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.