Scottish Union for Education – Newsletter No105
Themes: protecting single-sex spaces, and a suspended councillor speaks out
Councillor Alastair Redman
PLEASE SUPPORT OUR WORK by donating to SUE. Click on the link to donate or subscribe, or ‘buy us a coffee’. All our work is based on donations from supporters.
This week we look further into the issue of single-sex spaces in schools and question the role of ‘experts’ ruling over our democratic institutions. As part of this we have a letter from councillor Alastair Redman, who has been suspended by the Standards Commission for Scotland over comments he allegedly made about a boy entering girls’ spaces.
We should all demand the right to single-sex spaces in schools
When SUE was formed two years ago, I didn’t imagine that one of the issues we’d end up writing about was boys wearing dresses and using girls toilets and changing areas, but as we have seen with the Sandie Peggie case, the question of women’s and girls’ private spaces has become an important issue.
On top of the Peggie case, we now have that of independent councillor Alastair Redman, who has been suspended for apparently calling a (presumedly ‘non-binary’) 15-year-old schoolboy a ‘sexual deviant’ after the pupil allegedly used a girls’ changing room.
I spoke to councillor Redman, and it is difficult to see his suspension outwith the ideological battle taking place around the transgender issue. As far as he is concerned, his suspension is a farce and turns the world upside down, so rather than the issue being the safety of girls in a school, through the machinations of the harassment ‘experts’, it has transformed into the need to protect the boy.
This comes at a time when the Scottish government and John Swinney, in particular, are under attack for refusing to clarify their position on sex-based spaces.
Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay, during First Ministers’ Questions, asked John Swinney the general question, ‘Should women and girls be entitled to female-only spaces?’ Swinney refused to answer the question and was similarly unclear when asked about the Scottish NHS guidance that states that single-sex spaces are not protected in the health service.
The confusion about women’s spaces and the pressure on Swinney have been increased by the EHRC (the Equality and Human Rights Commission) noting that the NHS has a legal obligation regarding the provision of single-sex spaces. J. K. Rowling has also come out arguing that now is the time for political parties to show their true colours on this issue.
As Findlay notes, the ‘bizarre beliefs’ that underpin the transgender ideology adopted by the Scottish government have ‘seeped deep into the roots of Scotland’s public bodies’. One example of this can be found in the use of ‘correct’ pronouns by the Ethical Standards Commissioner, who started the investigation into councillor Alastair Redman.
The Standards Commission (a separate body from the Ethical Standards Commissioner) suspended Redman based largely on a telephone discussion he had with an education officer in January 2013.
The accusations against the councillor are that he ‘made a serious accusation on his own behalf (as opposed to just passing on what his constituents had allegedly told him), being both that the child had undertaken a potentially criminal act and was likely also “sexually deviant”’. The criminal act in question referred to video-recording equipment being set up in girls’ changing room, while the idea of sexual deviance is said to be a prejudice of Redman’s based solely on the fact that the boy sometimes wore a dress. This was helped, the Standards Commission argues, by Redman’s ‘misapprehension that anyone who cross-dressed must be transgender’.
As a result, various codes of conduct are said to have been breached in terms of being ‘disrespectful towards the child’; making allegations towards someone with a ‘protected characteristic’ when there was no proof of video-recording equipment in a girls’ changing room; and having ‘failed to foster good relations between different people’.
Additionally, due to the councillor’s ‘position of power’, Redman’s remarks were deemed to be ‘inappropriate, offensive and intimidating’ and ‘had the potential to make the child and his parents feel humiliated and insulted’.
The ruling SNP group in Argyll and Bute, the council area in question, has demanded that Redman apologise to the child.
Talking to Redman, he argues that the terms he used have been misreported and that everything he was discussing was done as a representation of what his constituents had said to him. He explains that there were more than half a dozen parents who had raised concerns about the boy using girls’ spaces and that all he was doing was raising these concerns.
Additionally, he notes that none of this was made public by him; rather, the father of the boy in question, who has a connection with the school, immediately went on Facebook when he heard about the allegations.
Moreover, Redman notes, the father should not have known the source of the complaint, but the school messed up and told the father that it was Redman; as a result, it was the father who made everything public. ‘The idea of me damaging the child’s reputation is nonsense’, he argues; ‘I didn’t make it public, the father of the child did that’.
Redman explains that the father said he was ‘going to get me’ in his Facebook posts, and then the father put in a complaint to the standards committee. ‘This has been dragging on for two years’, Redman notes.
Redman received an apology from the Education department for disclosing his name to the father of the son in question.
Talking to the Oban Times, said, Redman argued that, ‘This ruling is a disgrace and a politically motivated attempt to silence me for standing up for the protection of girls’ spaces.
‘I was elected to represent my constituents and relay their safeguarding concerns – yet I am being punished for doing exactly that. This is not justice; it is an attack on free speech and democracy.
‘The so-called “investigation” was biased from the outset. How can the Ethical Standards Commissioner claim impartiality when every member I have been in contact with includes pronouns in their email signatures?
‘Their decision is not about upholding standards – it is about enforcing an ideology and punishing those who refuse to comply.
‘This ruling exposes the two-tier system at play. In July 2024, Glasgow City Councillor Elaine Gallagher faced no sanction after referring to attendees of a women’s rights rally as “Nazis” during a council meeting.
‘Despite the Standards Commission acknowledging that her remarks were disrespectful, they concluded that her right to freedom of expression as a politician commenting on a matter of public interest warranted no formal breach.
‘Worse still, this ruling sends a dangerous message to young girls in this school and others across Scotland. What girl will feel safe speaking up about a male entering her private space when she sees what has happened here?
‘This decision will have a chilling effect on any girl who wishes to raise concerns in the future – she will know that rather than being listened to, she could be ignored, shamed, or even punished.
‘We are seeing more and more cases across Scotland where people are punished simply for standing up for women’s rights – just look at what is happening to nurse Sandie Peggie.
‘This is the dangerous path we are on: where safeguarding concerns are ignored, and those who raise them are targeted.’
Interestingly, part of the reason why Gallagher was not suspended was because he identifies as a transgender woman. The Standards Commission panel gave this explanation: ‘The panel accepted that, as an elected representative, councillor Gallagher was expected to express her views and, further, that she was entitled to do so in a forthright and even robust manner. The panel further accepted that, as a trans-woman, councillor Gallagher faces discrimination, and that her speech had been made in this context.’
All about the evidence, it is interesting to note that the Commission states that ‘Gallagher faces discrimination’, but is this true? Certainly, when it comes to his ability to spout bile about supposedly fascist feminists the very opposite appears to be the case. Additionally, as you can see in the quotes above, even Redman feels the need to use ‘correct’ (i.e. wrong sex) pronouns for Gallagher, who is a man, perhaps because to do otherwise would lead to further sanctions. This, I suspect, goes against councillor Redman’s own understanding and beliefs, but even he feels the need to ‘take the knee’ to Gallagher and his self-identification: This feels like positive discrimination (or privilege) surrounding Gallagher rather than negative discrimination.
Going back to the Commission’s ruling over Redman, it is also interesting to see how they castigated him for his narrow-minded idea that wearing a dress meant the boy was transgender, while at the same time using the idea of ‘protected characteristics’ in their condemnation of Redman. Perhaps the Commission could clarify what protected characteristic the boy in question has? Is wearing a dress a protected characteristic? And if so, when a boy puts on a dress and enters a girls’ space, is that OK? Perhaps we could ask John Swinney, although it is unlikely he would be able to answer this profoundly difficult question!
Clearly, we do not know what happened in this case. Did the boy set up recording equipment or go into girls’ spaces? It seems strange that girls are making these accusations and parents then taking them to a councillor. But we should not find guilt if none is proven, and in this case we should accept the school’s and investigators’ word that no evidence was found.
What we can unequivocally note, however, is that there is something potentially problematic – deeply problematic – about these ethics and standards bodies ruling on what is and is not correct language or ideas. As it happens, even if Redman did express his opinion to an education officer about sexual deviance, surely he has every right to do so? I would even support Gallagher’s right to spout his vile and ludicrous comments about ‘Nazi’ women – it’s called democracy and freedom of speech. Surely it is far better to have politicians saying what they think and believe so that we, the public, can judge them for what they really believe rather than a set of opinions based on some sanitised version of themselves.
The idea that the Standards Commission is simply a neutral, evidence-based arbiter is somewhat ludicrous, and for me at least, they look like a threat to democracy rather than the upholders of it.
Stuart Waiton
The politicisation of standards: why my suspension should concern us all
Alastair Redman is an independent councillor for the Kintyre and the Islands ward
On 19 February 2025, the Standards Commission ruled to suspend me from my role as an Argyll & Bute councillor for two months. My alleged wrongdoing? Relaying the safeguarding concerns of my constituents regarding the protection of girls’ spaces in schools.
This ruling is not just about me – it is about the erosion of democratic accountability, the suppression of free speech, and the chilling effect this will have on any girl or woman who dares to raise concerns about males entering female-only spaces.
The case against me
My suspension was based on a conversation I had with a council officer in January 2023. During that conversation, I relayed concerns that had been brought to me by constituents regarding a situation at an Argyll and Bute school. Instead of addressing these concerns, the Standards Commission has twisted my words and sought to paint me as someone who personally made an accusation against an individual, rather than what I actually did – convey the anxieties of those I was elected to represent.
The ruling claims that I made a ‘serious and unsubstantiated’ allegation based on a protected characteristic. What I did was pass on concerns in the same way any responsible councillor would. If raising safeguarding concerns is now deemed a punishable offence, where does this leave other elected representatives who find themselves in a similar position? Will they be deterred from acting in the public interest out of fear of political repercussions?
A two-tier system of justice
This decision exposes the clear double standards in how the Standards Commission applies its rulings. Consider the case of Glasgow City councillor Elaine Gallagher, who in 2024 faced no sanction after referring to attendees of a women’s rights rally as ‘Nazis’ during a council meeting. Despite acknowledging the inflammatory nature of her remarks, the Standards Commission ruled that her right to free expression as a politician was paramount. Yet, in my case, I have been suspended for simply raising safeguarding concerns.
The message is clear: if you align with a particular political ideology, you can say almost anything. If you challenge that ideology, you will be punished.
The chilling effect on women and girls
This ruling is bigger than just me – it sends a dangerous signal to women and girls across Scotland. If a democratically elected councillor can be punished for raising safeguarding concerns, what chance does a teenage girl have when she feels uncomfortable about a male entering her private space?
This ruling ensures that fewer girls will speak up in the future. They will see what has happened here and realise that rather than being listened to, they may be ignored, ridiculed, or even accused of wrongdoing themselves. That is the real consequence of this politically motivated decision.
A wider trend across Scotland
What happened to me is not an isolated case. Look at Nurse Sandie Peggie, who is currently fighting an employment tribunal after objecting to a biological male using the female changing room at her workplace in Fife. She raised a legitimate concern, just as I did. Yet she, too, faces punishment for refusing to comply with an ideology that denies biological reality.
When did safeguarding become controversial? When did standing up for single-sex spaces become an act worthy of disciplinary action? The people pushing these punishments do not represent the silent majority who simply want common sense and fairness to prevail.
I will not be silenced
Let me be clear – this ruling does not change my position. I remain a councillor, and I will continue to speak up for my constituents, especially when it comes to the protection of women’s and girls’ single-sex spaces. If the intent behind my suspension was to intimidate me or others into silence, it has failed.
The people who elected me did so because they know where I stand. They trust me to represent them without fear or favour, and that is exactly what I will continue to do.
This ruling has far-reaching consequences beyond my own case. It sets a precedent that free speech is conditional – that elected officials must toe the line of a politicised Standards Commission or face removal from public life. This is not democracy; it is censorship dressed up as regulation.
A call to action
I urge everyone – regardless of political views – to recognise what is happening here. If an elected councillor can be punished simply for raising concerns on behalf of their constituents, then democracy itself is under threat. Today it is me; tomorrow it could be any representative who refuses to comply with a predetermined narrative.
The fight for safeguarding, for truth, and for free speech is far from over. I will continue to stand my ground, and I encourage others to do the same.
News round-up
A selection of the main stories with relevance to Scottish education in the press in recent weeks, by Simon Knight.
https://archive.is/mXIqw Joanna Williams, Post-Covid we need to say why school matters. It’s no wonder attendance is down after children were told that lessons by Zoom would do. 17/02/25
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/secretive-snp-government-forced-publish-34701492 David Walker, Secretive SNP Government forced to publish school sex survey review after threat from watchdog. The Scottish Government's Chief Statistician has been told to prove he is independent of SNP Ministers after failing to publish a review of the controversial survey which asked kids as young as 14 about their sex lives. 18/02/25
https://www.thetimes.com/article/11007306-35a3-4ba2-ab96-e7dd58f71940?shareToken=e039645375d64e598452754d39a8e426 Jonathon Ames, ‘I was alone’: the trans row that triggered a landmark school ruling. A mother of two and secondary school worker was labelled a ‘neo-Nazi’ for her concerns about the curriculum. 19/02/25
https://archive.is/BDtkn Sanchez Manning, The trans row engulfing grassroots cricket. A Telegraph investigation has found that a notorious group of activists is teaching coaches how to incorporate trans women into the sport. 18/02/25
https://substack.com/home/post/p-157880483 Joanna Williams, The ignoble history of sexuality education. 25/02/25
https://archive.is/tmd9O Alex Massie, Politicians should be ashamed of their support for gender reform bill. As Anas Sarwar steps back from the controversial self-ID bill, there are many people, most of them women, who feel a strong urge to shout ‘I told you so’. 19/02/25
https://substack.com/home/post/p-157533875?source=queue Malcolm Clark, Scotland's Queer Culture War in Schools. The new reading list for English exams in Scotland's schools is a betrayal of teenagers in the pursuit of a dumbed down, 'queer' dystopia. It has the fingerprints of the LGBTQ+ lobby all over it. 21/02/25
https://archive.is/Dry7Z Rebecca McCurdy, Schools could face Sandie Peggie-style legal dispute. 22/02/25
https://forwomen.scot/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/FWS-to-CabSec-Education-24Feb2025.pdf Trina Budge, Marion Calder and Susan Smith, With the Sandie Peggie v NHS Fife case featuring prominently in the media and discussed in Parliament we wish to draw your attention to the obvious parallel with the widespread failure of Scottish schools to ensure provision of separate sex facilities for pupils. 24/02/25
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sam-fender-is-correct-white-privilege-ignores-class/ Patrick West, Sam Fender is right about white privilege. 24/02/25
Thanks for reading the SUE Newsletter.
Please visit our Substack
Please join the union and get in touch with our organisers.
Email us at info@sue.scot
Contact SUEs Parents and Supporters Group at psg@sue.scot
Follow SUE on X (FKA Twitter)
Please pass this newsletter on to your friends, family and workmates.