parliament - have now been published.
@MaggieChapman
was, indeed, present at the meeting.

This makes Chapman's public signing of a letter criticising, and asking questions about, the SPCB's decision at this meeting (in relation to toilets and the Parliament's compliance with the Equality Act) all the more strange.

This letter is essentially Chapman publicly lobbying against, and criticising, herself.

Why would Chapman want to remain a part of an SPCB team that she publicly criticises in this way?

Why would the other SPCB members want her around the table if she is going to publicly turn on the SPCB's decisions after a meeting?

It all seems like a very odd state of affairs.

SPCB minutes: https://parliament.scot/about/how-parliament-works/parliament-organisations-groups-and-people/scottish-parliamentary-corporate-body

Open letter: https://goodlawproject.org/open-letter-scottish-parliament-urged-to-change-its-transphobic-toilet-rules/

There was even a question about it yesterdays toliet debate:
https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/search-what-was-said-in-parliament/meeting-of-parliament-27-05-2025?meeting=16448&iob=140454

Craig Hoy (South Scotland) (Con)

Will Christine Grahame say whether the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body’s decision was unanimous and, if so, whether that means that the Green member of that body both supported the measures and wrote a letter in opposition to them?

Christine Grahame

The letter that was written is a private matter. I am not in a position to disclose it. The recipients may disclose the contents of that letter if they wish.
Decisions by the corporate body do not ever go to a vote; they are made simply by consent.

I don't think equality legislation is devolved, so hopefully it couldn't be done. Having a GRC won't be a magic ticket into opposite sex facilities so will it be popular? Not among the people with bad motives anyway.

'Maggie Chapman' and the word 'work' in the same sentence?

Come on now. Don't be silly.

I look forward to hearing her working.

Perhaps Maggie thinks that third spaces were always the sensible position but couldn't manage to say this or she needs to get an urgent hearing test because she's failed to hear all the women proposing this and failed to hear all the transwomen flatly refusing this as a possibility.

This way Maggie gets to reverse ferret without reverse ferreting and apologising to anyone.

Well, i am confused.

Now it all makes sense; the overly masculine surname, the batshit comments that the most ardent tra would think were a bit much, if she was on team terf all along. Actually, I think she overdid it a little.

Looks like everything we know is wrong.

Chapman's level of crazy was just an overblown act. She was a secret terf all along who fought to retain her position so she could undermine trans stuff from within by acting daft and get women their toilets back.

Congratulations Agent Chapman! :) You really had us convinced too.

Johnstone, the head of the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body (SPCB), said access to toilets would be based on “biological sex” and that some of Holyrood’s facilities would be designated as gender neutral spaces, The Times reports.

The changes were signed off by the SPCB, which is responsible for the day-to-day running of the Parliament as a workplace and employer.

That body includes Green MSP Maggie Chapman (above), who found herself at the centre of a major storm after criticising the Supreme Court’s ruling as fuelled by “bigotry, prejudice and hatred”.

She narrowly survived a vote on a motion to remove her from her position as the deputy convenor of Holyrood’s Equality Committee last month.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/scottish-parliament-bans-trans-women-103106495.html

Not convinced that Chapman is a Terf... well in that case why is Harvie targeting her involvement by condemning the new toilet plan which she approved. :)

For Women Scotland
https://x.com/ForWomenScot/status/1921126301676490969

It was made clear yesterday that Maggie Chapman of the SGP approved the toilet plans. It's rumoured that she and Harvie do not get on. Is he stitching her up?

She's been uncharacteristically quiet on the matter.

It will be a case of whack a mole. But so far it never stands up in court. And it's all proved very educational; it's this behaviour that has opened the eyes of many members of the HoC and the HoL, and the EHRC are on to it. At least until their leader is replaced with a captured mouthpiece.

I have been wondering about the status of the GRR. There is an argument that the UKGOV withdraws the veto in light of the UKSC ruling. The GRR then receives Royal Assent and becomes law. 25% of Scots between the ages of 16 and 25 immediately acquire a GRC. Whither any attempt to re-write the EqA to change the meaning of sex?

not surprised, Andy Wightman is a nationalist and will always be pushing for undermining Great Britain.

Wtf is Wightman playing at?!

'Just as this Supreme Court decision deserves to be respected, so too does the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament. MSPs passed the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill by 86 votes to 39. The bill currently sits on the desk of the presiding officer but a Section 35 order issued by the UK Government prevents her from submitting the bill for royal assent.

Since the substantive basis for that Section 35 order (the impact of the bill on the operation of the Equality Act 2010) no longer applies, the UK Government has a duty to reconsider the continuing validity of the order. If it fails to do so, a legal challenge may compel it to.

Either way, if there is no lawful impediment to sending the bill for royal assent, then Presiding Officer Alison Johnstone must do her duty, and the bill may well become law just in time for the 2026 Scottish parliamentary election. Scottish ministers may have no plans to reconsider the bill, but they are powerless as to whether it becomes law in its current form or not. '

And today…

https://www.holyrood.com/comment/view,andy-wightman-maggie-chapmans-comments-are-trumpian

I don't think she's even heard of the term conflict of interest, let alone understand it. Voting for yourself in elections, fine as it's unlikely to make a difference. Voting for yourself in a small committee is so obviously wrong that anyone with the tiniest hint of integrity would abstain.

Chapman still has to face an ethics complaint from Ash Regan .

She is accused of breaching Section 7.2 Principles of Public Life and Section 7.3 General Standards of Conduct of the MSPs' code. Complaints made against MSPs are investigated by the independent Ethical Standards Commissioner, a role currently held by Ian Bruce, who was appointed for a six-year term in January 2023..

Voting for herself and being denounced by The Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland is not going to help.

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/ash-regan-reports-maggie-chapman-35098133?

https://www.change.org/scottishparliament

The equalities committee is not fit for purpose.

Well, it's actually not. But the Scotgov doesn't seem that bothered about following its own rules.