Whatever your feelings on trans debate, it is absurd Maggie Chapman can vote to save herself

The Scottish Green MSP won the vote on Tuesday

Maggie Chapman has survived a vote to keep her top job on Holyrood’s Equalities Committee in a hearing that highlights deep flaws in how the Scottish Parliament functions.

The Scottish Greens MSP had faced calls to go after accusing the Supreme Court of "bigotry, prejudice and hatred", following its gender ruling earlier this month.

A general view of the Scottish Parliament building in Edinburgh | PA

A motion was then brought to remove Ms Chapman from the committee by Tory MSP Tess White - a vote the Greens politician won 4-3. On the surface, it looks like a motion went before MSPs, but she won it, so that’s that.

However, much like her own criticism of the Supreme Court, it is possible to criticise a verdict, or at least the method in which it was reached.

In this case, Ms White, Scottish Labour’s Paul O’Kane and Tory MSP Pam Gosal voted in favour of the motion to remove Ms Chapman from the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. SNP MSPs Karen Adam, Marie McNair and Evelyn Tweed voted against the motion.

This meant the deciding vote, the one that decided her fate, fell to Ms Chapman. In a hearing about her competency to hold a position, she could vote for herself.

Maggie Chapman. (Photo by Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

This is patently absurd and a reminder why so many parliamentarians from Westminster sneer at Holyrood, believing its committees to be weak, its practises backwards, and the level of its debate lesser. It is akin to former prime minister Boris Johnson being able to vote on whether he had misled Parliament - a suggestion that would have been laughed out of the building.

It is also important to note this criticism has nothing to do with the merits of Ms Chapman’s argument. You can believe trans women are women, the Supreme Court verdict will be overturned by the European Court of Human Rights and For Women Scotland wholly wrong in their argument, but still recognise in a hearing about competency for a role, the accused should not have a vote.

If Ms Chapman wants to raise concerns about the legitimacy of certain verdicts, she may want to look at how her continued presence on the committee came about.