Professor John Robertson OBA
The Herald’s headline image and story above is just another in a long toxic trail of misinformation aimed at associating SNP ministers with controversies in which they have little or no influence, in order to undermine her and the SNP.
The actual complaint from the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland opens with:
The Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland (ERCS) has today urged a top UN body to intervene against the Scottish Civil Justice Council (SCJC) for breaching our right to public participation in environmental decision-making, which is enshrined in the Aarhus Convention.
In October 2021, the governing institutions of the Convention required the Scottish Government to act ‘as a matter of urgency’ to ensure access to justice is no longer ‘prohibitively expensive’ and address its breach of the Convention’s Article 9 Access to Justice requirements.
In response, the Scottish Government asked the SCJC – a public body comprising senior judges responsible for keeping the civil justice system under review – to review rules on legal expenses called Protective Expenses Orders.
There is no accusation aimed at the minister nor at the Scottish Government in the full complaint and there is no evidence that the Scottish Government has directed the judges, the Scottish Civil Justice Council, in anyway as to how their review should proceed. Indeed they cannot do so:
An independent judiciary is a cornerstone of a fair and just society and this, alongside the independence of the Lord Advocate, would be ensured in an independent Scotland. Scotland has a well-established and well-respected judiciary able to make carefully considered decisions without interference or influence from government or politicians.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/building-new-scotland-justice-independent-scotland/pages/7/
Community Safety Minister, Siobhian Brown (pictured) makes this separation clear but her comment is relegated to near the end of the Herald report.
Brown has no history of any such undemocratic interference. Indeed when asked in April 2024, whether she thought comments by JK Rowling, on high profile trans figures, could be classified as ‘non-crime hate incidents‘ she was clear that this was a matter entirely for Police Scotland.
What we have here is just another media demonization of an SNP politician in a desperate attempt to undermine them, the SNP and the wider independence movement.
We’ve seen this kind of thing over and over since at least 2013 when Alex Salmond was personally associated in headlines with any aspect of the independence campaign that could somehow be presented as negative. We’ve seen all four health secretaries blamed for supposed failures by health boards. We’ve see a transport minister blamed for rail deaths that were due to Rail Track failures overseen by the UK minister. During the pandemic, we saw the First Minister blamed for the alleged short-term consequences of her strategy which was, in the end, shown to have saved far more lives than had been done in other parts of the UK.
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
Eh? Oh what now.
Their stupid accusatory ‘Scots judge led body’s’ ‘breach’ of international law’ makes no sense.
I see the accuser(?) is a ‘Lord Pentland’.
Honestly, the wording, the picture they have doctored, it’s so so desperate, but designed to fool people just that bit more than usual. In many ways they are misuing ‘international law’ as clickbait, which at this time, is a huge subject in relation to the sheer blatant, utterly disgusting disregard by the Labour party and their PM, for ‘international law’ on so many levels.
Sadly, BritNat propaganda works and they know it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Isn’t Pentland these accused?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hmm who is he? Did he write the article?
LikeLike
No he did not write the article but seems to be the chair of the committee/commission/council being criticised by the UN.
I saw this article in the Herald today and started to read it and almost simultaneously realised I was losing the will to live! It is the most badly written , confusing article that left me none the wiser about it what the fuss was about.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ah thanks Legerwood. Yes we are through the looking glass for sure, it’s all by design, to confuse people. The BritEng state are desperate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
J’Accuse … The Herald of no longer being a newspaper but a unionist propaganda sheet .
The Beano has higher journalistic standards !
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yet another ‘Exclusive by Martin Williams’, dear God is there no end to this man’s many talons – https://archive.ph/CAJ6a
LikeLiked by 1 person
The headline states that the UN body ‘IS PROBING’. The information from the complainant, the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland (ERCS) states that it IS URGING the UN body to intervene. These are two quite different things: we have yet to find out if the URGINg will bear fruit.
The ERCS statement quoted in the main blog post has this: ‘In October 2021, the governing institutions of the Convention required the Scottish Government to act ‘as a matter of urgency’ to ensure access to justice is no longer ‘prohibitively expensive’ and address its breach of the Convention’s Article 9 Access to Justice requirements.’
This seems to be the relevant document recording the judgements made at the 7th Session (Geneva, 18-10 October 2021) of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) – ‘Meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters’. (relates to the Aarhus Convention)
Source: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-05/ECE_MP.PP_2021_2_Add.1_E.pdf
What is notable from a quick read is how many countries plus the EU that the ECE finds fault with. Specifically in its section on the UK – ‘Decision VII/8s Compliance by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with its obligations under the Convention.’
‘Decision VI/8k: Endorses the findings of the Committee with respect to decision VI/8k that:
(a) While welcoming the progress made in that direction, the Party concerned has not yet met the requirements of paragraphs 2 (a), (b) and (d) and 4 with respect to England and Wales;
(b) While welcoming the progress made in that direction, the Party concerned has not yet met the requirements of paragraph 2 (a), (b) and (d) with respect to Scotland;
(c) While welcoming the significant progress made in that direction, the Party concerned has not yet met the requirements of paragraph 2 (a), (b), (c) and (d) with respect to Northern Ireland’
There are multiple other clauses in a similar vein over several pages, a minority referring specifically to Scotland.
The ERCS statement in the blog post uses the phrase ‘as matter of
urgency’. The phrase appears in most if not all the ECE judgment statements. In the section on the UK. it refers to acting on decision Vi/8k. Firstly, it is directed at the ‘Party‘ to the relevant Convention namely the UK government and secondly the specified decision relates to matters identified in all four constituent nations of the UK. Scotland is NOT being made out to be an exceptional rogue here! The Scottish Government and Scottish ministers are nowhere mentioned nor is Scotland’s judiciary.
The Scottish Civil Justice Council has recently published two briefing papers on research relevant to this matter (see its web site):
‘RESEARCH: ON THE TYPE OF CASES SEEKING A PROTECTIVE EXPENSES ORDER, Issued: 30 September 2024′
‘RESEARCH ON THE COST CAPS USED IN PRACTICE: within Protective Expenses Orders – Issued: 30 AUGUST 2024′
Interesting reads for background to nature and scale of the issues here. However, notably, both documents contain similar paragraphs on ‘next steps’:
‘AARHUS CONVENTION – uploading this research to the SCJC website will assist DEFRA when collating the “2nd progress report on the UK Plan of Action” (As the formal mechanism for Aarhus updates6 to the UNECE).
‘AARHUS CONVENTION – the publication of this research paper will inform DEFRA when collating the “2 progress report on the UK Plan of Action” .
LikeLiked by 2 people