As the Supreme Court in London was set up by a British/English Government in London with no imput or consultation with Scotland it is not legitimate in Scotland as its creation is contrary to the terms of the 1707 Treaty of Union which protected the integrity of Scots Law.
What’s going on? Are we seeing cowards and collaborators running the Scottish Government? Or did Westminster intervene? Even if the U.K. intervened, why would the SNP let this opportunity to fight for Scottish independence go?
Yes, Westminster has already intervened in spite of the Scottish Human Rights Commission’s red flag warning that they should stop doing so. The ScotGov reply was signed by the Directorate for Constitution, a unit within the UK Civil Service, and the parliamentary Admin service politely refused to re-submit a second request to ScotGov specifically asking Angus Robertson MSP, the elected representative, to reply.
Thanks, Leah and Henry for a great piece of research and presentation.
This exposes the weakness of the Scottish Government, which has just rolled over and allowed the UK establishment to walk all over the Scottish People, but if the UK thinks the fight is over, they have another thought coming. We will not stand aside and allow our sovereignty and our human rights to be stolen from us by cheap chicanery as some in the Scottish government seem prepared to do.
The Sovereign Scottish People are Scotland's highest legal authority, and no amount of distortion and chicanery can cover that up or ignore it. We will pursue this struggle until our sovereignty and our Human Rights are secure.
✊️🏴let's all get behind the petition the RSS are putting forward and stop playing into the Westminster English parliament hands, we need to unite. It's simple if we agree the Scottish people are sovereign over the Scottish parliament, we must defend that right.
What is the problem! Everyone blames Westminster when in fact the SNP is holding Scotland back and blocking any meaningful route to Independence is sickening.
The SNP and its moron membership are just Unionist devolutionist hoping for what, please tell me because I'm at a total loss to what so attractive about this Union.
1 of 3 things needs to happen 1 the SNP chucked out of powers in 2026 or 2 the party folds and under its debt or 3 Holyrood is shut down entirely, the Parliament is rotten to the cure and its the SNP who's done it.
Leah, I have no idea how you stay supporting Independence when the biggest part of the Indy movement is braindead. As a Scot I sick and tired of pointing out the problems and who's to blame.
Next is the first consideration of the three position papers - SPICe, ScotGov & RSS - by the CPPPC, the parliamentary Petitions committee - at its meeting on 2nd April.
Tickets for the public gallery can be obtained one week before. If you want to join others in a peaceful demonstration of support outside Holyrood that afternoon, I for one am certainly not going to discourage you.
Between now and then, bug the sh_t out of your MSPs to front up and support ICCPR implementation by pressuring CPPPC members (5 members, blocking unionist majority: Jackson Carlaw & Maurice Golden (Conservative) and Foysol Choudhory (Labour). David Torrance & Fergus Ewing (SNP) need your help).
People like to moan about how little they have at the end of the month. so you engage with them about politics and straight away they say I'm not interested in politics, but that's your problem and its also mine.
I don't want to boar anyone but this is a true story. I stayed in England during the 1st referendum and when we lost because of the RIGGED franchise, I came up to Scotland and met Sturgeon on her grand tour at the corn exchange in Edinburgh. A 15yrs old boy stood up and ask a decent question "when would we be having another referendum" Sturgeon reply was "we had a referendum and we lost it wouldn't be fair on the other side if we had another" both me and my wife where travel back to England and talking about what had happened in Scotland and we were both of the opinion then. why was she not wanted to continue the momentum that had already been achieved, but instead she has actively went out of her way and destroyed every mandate and all avenue that leads to a exit from the UK.
Under Sturgeon the SNP has deliberately 1 destroy Independence 2 dismantled the Yes movement 3 destroyed democracy within the SNP 4 destroyed the membership within the SNP 5 blocked all routes that could lead to Independence 6 no longer seeks Independence the leadership is more interested in alignment with Westminster, I could go on and on but whats the point we know what the SNP will do with this petition its a given. when its voted on most of the SNP MSP will not turn up and they'll say they could be there and it will be voted down by the other parties.
I keep telling people even Indy supporters that democracy isn't being BLOCKED by Westminster its our own government who's doing it and there not bothered if the Yes movement knows. Never in my lifetime had I ever heard a nationalist leader turn round and say to the press of course I'm British and I'll remain British even when Scotland becomes Independent. This is what we are up against just look at yesterday's post by Wing, its all about friends and family before country.
Is there a template available, or will there be a template made available for members and non members alike who wish to contact their local MSP to demand that ICCPR is acted on by the Scottish government and brought into legislation?
The reason I ask this is that any small error I might make (highly likely) or missed detail I fail to include when writing to my MSP, might or (probably will be) seized upon to deflect from the substance and importance of this issue.
Yes, here's what I wrote to my useless Labour MSP, Daniel Johnson. Please feel free to copy and use.
Dear Daniel,
Here is a link (https://dearscotland.substack.com/p/the-scottish-government-surrenders) to a public post made on my blog, Dear Scotland, about the responses the grassroots movement Respect Scottish Sovereignty received from the Scottish Government and SPICe on petition PE2135, calling on the Scottish Government and MSPs to implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) into Scots law.
As the post makes crystal clear, the Scotland Act 1998 gives the Scottish Parliament the authority to enact international human rights agreements in full.
I would be grateful if you could confirm your support for the petition. If for some reason you are unable to do so, please provide me with a full explanation.
Thank you.
Leah Gunn Barrett
Respect Scottish Sovereignty has received two written responses from the Scottish Government’s Directorate for Constitution (DfC) and from SPICe, the Parliamentary research unit, regarding our petition, PE2135, asking that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) be incorporated into Scots law.
While the Scottish Government concedes that the Scottish Parliament has the authority to implement international human rights obligations into Scots law, it asserts that these obligations only apply to devolved matters. It also asserts that implementing ICCPR would extend Holyrood’s powers. Both assertions are false as we explain in our letter below.
Tellingly, the Scottish Government response was signed by a civil servant, Dominic Munro, who reports to Whitehall. Prior to joining the Scottish Government, Munro worked in several Whitehall departments including HM Treasury and the Department for Trade and Industry.
It was NOT signed by the Scottish Minister for Constitution, Angus Robertson, which speaks volumes.
The SPICe briefing paper claims that because the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has been enacted into UK law, it already covers the rights in ICCPR. But ECHR omits Direct Political Rights (referendums and initiatives) in ICCPR Article 25. Without Direct Political Rights, Scottish citizens can’t exercise their Sovereignty.
SPICe also claims that implementing ICCPR is outside Holyrood’s competence. Wrong again. Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 clearly states that ICCPR implementation is not reserved. In effect, Westminster has delegated legislative competence for implementing ICCPR to Holyrood.
In summary, Holyrood already (i) has the power to implement ICCPR in full, and (ii) the power to ask the Scottish People to decide the issue in a Referendum. We are merely asking them to get on with it! The UK civil service should butt out - it’s none of their business!
If the Scottish Government refuses to organise a referendum, then RSS will ask Scotland Decides to do it for them.
Here are the RSS responses (in full) to the Scottish Government and SPICe.
1. Response to the Scottish Government, 31 January 2025
The Scottish Government’s written submission was signed by the Directorate for Constitution (DfC) rather than, as one would expect, the responsible elected representative and Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, Mr Angus Robertson MSP.
The Director of DfC, Mr Dominic Munro, is a senior UK Civil Servant reporting to Whitehall.
Scope of ICCPR and the Scotland Act
The response completely ignores PE2135’s request to give ICCPR “full legal effect” (UN recommended wording) in the devolved lawmaking process. Both the Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) and United Nation Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) have repeatedly recommended full ICCPR implementation - without any reference to devolution - most recently in their reports of 4th February (Page 15, Art. 20) and 3rd May (Page 2, Art. C 5(a)) 2024.
As noted previously, the phrase, “it is important to note that this only applies to devolved matters within the competence of the Scottish Parliament,” is irrelevant to ICCPR implementation. It’s also incorrect to state that: “This route cannot be used to effectively extend the Parliament’s powers by claiming that the incorporated international treaty provisions now allow the Parliament or the Scottish Government to do anything that would have previously been beyond devolved competence”. There was no notion of “devolved competence” prior to the Scotland Act 1998 which, insofar as powers to incorporate international Human Rights treaties are concerned, remains unamended and in full force.
The above two phrases are a perfect illustration of what the SHRC refers to when it says in its 4th February 2024 report: “The Commission recommends that the UK, at every level of government, desists with all policy activities which restrict or undermine the level of protection for civil and political rights as set out in the present Covenant…” (Page 64 Annex A Part B)
Sovereignty
The above DfC statements seek to restrict and undermine the Sovereignty of the Scottish People and we call on the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee (CPPPC) to join us in vigorously resisting such attempts. Such Unilateral Declarations of Westminster Control (UDWC) have no place in a serious debate on Scotland’s system of devolved National Governance.
Conclusion
We leave the closing thought to the inaugural Chair of the SHRC when he said in 2022:
“I hope that these personal reflections of a traveller have demonstrated that, although clearly it needs to be carefully managed, the Supreme Court judgment on the UNCRC Bill is rooted in the past. It will not define the limits for the future and indeed its impact is actually more likely to be that of helping to focus debate on the next steps on Scotland’s human rights journey.”
By giving ICCPR full legal effect in the devolved lawmaking process, PE2135 is an essential next step on that journey.
2. Response to the SPICe Briefing for the CPPPC (Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee)
We have the following comments on the SPICe Briefing:
Brief overview of issues
The individual and inalienable right of all citizens to direct Political Rights (ICCPR Art. 25) is notable in its absence from the list of example Human Rights.
Direct Political Rights were included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations in 1948 (Art. 21) but were deliberately excluded from the ECHR when it was signed in 1950 (ratified by the UK in 1951). They nevertheless reappeared when the ICCPR was signed in 1966 (ratified by the UK in 1976) (Art. 25).
The SPICe briefing doesn’t mention the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) publication 1996 Addendum to ICCPR Art. 25 which describes, in particular: (i) access to Popular Initiatives and Referendums (Comment No. 6), and (ii) the capacity of citizens to organise themselves (Comment No. 8).
Nor does the briefing mention the UNHRC Recommendation which has been ignored by Holyrood and Westminster for years:
“The State party (i.e. the UK) should…...ensure that all Covenant rights are given full legal effect in all jurisdictions that fall under its authority or control….” (3rd May 2024 Report: Page 2, Art. C 5(a)
Further, UNHRC General Comment 31 of 26th May 2004 states:
“The … obligation to respect and ensure the rights recognized by the Covenant has immediate effect for all States parties.” (Page 3, Art. 5)
Legislative competence
Sections 29 & 30 of the Scotland Act 1998, together with Schedule 5, confirm that full ICCPR implementation is not reserved meaning it’s within the Scottish Parliament’s competence. Section 30 clearly states:
“Schedule 5 (which defines reserved matters) shall have effect”.
This has been recognised in recent Government replies to RSS communications and is entirely logical - in recognition of the Covenant, in 1998 Westminster delegated legislative competence for implementing ICCPR to Holyrood.
This text in the SPICe briefing is therefore a complete red herring:
“Given the restrictions on legislative competence, the Scottish Parliament can only legislate in devolved areas…”
As we noted above, the Scotland Act is clear that there are no restrictions on legislative competence with respect to ICCPR implementation - any such restrictions would violate a Covenant which the UK ratified in 1976. The Scottish Parliament is therefore competent to (i) implement ICCPR Art 25 (a):
“Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly…”
and, equally, to (ii) incorporate Art 1, Self-Determination, in Scottish legislation.
Because implementation is within the Scottish Parliament’s competence, the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 is applicable. Inserting the phrase “Subject to referendum” by Parliament, as the last article in the Bill to implement ICCPR as requested in PE2135, would allow the Scottish People to finally decide the issue in a national referendum.
Incorporation of international human rights treaties
The inaugural Chair Professor Alan Miller of the Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) commented on the Supreme Court judgement on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC):
“On the one hand and significantly so, the judgment essentially reaffirms that human rights are not reserved to the UK Parliament by the Scotland Act and that Scotland can incorporate UN treaties, so thank you Donald Dewar”.
Argh, trying to get my haed around this. So in short the Scottish government CAN write the ICCPR into Scots Law, but instead simply shrugs, hands the petition to Westminster's installed civil servants in Scotland and says, pah!
Just wow.
I mean the fact that around 2000 English civil servants are plonked in their big fancy new expensive office building, smack bang in the middle of the capital city of Scotland, by the English government, is incredibly sinister and indicative of colonisation, really, all said and done. Yet the ScotGov is ok with the all of that.
The Scottish government, the SNP and Scottish Greens and Alba, etc, should be resisting any attempts to keep Scotland under the big Jack boot of the English regime, and yet, A.Robertson is hands off it seems, and he leaves it to a civil servants, installed in Scotland, a sovereign nation, by Westminster to make decisions against the interests of the people of Scotland. What's Robertson hoping for a seat at the house of lards? Just disgusting, hope things can be challenged further to get this matter resolved for Scotland, pronto.
That’s right. According to the Scotland Act 1998, a majority of MSPs can implement ICCPR, in it’s entirety and, in the implementing act, they can add the magic words - thank you Switzerland, where I live and vote - “Subject to Referendum.” This would then trigger the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 and a majority of MSPs can then vote to have a national referendum on whether or not to implement ICCPR. Perfectly democratic and in accordance with current legislation. Check it out with your MSPs - write them a letter and ask them to prove otherwise…
I wrote to Angus Robertson MSP on 27/1 suggesting just that and both he and ScotGov have refused to reply.
Hetty, FYI on 10/5 I just wrote a follow-up letter to Angus Robertson pointing out that by not implementing ICCPR - an international treaty - he’s violating Article 1.7 of the Scottish Ministerial Code. I suspect Leah’s going to have more to say on Dear Scotland in the coming weeks.
Leah here refutes the Scottish Government's assertion that implementing ICCPR would extend Holyrood’s powers. But RSS has repeatedly claimed that it would extend the powers of the Scottish Parliament into the reserved area of the constitution.
Not true, Peter. Since the Scotland Act 1998, Holyrood has always had the power to implement ICCPR in its entirety. I suggest you read Art 30 and Schedule 5 thereof. Leah’s right - there’s no « extension of powers » - since 1998 they’ve always been there in the first place.
There you go with the dishonest misrepresentation again. At no time have I ever suggested the Scottish Government doesn't have the "power to implement ICCPR in its entirety". I've never said it nor so much as hinted at it. Like a slippery, slimy politician, you evade the issue by answering a question that wasn't asked or responding to a point that wasn't made.
I don't think you're stupid. I think you know perfectly well that what I have been objecting to is the lies about ICCPR giving the Scottish Government the 'additional' power to hold a constitutional referendum. It seems that you suppose others to be so stupid they won't notice your oleaginous squirming.
Sorry, Peter - your remarks are completely beside the point. I responded directly to your comment and have said absolutely nothing dishonest. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
The proof is right here. Anyone reading my first comment can plainly see the dishonesty of your response. My comment was about your lies regarding ICCPR allowing the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a constitutional referendum. Your response refers to a claim I did not make. I would ask you to prove my initial comment contains a single word that might imply the Scottish Government cannot incorporate ICCPR into Scots law, but I doubt if you would even understand the request.
I am wasting no more time on you. I detest liars and despise fraudsters. I particularly detest those who attempt to hijack Scotland's cause as a vehicle for their own pet project.
Well researched Leah and well presented. I hope you sent a copy to each member of our government just to remind them who they are responsible to.
That’s being done tomorrow
As the Supreme Court in London was set up by a British/English Government in London with no imput or consultation with Scotland it is not legitimate in Scotland as its creation is contrary to the terms of the 1707 Treaty of Union which protected the integrity of Scots Law.
As such, we can ignore anything it says.
What’s going on? Are we seeing cowards and collaborators running the Scottish Government? Or did Westminster intervene? Even if the U.K. intervened, why would the SNP let this opportunity to fight for Scottish independence go?
Yes, Westminster has already intervened in spite of the Scottish Human Rights Commission’s red flag warning that they should stop doing so. The ScotGov reply was signed by the Directorate for Constitution, a unit within the UK Civil Service, and the parliamentary Admin service politely refused to re-submit a second request to ScotGov specifically asking Angus Robertson MSP, the elected representative, to reply.
Thanks, Leah and Henry for a great piece of research and presentation.
This exposes the weakness of the Scottish Government, which has just rolled over and allowed the UK establishment to walk all over the Scottish People, but if the UK thinks the fight is over, they have another thought coming. We will not stand aside and allow our sovereignty and our human rights to be stolen from us by cheap chicanery as some in the Scottish government seem prepared to do.
The Sovereign Scottish People are Scotland's highest legal authority, and no amount of distortion and chicanery can cover that up or ignore it. We will pursue this struggle until our sovereignty and our Human Rights are secure.
Andy Anderson
✊️🏴let's all get behind the petition the RSS are putting forward and stop playing into the Westminster English parliament hands, we need to unite. It's simple if we agree the Scottish people are sovereign over the Scottish parliament, we must defend that right.
Sinn Còmhla ✊️ 🏴
A good effort, however: "The native seldom looks for justice in the colonial framework" (Memmi).
What is the problem! Everyone blames Westminster when in fact the SNP is holding Scotland back and blocking any meaningful route to Independence is sickening.
The SNP and its moron membership are just Unionist devolutionist hoping for what, please tell me because I'm at a total loss to what so attractive about this Union.
1 of 3 things needs to happen 1 the SNP chucked out of powers in 2026 or 2 the party folds and under its debt or 3 Holyrood is shut down entirely, the Parliament is rotten to the cure and its the SNP who's done it.
Leah, I have no idea how you stay supporting Independence when the biggest part of the Indy movement is braindead. As a Scot I sick and tired of pointing out the problems and who's to blame.
Thank you Leah
Incredible piece of work. - what next?
Next is the first consideration of the three position papers - SPICe, ScotGov & RSS - by the CPPPC, the parliamentary Petitions committee - at its meeting on 2nd April.
Tickets for the public gallery can be obtained one week before. If you want to join others in a peaceful demonstration of support outside Holyrood that afternoon, I for one am certainly not going to discourage you.
Between now and then, bug the sh_t out of your MSPs to front up and support ICCPR implementation by pressuring CPPPC members (5 members, blocking unionist majority: Jackson Carlaw & Maurice Golden (Conservative) and Foysol Choudhory (Labour). David Torrance & Fergus Ewing (SNP) need your help).
Henry the SNP will block every single thing that's in Scotland interest. The party wants to keep the status-quo but don't have the balls to say it.
When the chips finally fall with the ICCPR Petition, the real position of SNP MSPs should be clear for all to see…
People like to moan about how little they have at the end of the month. so you engage with them about politics and straight away they say I'm not interested in politics, but that's your problem and its also mine.
I don't want to boar anyone but this is a true story. I stayed in England during the 1st referendum and when we lost because of the RIGGED franchise, I came up to Scotland and met Sturgeon on her grand tour at the corn exchange in Edinburgh. A 15yrs old boy stood up and ask a decent question "when would we be having another referendum" Sturgeon reply was "we had a referendum and we lost it wouldn't be fair on the other side if we had another" both me and my wife where travel back to England and talking about what had happened in Scotland and we were both of the opinion then. why was she not wanted to continue the momentum that had already been achieved, but instead she has actively went out of her way and destroyed every mandate and all avenue that leads to a exit from the UK.
Under Sturgeon the SNP has deliberately 1 destroy Independence 2 dismantled the Yes movement 3 destroyed democracy within the SNP 4 destroyed the membership within the SNP 5 blocked all routes that could lead to Independence 6 no longer seeks Independence the leadership is more interested in alignment with Westminster, I could go on and on but whats the point we know what the SNP will do with this petition its a given. when its voted on most of the SNP MSP will not turn up and they'll say they could be there and it will be voted down by the other parties.
I keep telling people even Indy supporters that democracy isn't being BLOCKED by Westminster its our own government who's doing it and there not bothered if the Yes movement knows. Never in my lifetime had I ever heard a nationalist leader turn round and say to the press of course I'm British and I'll remain British even when Scotland becomes Independent. This is what we are up against just look at yesterday's post by Wing, its all about friends and family before country.
Is there a template available, or will there be a template made available for members and non members alike who wish to contact their local MSP to demand that ICCPR is acted on by the Scottish government and brought into legislation?
The reason I ask this is that any small error I might make (highly likely) or missed detail I fail to include when writing to my MSP, might or (probably will be) seized upon to deflect from the substance and importance of this issue.
Slainte
Yes, here's what I wrote to my useless Labour MSP, Daniel Johnson. Please feel free to copy and use.
Dear Daniel,
Here is a link (https://dearscotland.substack.com/p/the-scottish-government-surrenders) to a public post made on my blog, Dear Scotland, about the responses the grassroots movement Respect Scottish Sovereignty received from the Scottish Government and SPICe on petition PE2135, calling on the Scottish Government and MSPs to implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) into Scots law.
As the post makes crystal clear, the Scotland Act 1998 gives the Scottish Parliament the authority to enact international human rights agreements in full.
I would be grateful if you could confirm your support for the petition. If for some reason you are unable to do so, please provide me with a full explanation.
Thank you.
Leah Gunn Barrett
Respect Scottish Sovereignty has received two written responses from the Scottish Government’s Directorate for Constitution (DfC) and from SPICe, the Parliamentary research unit, regarding our petition, PE2135, asking that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) be incorporated into Scots law.
While the Scottish Government concedes that the Scottish Parliament has the authority to implement international human rights obligations into Scots law, it asserts that these obligations only apply to devolved matters. It also asserts that implementing ICCPR would extend Holyrood’s powers. Both assertions are false as we explain in our letter below.
Tellingly, the Scottish Government response was signed by a civil servant, Dominic Munro, who reports to Whitehall. Prior to joining the Scottish Government, Munro worked in several Whitehall departments including HM Treasury and the Department for Trade and Industry.
It was NOT signed by the Scottish Minister for Constitution, Angus Robertson, which speaks volumes.
The SPICe briefing paper claims that because the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has been enacted into UK law, it already covers the rights in ICCPR. But ECHR omits Direct Political Rights (referendums and initiatives) in ICCPR Article 25. Without Direct Political Rights, Scottish citizens can’t exercise their Sovereignty.
SPICe also claims that implementing ICCPR is outside Holyrood’s competence. Wrong again. Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 clearly states that ICCPR implementation is not reserved. In effect, Westminster has delegated legislative competence for implementing ICCPR to Holyrood.
In summary, Holyrood already (i) has the power to implement ICCPR in full, and (ii) the power to ask the Scottish People to decide the issue in a Referendum. We are merely asking them to get on with it! The UK civil service should butt out - it’s none of their business!
If the Scottish Government refuses to organise a referendum, then RSS will ask Scotland Decides to do it for them.
Here are the RSS responses (in full) to the Scottish Government and SPICe.
1. Response to the Scottish Government, 31 January 2025
The Scottish Government’s written submission was signed by the Directorate for Constitution (DfC) rather than, as one would expect, the responsible elected representative and Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, Mr Angus Robertson MSP.
The Director of DfC, Mr Dominic Munro, is a senior UK Civil Servant reporting to Whitehall.
Scope of ICCPR and the Scotland Act
The response completely ignores PE2135’s request to give ICCPR “full legal effect” (UN recommended wording) in the devolved lawmaking process. Both the Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) and United Nation Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) have repeatedly recommended full ICCPR implementation - without any reference to devolution - most recently in their reports of 4th February (Page 15, Art. 20) and 3rd May (Page 2, Art. C 5(a)) 2024.
As noted previously, the phrase, “it is important to note that this only applies to devolved matters within the competence of the Scottish Parliament,” is irrelevant to ICCPR implementation. It’s also incorrect to state that: “This route cannot be used to effectively extend the Parliament’s powers by claiming that the incorporated international treaty provisions now allow the Parliament or the Scottish Government to do anything that would have previously been beyond devolved competence”. There was no notion of “devolved competence” prior to the Scotland Act 1998 which, insofar as powers to incorporate international Human Rights treaties are concerned, remains unamended and in full force.
The above two phrases are a perfect illustration of what the SHRC refers to when it says in its 4th February 2024 report: “The Commission recommends that the UK, at every level of government, desists with all policy activities which restrict or undermine the level of protection for civil and political rights as set out in the present Covenant…” (Page 64 Annex A Part B)
Sovereignty
The above DfC statements seek to restrict and undermine the Sovereignty of the Scottish People and we call on the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee (CPPPC) to join us in vigorously resisting such attempts. Such Unilateral Declarations of Westminster Control (UDWC) have no place in a serious debate on Scotland’s system of devolved National Governance.
Conclusion
We leave the closing thought to the inaugural Chair of the SHRC when he said in 2022:
“I hope that these personal reflections of a traveller have demonstrated that, although clearly it needs to be carefully managed, the Supreme Court judgment on the UNCRC Bill is rooted in the past. It will not define the limits for the future and indeed its impact is actually more likely to be that of helping to focus debate on the next steps on Scotland’s human rights journey.”
By giving ICCPR full legal effect in the devolved lawmaking process, PE2135 is an essential next step on that journey.
2. Response to the SPICe Briefing for the CPPPC (Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee)
We have the following comments on the SPICe Briefing:
Brief overview of issues
The individual and inalienable right of all citizens to direct Political Rights (ICCPR Art. 25) is notable in its absence from the list of example Human Rights.
Direct Political Rights were included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations in 1948 (Art. 21) but were deliberately excluded from the ECHR when it was signed in 1950 (ratified by the UK in 1951). They nevertheless reappeared when the ICCPR was signed in 1966 (ratified by the UK in 1976) (Art. 25).
The SPICe briefing doesn’t mention the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) publication 1996 Addendum to ICCPR Art. 25 which describes, in particular: (i) access to Popular Initiatives and Referendums (Comment No. 6), and (ii) the capacity of citizens to organise themselves (Comment No. 8).
Nor does the briefing mention the UNHRC Recommendation which has been ignored by Holyrood and Westminster for years:
“The State party (i.e. the UK) should…...ensure that all Covenant rights are given full legal effect in all jurisdictions that fall under its authority or control….” (3rd May 2024 Report: Page 2, Art. C 5(a)
Further, UNHRC General Comment 31 of 26th May 2004 states:
“The … obligation to respect and ensure the rights recognized by the Covenant has immediate effect for all States parties.” (Page 3, Art. 5)
Legislative competence
Sections 29 & 30 of the Scotland Act 1998, together with Schedule 5, confirm that full ICCPR implementation is not reserved meaning it’s within the Scottish Parliament’s competence. Section 30 clearly states:
“Schedule 5 (which defines reserved matters) shall have effect”.
This has been recognised in recent Government replies to RSS communications and is entirely logical - in recognition of the Covenant, in 1998 Westminster delegated legislative competence for implementing ICCPR to Holyrood.
This text in the SPICe briefing is therefore a complete red herring:
“Given the restrictions on legislative competence, the Scottish Parliament can only legislate in devolved areas…”
As we noted above, the Scotland Act is clear that there are no restrictions on legislative competence with respect to ICCPR implementation - any such restrictions would violate a Covenant which the UK ratified in 1976. The Scottish Parliament is therefore competent to (i) implement ICCPR Art 25 (a):
“Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly…”
and, equally, to (ii) incorporate Art 1, Self-Determination, in Scottish legislation.
Because implementation is within the Scottish Parliament’s competence, the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 is applicable. Inserting the phrase “Subject to referendum” by Parliament, as the last article in the Bill to implement ICCPR as requested in PE2135, would allow the Scottish People to finally decide the issue in a national referendum.
Incorporation of international human rights treaties
The inaugural Chair Professor Alan Miller of the Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) commented on the Supreme Court judgement on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC):
“On the one hand and significantly so, the judgment essentially reaffirms that human rights are not reserved to the UK Parliament by the Scotland Act and that Scotland can incorporate UN treaties, so thank you Donald Dewar”.
Argh, trying to get my haed around this. So in short the Scottish government CAN write the ICCPR into Scots Law, but instead simply shrugs, hands the petition to Westminster's installed civil servants in Scotland and says, pah!
Just wow.
I mean the fact that around 2000 English civil servants are plonked in their big fancy new expensive office building, smack bang in the middle of the capital city of Scotland, by the English government, is incredibly sinister and indicative of colonisation, really, all said and done. Yet the ScotGov is ok with the all of that.
The Scottish government, the SNP and Scottish Greens and Alba, etc, should be resisting any attempts to keep Scotland under the big Jack boot of the English regime, and yet, A.Robertson is hands off it seems, and he leaves it to a civil servants, installed in Scotland, a sovereign nation, by Westminster to make decisions against the interests of the people of Scotland. What's Robertson hoping for a seat at the house of lards? Just disgusting, hope things can be challenged further to get this matter resolved for Scotland, pronto.
Thanks.
That’s right. According to the Scotland Act 1998, a majority of MSPs can implement ICCPR, in it’s entirety and, in the implementing act, they can add the magic words - thank you Switzerland, where I live and vote - “Subject to Referendum.” This would then trigger the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 and a majority of MSPs can then vote to have a national referendum on whether or not to implement ICCPR. Perfectly democratic and in accordance with current legislation. Check it out with your MSPs - write them a letter and ask them to prove otherwise…
I wrote to Angus Robertson MSP on 27/1 suggesting just that and both he and ScotGov have refused to reply.
Hetty, FYI on 10/5 I just wrote a follow-up letter to Angus Robertson pointing out that by not implementing ICCPR - an international treaty - he’s violating Article 1.7 of the Scottish Ministerial Code. I suspect Leah’s going to have more to say on Dear Scotland in the coming weeks.
Though I suppose 'haed' is appropriate given how things are so topsy turvy these days.
Leah here refutes the Scottish Government's assertion that implementing ICCPR would extend Holyrood’s powers. But RSS has repeatedly claimed that it would extend the powers of the Scottish Parliament into the reserved area of the constitution.
Not true, Peter. Since the Scotland Act 1998, Holyrood has always had the power to implement ICCPR in its entirety. I suggest you read Art 30 and Schedule 5 thereof. Leah’s right - there’s no « extension of powers » - since 1998 they’ve always been there in the first place.
There you go with the dishonest misrepresentation again. At no time have I ever suggested the Scottish Government doesn't have the "power to implement ICCPR in its entirety". I've never said it nor so much as hinted at it. Like a slippery, slimy politician, you evade the issue by answering a question that wasn't asked or responding to a point that wasn't made.
I don't think you're stupid. I think you know perfectly well that what I have been objecting to is the lies about ICCPR giving the Scottish Government the 'additional' power to hold a constitutional referendum. It seems that you suppose others to be so stupid they won't notice your oleaginous squirming.
Sorry, Peter - your remarks are completely beside the point. I responded directly to your comment and have said absolutely nothing dishonest. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
The proof is right here. Anyone reading my first comment can plainly see the dishonesty of your response. My comment was about your lies regarding ICCPR allowing the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a constitutional referendum. Your response refers to a claim I did not make. I would ask you to prove my initial comment contains a single word that might imply the Scottish Government cannot incorporate ICCPR into Scots law, but I doubt if you would even understand the request.
I am wasting no more time on you. I detest liars and despise fraudsters. I particularly detest those who attempt to hijack Scotland's cause as a vehicle for their own pet project.