To wish Nicola Sturgeon was Prime Minister.

[NellyJames]

Just listening to her statement to the Scottish Parliament. I don’t want to debate her wider politics or the question of Scottish independence because that’s for the Scots to decide.
I’m just so impressed by her leadership and how clear and concise she is. There’s no waffle, no bluster. She’s just said Scotland is 4wks behind London so the time to act is now before they’re in the same position.

Her manner is just so factual and informative and if I was Scottish or lived in Scotland whether I agreed with her SNP politics or not, I’d be very glad she was my FM. She makes BJ look like an uneducated idiot who is neither responsible nor has the balls to take decisions before the effects are smacking him on the face.

How come no one wanted her fired for breaking the covid rules?

Because she made the kind of mistake that any one of us could and have. A momentary lapse is entirely forgivable. It's hardly the same thing as a calculated and deliberate breaking of the rules!

I have some German friends who might caution you on this view

Lol! Not quite sure that self-determination for our own little country is quite in the same league as Hitler's goal, but I take your point!

"How dreadful, to have a leader fixated on something that they strongly to believe to be in their countries best interests. Whether she is right or wrong is yet to be seen."

I have some German friends who might caution you on this view

@Sinful8 Godwin’s Law means that you lose this debate.

People who glibly and inappropriately suggest that someone is like Hitler need to think a little harder about the Holocaust.

The independence thing is more the desire of the other wing of the party, the Cherry/Salmond axis.

Though they all keep banging on about it. I don’t have strong views on it now, but I really feel that this year is not the time for more bitter debate and uncertainty, more than already exists.

Let’s get through Covid and see what fresh hell Brexit brings, then fair enough. But not now.

@Sinful8 Godwin’s Law means that you lose this debate.

People who glibly and inappropriately suggest that someone is like Hitler need to think a little harder about the Holocaust.

Yeah damn, I don't like Sturgeon, but comparing her to Hitler? She's focusing on one thing only (independence) and neglecting education and health, she hasn't started killing people. She's misguided perhaps. Not even slightly comparable. You should maybe re read what actually happened, Sinful8 that is.

I have to disagree, yes she looks good when compared to Boris, that isn’t exactly a glowing reference, I think Joe Bloggs could do a much better job than Boris.

@C0NNIE

"How dreadful, to have a leader fixated on something that they strongly to believe to be in their countries best interests. Whether she is right or wrong is yet to be seen."

I have some German friends who might caution you on this view

@Sinful8 Godwin’s Law means that you lose this debate.

People who glibly and inappropriately suggest that someone is like Hitler need to think a little harder about the Holocaust.

Who mentioned Hitler?

Theres more than one German leader you know

This whole thread reads like bad fan fiction, as is usual with SNP supporters. Cf attacking anyone viciously (they think cleverly) who disagrees with them, the purpose being to silence debate and analysis. Often resort to misquoting particular parts of previous posts and making wild accusations that other people are evil, etc.

What I'm interested in is the SNP's attitude towards human rights. The SNP is very cagey about whether an independent Scotland would be a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. In fact, the White Paper on the last independence referendum went out of its way to state that an independent Scotland would only have a "Scottish version" of the ECHR.

For some reason, a lot of SNP supporters get very upset when the ECHR is mentioned now (one of my colleagues keeps an informed watch of social media posts from political factions within Scotland).

It remains a mystery why those in power in Scotland don't think Scottish people deserve to be protected by the actual ECHR but, unlike any other European country, would need a special version, with no guarantee of what it would cover.

The SNP led Scottish Government also objected to the EU led extension of Freedom of information rights to environmental concerns. Although fortunately they were overruled by the UK Government (and the EU would also have taken enforcement action).

So I'd really like to know why the supposedly wonderful Nicola Sturgeon wants to create a country which would be both outwith the EU and not a signatory to the ECHR, and how on earth that would be anything other than recessive for Scottish people? As it would enable less transparency of government reporting on health and education statistics and unregulated use of state funds, to name just two concerns.

@Waterdropsdown

I’m a Scottish person living in England. She has come across very well in the pandemic and made decisions quickly. Previous posters have already said it - her record in government is not great and I would be devastated if she led Scotland to being an independent country.

I’m Scottish living in Scotland , totally agree with this comment. Yes I think she has been clear and concise, cannot abide the Boris blustering and u turns, the delay in preparing when we could see Italy and Spain in meltdown , the eat out to help out then stay in, wash hands all will be fine rubbish.

I think she would have made a superb Health minister for one of the two main political parties I admire her for her work during this terrible pandemic.
However I still believe to separate from the rest of the UK would be a disaster for Scotland.

Interesting about the ECHR thing @GreenlandTheMovie.

That’s a big thing for me

Except she was a shit health minister with absolutely no empathy. She's learned to fake that now. She is a clever woman, no denying it. I think the lies told are starting to catch up though as its difficult to remember every single time you've bent the truth or remained silent or whatever and then you say something and someone else remembers.

Seeing someone on TV everyday is not the same as living with the consequences. Obviously some people are still happy with that and others aren't.

It's just such a division and I don't know if it will ever change tbh. Neither side wants to hear what the other side say and I'm no different.

Politics aside, most folk can get on but there really is very little middle ground politically.

We are a country of marmite views.

@WouldBeGood

Interesting about the ECHR thing *@GreenlandTheMovie*.

That’s a big thing for me

If you're interested, its all available at www.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00458063.pdf Section 13

"On the right to access information within the Member States: more EU competence or action is viewed as unnecessary in order to enable citizens to access official environmental information within Scotland;"

"Preservation of the current EU position on access to environmental information. While there may be some benefits, harmonising rules across the EU on rights to access environmental information has created confusion among staff in public bodies and members of the public about how they differ from FOISA. Harmonisation does not add to the information rights people already have in Scotland under FOISA and almost all EIR requests come from people located in Scotland so there is no benefit in making it easier for people to make requests in various countries as there seems to be little demand for this;"

There used to a nasty little document called "Scotland's Agenda for EU Reform" available at www.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00458063.pdf, which got all sorts of things wrong about EU law and got very confused about the EU bodies responsible for each function, but it appears to have been recently removed.

There also isn't a human rights watch equivalent to the UK Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) at Westminster within the Scottish Parliament.

@GreenlandTheMovie v interesting re ECHR. Can you show me where NS has said it’s not her intention to be a signatory upon independence?

The white paper makes several references to ECHR all repeatedly confirming the intention is to be signatories, and that any Scottish “version” seems to be a quite significant enhancement of rights already conferred?

@KatieGGGG I’m not sure I’d see the need for a Scottish version? It’s well established international law and surely if we are to be in Europe we should sign up to it?

"A massive web of institutions entirely devoted to taking the children of the rich, be they clever, thick or entirely average, polishing every turd until they gleam, connecting turd with turd until it's a sea of ordure that is entirely impenetrable from the outside, and propelling each steamer into a position of responsibility entirely unrelated to what ability or talent they might actually have."
@YoniAndGuy, this ^^ is bloody brilliant and describes most of Westminster perfectly.

I don't agree with SNP politics but I'm so grateful that I'm in Scotland and under Nicola Sturgeon's leadership during the pandemic. Johnson is a buffoon.

@WouldBeGood so the proposal isn’t to have a revised version (as a signatory of ECHR you can’t pick and choose what rights you sign up to). A “Scottish version” would be the ECHR in its absolutely entirety, plus enacting other rights to be human rights in Scotland.

So in Scotland for example currently you have the statutory right to housing if you’re made homeless. The ECHR while provides for family life doesn’t provide a prima facie right to be housed. This would be an example of Scottish plus.

Scotgov position has never been not to be signatories of ECHR or reduce the rights it confers (they simply couldn’t). Their position has always been signatories, plus further rights. So “Scottish version” isn’t quite right I think in terms of wording as it could sound like reduction/amendment when it’s the opposite.

I feel the same about her as I did Maggie Thatcher. I dont like her or her politics but admire her strength, determination and loyalty to her own people. I wish there were more like her in Westminster.

She comes across as a strong and resourceful leader and an excellent female role model.

@KatieGGGG I’ll take a look. I’m wary of them extending powers too, because of things like the current Hate Crime Bill, football singing legislation and the named person stuff. Thanks for the information. I want to learn what they’re standing for and it’s good to get actual information, not just rants 😄

@sneakysnoopysniper loyal she is most certainly not. Look at the schism in the party and things like throwing the hapless health minister to the dogs recently because of her record on drug deaths.

Make no mistake, she and her husband run the party like a well oiled machine to ensure their grip of it. That’s why it’s so successful in maintaining this public image. Maybe a role model for other parties?!

KatieGGGG @GreenlandTheMovie v interesting re ECHR. Can you show me where NS has said it’s not her intention to be a signatory upon independence?

The white paper makes several references to ECHR all repeatedly confirming the intention is to be signatories, and that any Scottish “version” seems to be a quite significant enhancement of rights already conferred?

What a great question and how refreshing to be asked something so sensible.

So the specific reference was in "Scotland's Agenda for EU Reform, Scottish Government, August 2014 page 2, footnote 2, previously available at www.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00458063.pdf.

That document took the format of a Questions and Answers format, and the answer to the question of whether an independent Scotland would become a signatory to the ECHR was that "there will be a Scottish version of the ECHR". That is specifically what was stated. Not an enhanced version, a "Scottish version".

That document has now been deleted from the public domain, which is unusual for government documents, but there is still no official commitment to an independent Scotland joining the ECHR and certainly not within a particular timeframe. There are vague references to things slightly different, but taken all together, they can be interpreted as cancelling each other out. Its all very vague.

And since joining the EU requires joining the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (which enhances the ECHR rights), I wonder why the Scottish Government simply doesn't say that. The best legal minds have interpreted both the Charter and the ECHR and thats what the case law relates to so I cannot understand why any State would wish to create confusion by having their own version, or an "enhanced version".

Theres no need for an "enhanced" version - that would simply be a different version and could potentially cancel out rights. I'm not convinced that anyone working for the Scottish Government has a background which gives a full understanding of these issues or the potential pitfalls. The requirement to study one year of EU law at undergraduate level isn't sufficient when nearly all other legal systems require study at Masters level in the specific subject to work in government. The SG needs to listen more to experts in the field such as Adam Tomkins. I'm unsure whether this confusion is due to incompetence or a deliberate policy of vagueness but the Scottish Executive does give quite a number of good examples of poor practice in governance particularly with regards to the rule of law and separation of powers which are difficult to find in Western European legal systems, so its a really fecund area to write about.

Interestingly, in that White Paper you mention, there are 14 references to "special", "specific" or "unique" "Scottish circumstances. In the Scottish Government publication, Scotland in the European Union, (Scottish Government, November 2013) the references are even stronger while in the SG publication, Scotland's Agenda for EU Reform, August 2014 section 13, its used as a justification for a policy in favour of not extending Scottish legislation to embrace the proposed EU improvements in the rights of citizens to access to public information. The terminology is also common practice in Scottish Government publications and press releases.

So there does seem to be a worrying discernable trend to invent a quasi-doctrine giving an excuse for non-compliance of Scottish legislation and procedures with EU standardised norms. Its a justification that I've not come across before, for example with regards to Hungary, or Turkey. Throughout, the intention is given that EU rules that apply to other countries will simply not apply to Scotland, and that is very odd to see in an official government publication in a Western European state.

I actually did my thesis on this and related topics (I.e. about meeting accessibility criteria for EU membership and the work that would be needed to be done for potential new member state to meet those criteria), and parts of my thesis are published, although not in the UK, so I can use my own work as authority even though one of the source documents has been deleted from the public domain. Although obviously I don't want to identify myself on a social media post.

She has no ideas. She is an angry woman with an obsession.

Spot on 😂

[quote KatieGGGG]**@WouldBeGood* so the proposal isn’t to have a revised version (as a signatory of ECHR you can’t pick and choose what rights you sign up to). A “Scottish version” would be the ECHR in its absolutely entirety, plus* enacting other rights to be human rights in Scotland.

So in Scotland for example currently you have the statutory right to housing if you’re made homeless. The ECHR while provides for family life doesn’t provide a prima facie right to be housed. This would be an example of Scottish plus.

Scotgov position has never been not to be signatories of ECHR or reduce the rights it confers (they simply couldn’t). Their position has always been signatories, plus further rights. So “Scottish version” isn’t quite right I think in terms of wording as it could sound like reduction/amendment when it’s the opposite.[/quote]
If I could step in to answer this too.

Again, I have no idea why this is being made so complicated. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights which is essential to EU membership already provides enhancements to the ECHR. The danger seems to be that the SG has form for enacting legislation which is ultra vires EU competition law (Scotch Whisky, Named Persons, disproportionate financial penalties, some property related legislation restricting the market, etc). New invented rights might cancel out existing rights.

So while you might have a statutory right to housing, individuals do not have a right or mechanism to enforce that right against local authorities. There is very good reason that the ECHR does not provide a specific right to housing - its quite clearly in the realm of policy matter reserved to the individual member state. I'm surprised that this isn't common knowledge as you appear to quite well informed. Horizontal versus vertical judicial enforcement.

The UK has an informal constitution with traditional checks and balances. Some of those checks and balances don't exist in the devolved governments because their rights come from a single statute and sl. Acts of Parliament cannot be the subject of judicial review.

In Scotland, its even more difficult to claim judicial review than in England, because of the additional requirement of personal interest. The Human Rights Act Section 3 represents the only exception to the constitutional convention of judicial review being able to challenge primary legislation. Loss of that is a significant danger. The Scottish version of the Human Rights Act Section 6(2) at Section 57(2) of the Scotland Act does not extend the public interest defence available to public authorities in Scotland which allows any ECHR incompatible measures to be struck down by the courts

I agree with you that "Scottish version" is dangerous, so it was a matter for study at institutions abroad within the EU because it appeared in official SG documentation. Another big basic concern regarding Scotland is the unicameral parliamentary structure and the lack of a formal separate revisionary chamber which prevents it from meeting the separation of power requirement. I have yet to see this addressed by the SG, despite all of the rhetoric about potential EU membership.

Thank you for taking the time to put that together @GreenlandTheMovie I really appreciate it. Would love to read your thesis but appreciative of need for anonymity here. I do follow Tomkins already for a (quite different from my own but very informed) view. You’ve signposted for my own further reading!

No problem KatieGGGG, if I could just point out that none of it should be copied and used, because its part of published academic work and I own the copyright. I'm sure I'm preaching to the converted!

I’m in Scotland and do not like her. She’s part of the misogynistic wing of the party and has failed to defend women in her own party subjected to abuse and threats for gender critical feminist views.

Totally agree with the above.

What did she know?
How long did she know it?
What did she do about it?

She weasled her way out.