DD Update

This DD Update is intended to inform the Direct Democracy debate about developments on current issues. At the moment these include:

1. Referendum on the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill (VWJR)
The Stage 1 parliamentary debate took place on 23rd April and the Bill is now at Stage 2 during which “MSPs can propose changes (“amendments”) to the Bill. The amendments are considered and decided on by a committee (The Criminal Justice Committee (CJC))”.

The ScotGov Consultation and the CJC Call for Views received only 179 and 114 individual replies, respectively, so it’s now up to the People to beat the total of 293 by writing asap to their MSPs and, in due course, by participating in a virtual vote. To find out how to do this, please check out our DD Campaign pages.

Example texts for MSP letters or e-mails are available at DD Write and you can find your MSP’s e-mail address here Letters to MSPs would be most effective if they take account of how individual MSPs voted at the 23rd April debate. A detailed list of how everybody voted is attached (54 SNP & 6 Green MSPs voted in favour – thus ignoring citizens’ requests for a referendum – 6 SNP MSPs abstained and the remaining 63 either abstained or didn’t vote).

2. Juryless trials condemned by Scottish, English, Irish and Northern Ireland bars
Following a meeting of the four bars in Belfast recently, their leadership issued a joint statement on the proposed removal of juries for rape and other serious sexual offence trials in Scotland. The statement, made by Roddy Dunlop KC, Dean of Faculty; Sara Phelan SC, chair, The Bar of Ireland; Moira Smyth KC, chair, The Bar of Northern Ireland and Sam Townend KC, chair of the Bar Council of England & Wales, concludes:

“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.”

The full statement can be consulted here.

3. Enactment of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR)
On 3rd May 2024 the UN Human Rights Committee published its 8th Periodic Report on UK compliance with its Human Rights 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 at least 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 above so, during the coming months, MSPs will have to choose between recognising the Human / Political Rights of Scottish citizens or opting for the conflictual alternative of continuing to ignore their referendum requests. The Scottish Human Rights Commission, Scotland’s National Human Rights Action Plan (SNAP 2) Leadership Panel and the international Human Rights community will be watching.

In a second criticism, the Committee commented: “The Committee also reiterates that the State party (i.e. 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 UN about not being able to access their fundamental DD Political Rights agreed to by the UK in 1976.

4. 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.”

Wecollect.scot suggests that a final phrase could be added: “The Scottish Government has decided not to incorporate ICCPR into domestic Scots law applicable to devolved matters.” This is the position MSPs have consistently taken during contacts with constituents in recent months which means MSPs are denying their constituents access to the individual direct Political Rights in ICCPR Art 25. and the UN Human Rights Committee’s 1996 Comments. This calls into serious question Scotland’s ambitions to be perceived as a “world leader” in the application of Human Rights.

Readers are encouraged to highlight this contradiction in their ongoing contacts with MSPs (ScotGov and MSPs are protecting their own interests as opposed to those of the People).

5. Possible Referendum on the Local Governance Review – Democracy Matters Bill ?
The Consultation on this proposed Bill closed on 28 February 2024 and ScotGov is preparing the Consultation Analysis. When that’s published, a Proposed Bill and descriptive Policy Memorandum will also hit the streets.

For the VWJR Bill there were only 179 individual responses to the equivalent analysis so it’s clear that the views of the “wider population” – the People – were ignored. For this reason, wecollect.scot believes that the People should have the right to contest the forthcoming Local Governance Bill, if 1% of the electorate so wish (i.e. 45,000 signatures in 100 days), in a referendum.

Wecollect.scot suggests that, because the Bill will have been prepared by central government, local government funding will almost certainly continue to be controlled centrally by Holyrood, financially handcuffing community and regional councils on local initiatives. The DDD (Decentralised Direct Democracy) governance principle of Subsidiarity is incompatible with strong central government:

Under the principle of subsidiarity, nothing that can be done at a lower political level should be done at a higher level. If, for example, a community is unable to deal with a certain task, the next higher political entity, i.e. the region, has a duty to provide support.

Finally, you don’t need a crystal ball to guess that the Bill won’t include borrowing or meaningful taxation powers.