One of the reasons I have all but given up on independence is the apathy shown by the Scots, most of them can't even be arsed to sign a petition and seem happy with the status quo.
Threaten to close down Celtic park or Ibrox stadium and you'd hit the petition target within days.
'We' Can't do anything, that's the problem, the people we elected to SERVE us have many options but sit on their hands and do nowt! They (the SNP) Should be tried for treason, If the people don't wipe out the SNP next year, I'm done.
"As you know, the UK ratified the ICCPR in 1976 and until now it was believed that the UK hadn’t implemented the Covenant in domestic law. I now believe that’s not the case."
So, Henry B. Ferguson "believes" the UK HAS implemented the Covenant in domestic law? Surely that should be easy to ascertain.
By saying what it does in the Scotland Act 1998, the UK has done its bit. What I’m saying is that those who are copping out are MSPs who already have full power to implement ICCPR, in its entirety, at any time - but since 1998 they’ve done precisely nothing.
You're telling me something that is common knowledge instead of addressing the point. A straight reading of the passage I quoted can only mean that you "believe" the UK has implemented the Covenant in domestic law. Is that what you "believe"? If so, is what you"believe" actually correct?
You see, I read these things before I sign them. I don't sign something just because somebody makes great claims for it. I don't sign just because the word 'independence' is shoehorned into the text here and there.
I read. And I think about what I've read. Not only what is written, but the way it is written. If I am supposed to take it seriously, I expect to be given the impression that the person writing it as taken it seriously. Has the text been checked for errors? If not, why should I bother with it?
And, of course, I consider the claims made regarding the potential effect of the thing being petitioned for. If somebody is claiming that what they propose will do something of great significance, I think it through to discover whether there is any credibility in that claim. When I say I think it through, what I mean is that I ask all the 'What's next?' questions; as well as a good selection of 'What if?' questions. If the trail of these question does not - or cannot - lead to the effect being claimed, I don't sign. Why would I?
Hi Peter, thanks for your comments. I’m not sure when you say that what the Scotland Act 1998 says is common knowledge. I’m also not sure that everyone knows that in 1998 the UK gave MSPs approval to implement ICCPR in its entirety. I’ve just written to Angus Robertson, Cabinet Secretary for Constitutional matters, to remind him of this awkward reality. Take the Petition as you like - that’s obviously up to you - but 3,509 people (so far…) seem to like the idea.
The point is Petition 2135 demands implementation of ICCPR for devolved matters - no more, no less. That means Political Rights (Initiatives & Referendums) with respect to devolved matters only (ICCPR Art 25). Ultimately, our course of action will hopefully lead to recognition that the Scottish People also have the right to Self-Determination (ICCPR Art. 1) - no more, no less. Please note I didn’t mention the word Independence. Our planned actions will see the full light of day in February 2025 and will be ongoing throughout the coming year, leading up to the 2026 Holyrood election. Where we’re going should therefore help prepare the ground for exactly the same thing as you’re doing with NSP - possibly a complete change of MSPs in 2026. The RSS actions will show concrete results during 2025 compared with international Direct Democracy protocols. This having been said, I’m not sure you realise that we’re both trying to get to the same place but by slightly different means. BTW, this evening our Petition is at 4,267 signatures.
You don't mention the word 'independence' here. But your petition is being sold elsewhere explicitly as a 'solution' to the constitutional issue. For example, I draw your attention to a letter from Andy Anderson - one of many in the same vein - published in The National dated 23 January under the headline 'Signing our petition is the way to end the independence paralysis'.
Lest it be claimed that the headline is not representative of the actual content of the letter, here is a direct quote.
"We have been arguing with the establishment, which unfortunately has included the SNP leadership, since August last year, that if the Scottish Parliament voted to incorporate UN human rights covenants into Scots law – which they are entitled to do under current law, including the Scotland Act – then the Scottish people would have a right to hold a referendum on any political or civil matter including Scottish independence, which could not be legally challenged in Scotland or in international courts."
Will you now write to The National with a 'clarification'? Will you undertake to urge your fans to stop claiming your petition aids Scotland's cause? Will you respond to claims such as those made by Andy Anderson pointing out that he's talking a pile of pish?
I come now to your own nonsensical - not to say dishonest - claims regarding the potential effect of your petition. In your comment above you say,
"Ultimately, our course of action will hopefully lead to recognition that the Scottish People also have the right to Self-Determination . . ."
This is deplorable ignorance! That the Scottish people have the right of self-determination is not in question. That right is deemed by the United Nations to be a human right. Scottish people are human. Duh!
Not only is our right of self-determination guaranteed by the UN, it has even been formally recognised on numerous occasions by the British state. Most notably, with the signature of the British Prime Minister on the Edinburgh Agreement.
Worthy as your petiton may be for other reasons, neither it nor whatever might ensue from it adds anything to the fact of our right of self-determination. You do Scotland's cause an unpardonable disservice by suggesting that our right of self-determination remains to be established.
The issue here is not that we lack the right of self-determination nor that anybody is denying our right of self-determination but that we are being prevented from exercising that right by the Scottish Government acting for the British Government.
Finally, you still haven't addressed my original point. To remind readers of that point after all your squirming evasion, it was regarding the following extract from the preamble to your petition.
"As you know, the UK ratified the ICCPR in 1976 and until now it was believed that the UK hadn’t implemented the Covenant in domestic law. I now believe that’s not the case."
This implies that you believe the UK HAS "implemented the Covenant in domestic law". That is what that statement says. Is this what you believe? Is it true?
I am quite prepared to accept that you have simple expressed yourself clumsily. We've all done it. What we tend to avoid doing is publish what we claim to be a very important document without checking the text thoroughly and repeatedly. You appear to take a more 'relaxed' attitude to the impression you give by the words you publish.
BTW - I have learned not to expect a sensible response from you. So, I shall end this exchange here. Before doing so, however, let me assure you that I will continue to condemn those who are selling your petition with dishonest claims.
Thank you, Peter - let’s see what happens in February when ScotGov’s official comments on the Petition are published as well as the SPICEe expert’s report of Parliament. The public will then be clearly informed as to what our political establishment believes with respect to direct Political Rights and the CPPPC will be forced to take position on next steps.
In my personal book, that’s not all bad as it will provide a useful basis for ongoing campaigning.
Having read the text of the petition, and the Respect Scottish Sovereignty website, I am not sure what precisely is being called for. I realise it is something to do with referendums -- but what are the details?
There needs to be a clear simple one-sentence summary, which is then expanded into a paragraph or two of detailed explanation.
I do think this campaign is *potentially* very worthwhile, but at the moment it lacks persuasive ability.
As you read the material, please note that under the Swiss model, Referendums are a means of contesting proposed legislation - i.e. before it comes into effect -whereas Inititiatives are popular proposals to change the Constitution - so called "agenda-setting" actions.
I’m not a lawyer however, in principle, the People control the Constitution so I don’t believe there is such a thing as a non-constitutional law in Switzerland. When the Politicians implement an Initiative - i.e. a constitutional change - they can’t mess around and must follow the People’s instruction. If they didn’t there would be uproar. Of course in Scotland you don’t have a written constitution so that’s already a difficulty. Nevertheless, were ICCPR to be implemented entirely - in other words also covering reserved matters - things would start to become very interesting. That’s why the recent report from the Scottish Human Rights commission is so important - it confirms that, according to the Scotland Act 1998 - ScotGov is obliged to fully implement ICCPR. But MSPs have done nothing. Full implementation opens the door to Popular Initiatives - in other words control of the Constitution. I leave you to imagine the rest…
I’ll try to be brief ! Apart from the right to stand for election, right now the Scottish People have no direct Political Rights on national matters such as, particularly, the right to Referendums (to accept or refuse proposed legislation) or Initiatives (to either write a new Constitution or launch proposed constitutional changes). ICCPR Art 25 would open the door to both - in other words, a first step towards meaningful Popular Sovereignty.
Referendums and initiatives would apply to devolved legislation under the RSS petition to enact ICCPR into Scots law. A future governance model in an independent Scotland, based on federal and regional constitutions, would decentralise powers to the regions and municipalities.
Below, Henry Ferguson gives a fuller response to your query:
"The Scottish Regions and Municipalities would have the same Political Rights based on a similar model of a proportionally-reduced number of signatories during a defined period of time.
The only difficulty I can see is that under ICCPR, Initiatives take the form of changes to the Constitution and of course there is no written Scottish constitution. If one assumes that there is a very detailed Constitution - as in Switzerland - then Initiatives can cover virtually any subject.
If, however, you start from the presumption of a very simple constitution, you'd be very restricted in terms of issues for Initiatives - only high-level stuff. My personal preference is to have a constitution that starts off with an exhaustive listing of Human Rights and then is minimalist for the rest. Governance model and so on but not too much else.
So, for the moment and without a written Constitution, RSS actions should be restricted to proposed Initiatives ONLY on topics that can be clearly identified as UN-recognised Human Rights like Political Rights and Self-Determination.
One of the reasons I have all but given up on independence is the apathy shown by the Scots, most of them can't even be arsed to sign a petition and seem happy with the status quo.
Threaten to close down Celtic park or Ibrox stadium and you'd hit the petition target within days.
90 minute Scots.
Could we threaten to do that? That would be great!!!
'We' Can't do anything, that's the problem, the people we elected to SERVE us have many options but sit on their hands and do nowt! They (the SNP) Should be tried for treason, If the people don't wipe out the SNP next year, I'm done.
I was an SNP member for 22 years.
Am I eligible yo sign as I am no longer resident in Scotland?
Yes, all members of the Scottish diaspora can sign the petition. Many thanks!
"As you know, the UK ratified the ICCPR in 1976 and until now it was believed that the UK hadn’t implemented the Covenant in domestic law. I now believe that’s not the case."
So, Henry B. Ferguson "believes" the UK HAS implemented the Covenant in domestic law? Surely that should be easy to ascertain.
By saying what it does in the Scotland Act 1998, the UK has done its bit. What I’m saying is that those who are copping out are MSPs who already have full power to implement ICCPR, in its entirety, at any time - but since 1998 they’ve done precisely nothing.
You're telling me something that is common knowledge instead of addressing the point. A straight reading of the passage I quoted can only mean that you "believe" the UK has implemented the Covenant in domestic law. Is that what you "believe"? If so, is what you"believe" actually correct?
You see, I read these things before I sign them. I don't sign something just because somebody makes great claims for it. I don't sign just because the word 'independence' is shoehorned into the text here and there.
I read. And I think about what I've read. Not only what is written, but the way it is written. If I am supposed to take it seriously, I expect to be given the impression that the person writing it as taken it seriously. Has the text been checked for errors? If not, why should I bother with it?
And, of course, I consider the claims made regarding the potential effect of the thing being petitioned for. If somebody is claiming that what they propose will do something of great significance, I think it through to discover whether there is any credibility in that claim. When I say I think it through, what I mean is that I ask all the 'What's next?' questions; as well as a good selection of 'What if?' questions. If the trail of these question does not - or cannot - lead to the effect being claimed, I don't sign. Why would I?
Hi Peter, thanks for your comments. I’m not sure when you say that what the Scotland Act 1998 says is common knowledge. I’m also not sure that everyone knows that in 1998 the UK gave MSPs approval to implement ICCPR in its entirety. I’ve just written to Angus Robertson, Cabinet Secretary for Constitutional matters, to remind him of this awkward reality. Take the Petition as you like - that’s obviously up to you - but 3,509 people (so far…) seem to like the idea.
You seem determined not to address the point. Very evasive. That always sets off alarm bells for me.
The point is Petition 2135 demands implementation of ICCPR for devolved matters - no more, no less. That means Political Rights (Initiatives & Referendums) with respect to devolved matters only (ICCPR Art 25). Ultimately, our course of action will hopefully lead to recognition that the Scottish People also have the right to Self-Determination (ICCPR Art. 1) - no more, no less. Please note I didn’t mention the word Independence. Our planned actions will see the full light of day in February 2025 and will be ongoing throughout the coming year, leading up to the 2026 Holyrood election. Where we’re going should therefore help prepare the ground for exactly the same thing as you’re doing with NSP - possibly a complete change of MSPs in 2026. The RSS actions will show concrete results during 2025 compared with international Direct Democracy protocols. This having been said, I’m not sure you realise that we’re both trying to get to the same place but by slightly different means. BTW, this evening our Petition is at 4,267 signatures.
You don't mention the word 'independence' here. But your petition is being sold elsewhere explicitly as a 'solution' to the constitutional issue. For example, I draw your attention to a letter from Andy Anderson - one of many in the same vein - published in The National dated 23 January under the headline 'Signing our petition is the way to end the independence paralysis'.
Lest it be claimed that the headline is not representative of the actual content of the letter, here is a direct quote.
"We have been arguing with the establishment, which unfortunately has included the SNP leadership, since August last year, that if the Scottish Parliament voted to incorporate UN human rights covenants into Scots law – which they are entitled to do under current law, including the Scotland Act – then the Scottish people would have a right to hold a referendum on any political or civil matter including Scottish independence, which could not be legally challenged in Scotland or in international courts."
Will you now write to The National with a 'clarification'? Will you undertake to urge your fans to stop claiming your petition aids Scotland's cause? Will you respond to claims such as those made by Andy Anderson pointing out that he's talking a pile of pish?
I come now to your own nonsensical - not to say dishonest - claims regarding the potential effect of your petition. In your comment above you say,
"Ultimately, our course of action will hopefully lead to recognition that the Scottish People also have the right to Self-Determination . . ."
This is deplorable ignorance! That the Scottish people have the right of self-determination is not in question. That right is deemed by the United Nations to be a human right. Scottish people are human. Duh!
Not only is our right of self-determination guaranteed by the UN, it has even been formally recognised on numerous occasions by the British state. Most notably, with the signature of the British Prime Minister on the Edinburgh Agreement.
Worthy as your petiton may be for other reasons, neither it nor whatever might ensue from it adds anything to the fact of our right of self-determination. You do Scotland's cause an unpardonable disservice by suggesting that our right of self-determination remains to be established.
The issue here is not that we lack the right of self-determination nor that anybody is denying our right of self-determination but that we are being prevented from exercising that right by the Scottish Government acting for the British Government.
Finally, you still haven't addressed my original point. To remind readers of that point after all your squirming evasion, it was regarding the following extract from the preamble to your petition.
"As you know, the UK ratified the ICCPR in 1976 and until now it was believed that the UK hadn’t implemented the Covenant in domestic law. I now believe that’s not the case."
This implies that you believe the UK HAS "implemented the Covenant in domestic law". That is what that statement says. Is this what you believe? Is it true?
I am quite prepared to accept that you have simple expressed yourself clumsily. We've all done it. What we tend to avoid doing is publish what we claim to be a very important document without checking the text thoroughly and repeatedly. You appear to take a more 'relaxed' attitude to the impression you give by the words you publish.
BTW - I have learned not to expect a sensible response from you. So, I shall end this exchange here. Before doing so, however, let me assure you that I will continue to condemn those who are selling your petition with dishonest claims.
Thank you, Peter - let’s see what happens in February when ScotGov’s official comments on the Petition are published as well as the SPICEe expert’s report of Parliament. The public will then be clearly informed as to what our political establishment believes with respect to direct Political Rights and the CPPPC will be forced to take position on next steps.
In my personal book, that’s not all bad as it will provide a useful basis for ongoing campaigning.
Excellent- we wait!
Having read the text of the petition, and the Respect Scottish Sovereignty website, I am not sure what precisely is being called for. I realise it is something to do with referendums -- but what are the details?
There needs to be a clear simple one-sentence summary, which is then expanded into a paragraph or two of detailed explanation.
I do think this campaign is *potentially* very worthwhile, but at the moment it lacks persuasive ability.
I suggest you check out « Political Rights » on my website Respect Scottish Sovereignty
URL?
If you mean https://respectscottishsovereignty.scot/ then I see no "Political Rights" heading on that page.
https://respectscottishsovereignty.scot/political-rights/
As you read the material, please note that under the Swiss model, Referendums are a means of contesting proposed legislation - i.e. before it comes into effect -whereas Inititiatives are popular proposals to change the Constitution - so called "agenda-setting" actions.
What about an Initiative that changes a non-constitutional law? Is such a thing allowed in Switzerland? Should it be allowed in Scotland?
Page 27 of the Swiss Democracy Passport has the exact reply to your question. Click on the red passport and download the pdf:
https://www.swissdemocracy.foundation/index.php/home
I’m not a lawyer however, in principle, the People control the Constitution so I don’t believe there is such a thing as a non-constitutional law in Switzerland. When the Politicians implement an Initiative - i.e. a constitutional change - they can’t mess around and must follow the People’s instruction. If they didn’t there would be uproar. Of course in Scotland you don’t have a written constitution so that’s already a difficulty. Nevertheless, were ICCPR to be implemented entirely - in other words also covering reserved matters - things would start to become very interesting. That’s why the recent report from the Scottish Human Rights commission is so important - it confirms that, according to the Scotland Act 1998 - ScotGov is obliged to fully implement ICCPR. But MSPs have done nothing. Full implementation opens the door to Popular Initiatives - in other words control of the Constitution. I leave you to imagine the rest…
I’ll try to be brief ! Apart from the right to stand for election, right now the Scottish People have no direct Political Rights on national matters such as, particularly, the right to Referendums (to accept or refuse proposed legislation) or Initiatives (to either write a new Constitution or launch proposed constitutional changes). ICCPR Art 25 would open the door to both - in other words, a first step towards meaningful Popular Sovereignty.
So as I understand it, you want:
- the possibility of a referendum on any law passed by the Scottish parliament, if enough people say they want one in a petition
- similarly, referendums on citizens initiatives, that is, laws whose enactment is lead by petition & referendum, rather than the Scottish parliament
(And while we're at it, we might as well have the same thing at local authority level.)
Does this summarise your view?
Referendums and initiatives would apply to devolved legislation under the RSS petition to enact ICCPR into Scots law. A future governance model in an independent Scotland, based on federal and regional constitutions, would decentralise powers to the regions and municipalities.
Below, Henry Ferguson gives a fuller response to your query:
"The Scottish Regions and Municipalities would have the same Political Rights based on a similar model of a proportionally-reduced number of signatories during a defined period of time.
The only difficulty I can see is that under ICCPR, Initiatives take the form of changes to the Constitution and of course there is no written Scottish constitution. If one assumes that there is a very detailed Constitution - as in Switzerland - then Initiatives can cover virtually any subject.
If, however, you start from the presumption of a very simple constitution, you'd be very restricted in terms of issues for Initiatives - only high-level stuff. My personal preference is to have a constitution that starts off with an exhaustive listing of Human Rights and then is minimalist for the rest. Governance model and so on but not too much else.
So, for the moment and without a written Constitution, RSS actions should be restricted to proposed Initiatives ONLY on topics that can be clearly identified as UN-recognised Human Rights like Political Rights and Self-Determination.