Direct Democracy (DD) in Scotland - What’s the latest?
Much has been happening on the Direct Democracy front, but the media hasn’t covered it, so the public is in the dark. So now’s a good time for an update.
To recap
Scotland’s first request for a Popular Referendum on a devolved matter was made by the Scottish National Congress Steering Committee (SNC) in September 2023. It pointed out to the Holyrood Criminal Justice Committee (CJC) during its Call for Views on the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill (VWJR), that two constitutional changes - Juryless Trials and ditching the Not Proven verdict - should be approved by the People. The request was ignored: (i) by MSPs in their responses to numerous letters from SNC members, supporters and the wider public, (ii) by CJC when it issued its 29th March 2024 report to Parliament and (iii) again by MSPs during the Stage 1 parliamentary debate on 23rd April 2024. So much for MSPs representing the People!
The original VWJR Bill was based on only 179 responses from the public to ScotGov’s 2022 consultation. Nevertheless, ScotGov stated in the accompanying Policy Memorandum that
“The Bill content is the product of significant engagement with the general public.”
ScotGov has not replied to my repeated requests for clarification of what appears to be, at best, a very misleading statement or, more accurately, an outright lie.
The Scottish Administration is deceiving the public and MSPs are ignoring the Scottish People’s efforts to make their voice heard through a Popular Referendum. A referendum would simply ask: “Do you agree with the introduction of Juryless Trials for rape cases in Scotland?” The two possible answers would be “Yes” or “No”. By voting to hold a referendum, MSPs would be respecting Scotland’s constitutional cornerstone - Popular Sovereignty - which they’re presently ignoring - and the People, rather than MSPs and Parliament, would have the last word.
Please visit the web pages DD Campaigns on wecollect.scot for further information on how to keep up the pressure on MSPs.
The legal profession
Since the Bill’s publication, the Scottish legal profession has been adamantly opposed to many aspects including the two issues mentioned above. With regard to juryless trials, this opposition extends to the entire UK legal profession, plus that of Ireland. It issued a Joint Statement on 10th May 2024:
“At a time when the separation of court and state, so crucial to liberal democracy, is under attack, the Four Bars stand as one in opposition to this unjustified and dangerous proposed development. It is hoped that the new First Minister of Scotland will heed these concerns and change course.”
Scotland’s National Human Rights Action Plan (SNAP 2)
SNAP 2, published on 30th March 2023, states:
“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is regarded as the foundation of the international human rights system. With two international human rights treaties, the UDHR forms the International Bill of Human Rights. These two treaties are:
· International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
· International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
The UK, including Scotland, has ratified both Covenants. The Scottish Government has committed to incorporating ICESCR into domestic Scots law.”
UN Human Rights Committee
On 3rd May 2024 the UN Human Rights Committee published its 8th Periodic Report on UK compliance with its commitments in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1976. It wasn’t good news for the UK. The Committee repeated the following comment from previous reports dating back to 2008:
“The Committee remains concerned that not all the rights enshrined in the Covenant are adequately incorporated into the domestic legal system.”
This applies to each Scottish citizen’s direct Political Right to referendums on devolved matters such as the VWJR Bill so, during the coming months, MSPs must choose between recognising the Human/Political Rights of Scottish citizens or opting for the conflicting alternative of continuing to ignore their referendum requests.
In a second criticism, the Committee commented:
“The Committee also reiterates that the State party (the UK) should reconsider its position regarding accession to the first Optional Protocol to the Covenant, which provides for an individual complaint mechanism.”
This means that Scots can’t even complain to the SHRC and/or UN about not being able to access the fundamental DD Political Rights agreed to by the UK in 1976.
And that, dear reader, is how Parliamentary Sovereignty works - to the advantage of entrenched power - Parliament, MSPs and Government - as opposed to that of the People. So much for the People’s individual direct Political Rights as described in UDHR (1948) and ICCPR (1976). Scotland a Human Rights World Leader? Please pull the other one…
Henry B. Ferguson
Leah Gunn Barrett