The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)

There is a lot of talk at the moment about if the ECHR is fit for purpose.  Some say that without it, our entire evolution and understanding of human rights since WWII is lost, others say that the Court has evolved beyond its remit and is now infringing upon its members sovereignty, particularly in their abilities to prevent terrorism and other security threats.

This is certainly the current point of view of the UK Government, who have made it clear in recent days that they feel the Court needs to change.  The catalyst is of course that the UK currently holds the Chair of the Council of Europe, and has the political will and place to now effect change.  The other catalyst that has caused uproar is the recent judgement of the ECHR that the UK cannot deport the terrorist suspect Abu Qatada back to Jordan, after three UK trials determined that he is a risk and should be sent back.

David Cameron is right to seek change.  He is right to say that human rights laws are becoming distorted (see here) He is also right that the Court should be the last resort, and used where a national justice system is unable or unwilling to deal with or decide upon a case.

Europe agrees that there should be reform, although apparently doesn't much like the idea of deferring to national governments.  So, should the ECHR become supranational?  That's not what it is about; it is not the EU.  It is still based on intergovernmentalism, and David Cameron should perhaps consider the idea of withdrawing the UK from the Court if it continues to infringe on our sovereignty and put the country at risk.  These arguments are strong ones, and should not be disregarded on a whim.

Those who say that our voice would be lessened are thinking from a supranational perspective.  The UK is not about to abandon its commitment to, or respect for human rights.  Very likely the UK would remain in the Convention even if it were to withdraw from the Court.

It's true that where the court has helped UK human rights culture to evolve has to be acknowledged.  But we are now talking about putting our national security at risk, and the even more-worrying evolution of an institution that has gone beyond, and will continue to go beyond, its raison-d'etre, if not put in check.  Looking at the EU as the best example, I don't want to see this happen with the ECHR - that's where things may just get really dangerous.

Scotland, oh Scotland.....

-

It was rather impossible to miss the the explosive debate that began just last week when David Cameron threw down the gauntlet to Alex Salmond and demanded a referendum on the Scots leaving the United Kingdom. I'd like to offer my thoughts.

It is well-known, and I noted myself in my blog post on St. George's Day 2008, that the debate about Scottish secession has been looming for quite some time. What nobody really expected was the extent of the Scottish National Party's (SNP) victory in the Scottish Parliamentary elections in May 2011. Since this occurred, it is now politically possible for the SNP to table a referendum to the Scottish people.

Cameron started the official "war" over secession last week when he demanded that a referendum be held sooner rather than later. Rather surprisingly, this prompted Alex Salmond to reveal hitherto unknown information about when exactly he was planning his referendum - late 2014 to coincide with Scotland's greatest military victory (were there many others?) over England 700 years ago.

Now that we know the SNP's plans, the Government demanded that it be sooner, and has now given a list of conditions that the SNP must meet for the referendum to be legal under UK (and inherently Scottish) law.

My aim here is to simply draw a clear picture. Certain elements of the story are wholly misrepresented and/or plainly misunderstood by a large number of people.

First of all, this is not actually an "independence" vote at all. The word "independence" has connotations that usually imply that one party/country has been dominated by another, usually through conquering or colonisation. This is simply not the case. This is about Scotland choosing to leave the United Kingdom; a union that it agreed to in the first place. It is not for me to judge the circumstances under which Scotland joined the Union, but it is perfectly free to choose to leave should it so wish. The language of the debate really needs to be accurate, for the Scots are deciding whether to leave a union that it joined as a sovereign nation, and the people are simply now voting for the return of full sovereignty to Edinburgh as supposed to London. The consequence of course is that the English will regain full sovereignty from the Scots too, a point not often mentioned.

Secondly, I have read a wide range of comments and articles from those who feel that England should have a say in this. The logic goes that as the UK will be affected, everyone in the UK should decide if Scotland leaves. My view is that this is incorrect. If everyone was to decide if Scotland should leave, how would we ever know the true wishes of the Scottish people? It doesn't seem democratic to me to not allow the Scots to choose to restore sovereignty by themselves. It is on the other hand perfectly reasonable that if the Scots want to leave, they have the right to make the choice. True, there are consequences for all of us in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but should the tables be turned and one of us wanted to cede from the UK, we wouldn't want the Scots to decide for us either.

Those supporting the idea of the entire UK having a say is making an argument akin to all EU members having a vote on whether the UK should leave the European Union. The UK is still in many ways (but dwindling I acknowledge) a sovereign nation, but even if we were a part of a United States of Europe we would not allow 26 other countries to prevent us from doing what we wanted to do. We can expect no less from the Scottish people. The problem is though in our relationship with the EU is that we have agreed to the fixed procedure for leaving, as written in the Lisbon Treaty, and we would need to determine our position with regards to the treaty.

Thirdly, I concur with the clear legal view that under the Scotland Act of 1998, Alex Salmond has no legal mandate to conduct the referendum - it is for Westminster to determine constitutional issues, and for Westminster to give Alex Salmond the necessary legal powers for the referendum vote to be considered legal. It really is stupid that the SNP are denying that Westminster has this right when it is plainly written in law - and worse for them to use Westminster's conditions as proof to their followers that "the English want to interfere." There is a major alarm bell going off in my head here. The law is the law, Mr Salmond - the UK will respect the rule of law, and you shall challenge it at your peril!

Fourthly, I've noted the interesting attitude reflected in the opinion polls - that more Englishmen and women are keen for the Scots to leave the UK than the Scots themselves. This reflects years of Alex Salmond antagonising the English, and thus attempting to link Scottish secession with English desires. He is playing with fire and might just get his wish. But he shall be to blame for the consequences, not the rest of us.

Finally, I am not prepared to debate in full the financial side of Scottish secession, however I side with the view that the Scots will be worse off. Some believe that the Scots should shoulder a proportional amount of UK debt based on their population, but I disagree. Population was not the measure used when the debt was generated and nor should it be if the debt has to be shared. A substantially large amount of UK Government debt was spent stopping the collapse of Scottish banks, therefore those Government liabilities should in due course become the liabilities of a fully-functional Scottish Government.

To close, there is much more to say when you hold this debate up in the mirror and compare it with the ongoing debate of the UK's changing relationship with the EU. It is quite amazing and hypocritical to see the UK Government saying things in relation to Scottish secession that they would never say in relation to the UK leaving the EU. The hypocrisy stinks when Cameron says that "the Scottish people must have a vote sooner rather than later" and yet denies a vote on EU membership when there is a clear public demand to do so. These issues are for another post, as well as Scotland's and the UK's overall place in the EU given the outcome of a yes or no vote in Scotland.

-