Greens should do the right thing and drop Chapman as an MSP

The Herald Scotland

23-04-2025

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh.
• If this poor excuse for a politician stood up in any court of law and called the judge a bigot, she'd be thrown in a cell. A poorly prepared Holyrood bill was axed because it impeded on UK legislation, hence the Supreme Court case. A number of bitter and twisted trans activists see this as a reduction in their rights.
Nonsense. If the Greens leadership have any sense of responsibility, this woman should be sacked. The Scottish Parliament should ensure she plays no part in our legislation process. And if you voted for her, you should be contacting her and informing her you won't be doing so again.
Steven Matthews, Kilsyth.
Read more letters
​A dangerous precedent
The following is not intended to patronise; rather it's intended as primer for the Maggie Chapmans of this world – and those who would, even for a second, defend, mitigate or excuse her behaviour, from any corner of politics, be it left or right. And quite frankly, I'm amazed I have to put this into words for some who should know better.
The separation of powers that sees the legislative and executive branches of the state stand proud of each other is a cornerstone of any modern democracy. You may not like decisions the UK's Supreme Court makes on contentious issues that are wrestled with as part of the inevitable ebb and flow of debate within a free and pluralistic society. And you are entitled to passionately protest against decisions accordingly – urging a reconsideration or change to the ruling.
What you shouldn't do – especially as a supposedly grown-up politician – is calumniate the legislative branch, using inflammatory language as part of ad hominem attacks on the judges themselves. Because, no matter how just you think your cause is, how anointed your position, and how righteous your intent, it sets a dangerous precedent that would validate/legitimise attacks on the rule of law, and attendant norms, from any part of the political spectrum.
Witness the personalised attacks from right-wing commentators, newspapers and politicians on the Supreme Court judges in the wake of the ruling on the prorogation of Parliament post-Brexit. "Progressive" voices were quick to raise concerns about such rhetoric at the time. And rightly so. You can't then unilaterally exempt yourself from such democratic norms when you consider your cause to be just. That quickly gives way to a form of moralistic tyranny.
It was the writer CS Lewis who best captured where this could leave us: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive... those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Colin Montgomery, Edinburgh.
• Maggie Chapman's words are on the strong side but the sentiment is correct. The Supreme Court's judgement that women are defined by their biology goes against 150 years of feminist activism and theorising.
Brian Dempsey, Dundee.
Stop the insults
I am immensely disappointed at James McEnaney's "Lessons to Learn" article ("Spare a thought for young people caught up in anti-trans storm," The Herald, April 19). As an educated and educational writer, I would have expected so much more in terms of balance and insight.
I am one of the large majority of people (men and women) in the UK who breathed a sigh of relief when the Supreme Court verdict was announced, but who simultaneously felt a deep pain for what this verdict would mean for all trans people. I am not transphobic, nor do I support any far-right group, nor am I involved in any hate group. Mr McEnaney seems to be labelling me and everyone else who supported the verdict as belonging to one of the aforesaid camps. I am insulted by his sweeping dismissals as will many others have been.
Of course this verdict brings challenges for all public bodies – actually for groups of all sorts including small businesses, charities and others. Good! Because the concerns of trans people do need to be addressed, just as my needs as non-trans need to be addressed – both of them respectfully.
These challenges existed before for public bodies, only it was the other way around in many cases – witness the NHS Fife and Sandie Peggie saga – where it seems that the powers that be failed to consult properly on any changes going forward. Non-trans people (the vast majority of the population) did not seem to be being consulted on changes – is it any wonder they found a voice and demanded to be heard?
Perhaps now this legal definition will force us to start having calm consultations which genuinely seek creative solutions with the various parties affected. But if we start from the premise that anyone who supports the Supreme Court's decision is anti-trans or hate-filled or extremist in some way, then we're doomed from the start. Especially in large organisations, it cannot be beyond the wit of man (and woman and trans) to find compromise arrangements. Both sides have to move towards some compromise. In terms of new design, any new buildings need to cater for both groups of people, just as they have to do nowadays for people with disabilities. And, as a society, we will probably all move towards greater understanding, awareness and acceptance over time. But we'll probably never reach a point where we all see eye to eye on this issue, so we need to accept that and stop the insult-slinging – especially by educated people who should know better.
Katie Allstaff, Aberfeldy.
Westminster's hypocrisy
It was intriguing to note Fleur Anderson, the Northern Ireland Office minister, highlight that opinion polls will determine if and when a border referendum is called ("Opinion polls will determine Northern Irish vote", The Herald, April 22).
Under the Good Friday Agreement, the power to call a border poll in Northern Ireland rests with the Secretary of State.
The legislation states the Northern Ireland Secretary should call a referendum on Irish unity "if it appears likely that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the UK and form part of a united Ireland".
However, there are no set criteria for when a referendum would be triggered. Previous secretaries of state have refused to outline what exactly would be required. As highlighted, Ms Anderson said that "it would be based on opinion polls".
With opinion polls in Scotland showing a considerable majority now in favour of Scottish independence, it is rather hypocritical to note the UK Government stating that the future of the people of Northern Ireland should be based on opinion polling, but that is not the situation in Scotland.
Alex Orr, Edinburgh.
Vladimir Putin (Image: PA)
What would Putin want?
Despite the referendum result of 2014 and the current political demise of independence and the reluctance of the SNP even to mention the topic, there appears to be substantial ongoing support at least for the concept of separation from the UK (Letters, April 22).
It seems to me that two simple, rhetorical questions dispose entirely of the issue. If we had a re-run of the 2014 referendum tomorrow, what result would Vladimir Putin wish for and why would he wish for that result?
It has been apparent throughout the Russian hostilities upon Ukraine that the UK is seen to be a bastion of opposition to Russian aggression and, given the apparent understanding between Mr Trump and Mr Putin, the UK becomes more and more a last bastion. I am perplexed that any Scottish voter, never mind about half of all Scottish voters, would seek the diminution of that bastion at this time.
Michael Sheridan, Glasgow.