By Professor John Robertson, OBA
According to the Herald today:
Charities reluctant to condemn SNP decisions in fear of being ‘financially silenced’
Typically, the headline is based on one source – Clare MacGillivray, director of Making Rights Real (MRR).
I share her concerns about the SNP leadership on this matter:
but see little sign of the phenomenon she describes.
Indeed, just this year, these three charities have attacked the Scottish Government/SNP revealing signs of and agenda:
Read in full at: https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/?s=charity+
And, Shelter, serial attacks. See in particular: https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/2024/08/10/do-the-national-branch-offices-of-campaigning-charities-not-understand-devolution/
Source:
Support Scots Independent, Scotland’s oldest pro-independence newspaper and host of the OBA (Oliver Brown Award) at: https://scotsindependent.scot/FWShop/shop/
The Oliver Brown Award for advancing the cause of Scotland’s self respect, previously awarded to Dr Philippa Whitford, Alex Salmond and Sean Connery: https://scotsindependent.scot/?page_id=116
About Oliver Brown, the first Scottish National Party candidate to save his deposit in a Parliamentary election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Brown_(Scottish_activis
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
‘Shelved the human rights bill’ – OK it’s not in the current Programme for Government but is ‘betrayal’ appropriate language?
It would be wonderful if the development and implementation of new law was always simple and always guaranteed to bring ‘good’ law with no unintended negative consequences. It would be wonderful if pre-legislative consultations and then pre-legislative parliamentary scrutiny always proceeded without any hitches, never raising important issues requiring further consideration before a government bill is formally submitted to parliament. If only!
The Making Rights Real website (from October 17) re-produces an article from The Herald which reports the charity’s withdrawal from the Scottish Government’s National Action Plan leadership group. The Herald also reports Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville saying ministers needed more time to consider the “complex” legislation associated with the proposed Human Rights Bill. The Herald notes that the Law Society of Scotland had stated in its response to the Government’s consultation on the Bill (October er 2024) that while the aims were “laudable” they would have been “complex” to implement.
This is what the Law Society concluded in its response to the Government: ‘We welcome the opportunity to comment on the Scottish Government’s ambitious plans to create a new framework for embedding international human rights in Scotland.
‘Whilst we consider the plan to be highlight laudable, we note the complexity of the proposals; potential legal issues in relation to international human rights and the existing national rights arrangements across UK and Scottish law; the need to be
able to enforce those rights quickly and economically; and the issue of the resources required for proper implementation by public authorities.
‘We consider that the proposals do not include sufficient detail about the enforcement of the rights; the resources which will be needed for full implementation; the relationship between existing rights and international rights; and the practical effect which will be achieved by incorporation. In our view, the Scottish Human Rights Bill (SHRB) must contain such provisions.
‘The Government must make clear why the bill is necessary and how it will comply with the rule of law requirement for reasonable certainty in any rule with a sanction.
‘We highlight the need for balanced and participative engagement and communication with affected stakeholders whilst the policy and legislative formulation of the substantive rights develops.’ (my emphasis)
In other words, don’t rush this: there needs to be further and detailed discussion to get this right.
On P.8 of its response, the Law Society alludes to another thorny issue, one that seems to be cropping up with increasing frequency when it comes to ‘ambitious’ policy proposals from the Scottish Government:
‘On the proposal for enhancing the assessment and scrutiny of legislation introduced to the Scottish Parliament in relation to the rights in the SHRB (Scottish Human Rights Bill), we call for further clarification of the proposals. We highlight that in our view, it would not be appropriate (and might even be an unlawful modification of the Scotland Act’s provisions on competence) to make a statement of compatibility with the SHRB a precondition of a Bill being introduced, either legislatively or via the Ministerial code. We suggest that the Scottish Parliament processes for assessing the scrutiny of Bills in relation to human rights under the Bill should be the same as their scrutiny of legislative competence issues.’ (my emphasis)
So perhaps the Scottish Government – and its ‘leadership group’ too? – may have underestimated the complexity of this undertaking. I wonder if Making Rights Real’s director sees ANY merit in the Law Society’s cautionary remarks.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure they were and that would apply to the media as well. I’m not exactly sure or why I became aware fairly early on that the UK gov was likely to prove a block over this issue but aware I certainly was. It came as no surprise that the SG were going to have to rethink this. I wasn’t aware of the Law Society submission, thanks for that.
Golfnut
LikeLike
‘Drug gangs now targeting Inverness originate in English cities’”
Sorry to get back to this but this link will show that it was reported by Highland paper and surprise the Tory P@J also reported but sad to say as figures show BBC Scotland are down so maybe not many people watched on the other channel.
https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/ruthless-drugs-gangs-target-highlands-184774/
It is also happening in the Islands as well.
https://orcadian.co.uk/30000-drugs-haul-orkney/
LikeLike
There are cannabis farms in the UK. Powerful skunk. Albanian gangs.
Human rights. Women do not have equal rights. The majority co habit. They have to put in a claim (1/3). It can take years and cost £thousands. There is little legal aid, which has to be paid back in any case. Women have to stay in abusive situations. What is the Law Society doing about that?
Charities can criticise Gov to get more funding. Over emphasise.
Scotland has to pay for Westminster poor, bad policies. Illegal war, Trident, redundant weaponry. Tax evasion. HS2, Hickley Point etc. Westminster bureaucracy. High paid Gov Offices in the Mall. London transport. Brexit costing £Billion. Scotland in surplus in fuel and energy and nearer the source, pays more.
Scotland would be better off Independent.
LikeLike
The EU human rights are embedded in Devolution.
LikeLike