Coat of Arms of the Falkland Islands

Earlier this week, the denizens of the Falkland Islands voted by an overwhelming majority to remain as an overseas territory of the United Kingdom.  This result was not unexpected, but are there any lessons to be learned for our own constitutional referendum in 2014?

The wording of the referendum question is, of course, all important. Section 5(2) of the Referendum (Falkland Islands Political Status) Ordinance (No 16 of 2012) requires the Governor (N. R. Haywood C.V.O.) to take reasonable steps to ensure that the question to be asked is “objective, unambiguous and easy to understand.”

The terms of the preamble and the question itself was set out in the Referendum on Political Status (Question) Order 2012, as follows.

“The current political status of the Falkland Islands is that they are an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom. The Islands are internally self-governing, with the United Kingdom being responsible for matters including defence and foreign affairs. Under the Falkland Islands Constitution the people of the Falkland Islands have the right to self-determination, which they can exercise at any time. Given that Argentina is calling for negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, this referendum is being undertaken to consult the people regarding their views on the political status of the Falkland Islands. Should the majority of votes cast be against the current status, the Falkland Islands Government will undertake necessary consultation and preparatory work in order to conduct a further referendum on alternative options.

“Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?”

The question is very much skewed in favour of the status quo, I suppose.  It should also be noted that media in the Falklands could fairly be described as “staunchly Unionist” in character.  The scheme is also one of a two referendum approach in the event of a departure from the status quo – the first to establish the principle, the second on the detail of that proposal.  The Scottish Government have indicated that Scotland will be taking a one referendum approach to constitutional change.

There were only three people on the islands who voted against the current political arrangements – who will presumably now be rounded up and fed to the penguins.  Such an emphatic result – in either direction – seems unlikely in Scotland’s case, but we would be pleased to receive the glowing report from the international observers:

“It is our finding that the Falkland Islands referendum process was free and fair, reflecting the democratic will of the voters of the Falkland Islands,” said Brad Smith, the Head of the International Observation Mission. “The international observation mission has concluded that the voting process was executed in accordance with international standards and local laws. The process was technically sound, with a systematic adherence to established voting procedures.”

Argentina has been quick to denounce the poll as meaningless and continues to press its claim to “Los Islas Malvinas”. Whatever the result of Scotland’s vote, it is sure that it will not end the debate.

Related articles

• Falkland Islands referendum: overwhelming yes to staying British (guardian.co.uk)
• CAMERON: Argentina must respect… (telegraph.co.uk)
• Falkland Islanders vote overwhelming to remain a British territory (metro.co.uk)

Flag of the Commonwealth

So, the Queen today signed the new Commonwealth Charter, which for the first time in its 64 years history sets out a common vision, values and aims for the organisation, which represents one third of the world’s population.

The document includes the following:

“We are committed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other relevant human rights covenants and international instruments. We are committed to equality and respect for the protection and promotion of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, for all without discrimination on any grounds as the foundations of peaceful, just and stable societies. We note that these rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated and cannot be implemented selectively.

“We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender,
race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds.”

Note, in particular, the commitment to “other relevant human rights covenants” and that human rights “cannot be implemented selectively”. Doesn’t that undermine rather the recent statements from UK Government Ministers about wanting to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights? Or perhaps the plan is to withdraw from the Commonwealth altogether as well?

English: A woman makes her support of her marriage, and not civil unions, known outside the Mormon temple at New York City’s Lincoln Center. Photographer’s blog post about this photo and the protest. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Scottish Government have published their consultation on the draft Bill to introduce same sex marriage in Scotland.  The draft Bill is called the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill and it will be pored over in great detail, no doubt.

As you may know, my principle objection to the introduction of same sex marriage is that it will ruin the film “Some like it hot” for future generations…

Anyway, the Bill came about – in part – following a successful “equal marriage” campaign.  So it is ironic that the Bill ushers in a era of no fewer than 9 distinct legal forms of marriage or partnership:

1. religious marriage (heterosexual);
2. belief marriage (heterosexual);
3. civil marriage (heterosexual);
4. religious marriage (same sex);
5. belief marriage (same sex);
6. civil marriage (same sex);
7. religious civil partnership (same sex);
8. belief civil partnership (same sex);
9. civil civil partnership or “civil registration” (same sex).

… with slightly different rules and requirements for each.  Hardly “equal” is it?

It is only a couple of hundred years since the state took any role in marriage at all.  Is there really any legitimate role for government to define these 9 types of relationship as more worthy of state recognition than others?  If there must be some state involvement, let’s have a single tax/inheritance agreement which people of any gender or sexuality can enter into and leave individuals and their religious bodies (if any) to celebrate their love and commitment together in whatever way they please – no legislation needed for that surely?

I am in favour of a strict separation of church and state, so let’s not have priests presiding over a civil tax and inheritance contractual relationship, and leave that to the registrars.

Related articles

• Scotland Unveils Gay Marriage Legislation (queerty.com)
• Same-sex marriage bill goes out for consultation with churches and religious groups (dailyrecord.co.uk)

Screenshot from the new, improved Scottish Court Service website

I note that the Scottish Court Service has indulged in an online makeover.  As far as I can make out, the content remains the same.  The presentation and navigation is much improved, although I don’t really care for the automatic rollover expanding navigation bars at the top of each page.  Still, you can’t have everything!

The firm that never grew?

DLA Piper is thinking about closing its Glasgow office following a review of UK operations.

A DLA Piper spokesperson said:

“Following a comprehensive review of our UK business designed to ensure that we are operating in a manner, in the locations, and across the practice areas that support both our strategic objectives and the needs of our clients, we have begun a period of consultation in the UK that will consider the possible closure of our Glasgow office, the closure or divestment of our defendant insurance practice and the consolidation into one location of our current multi-site document production unit.”

I think this means that the Glasgow office, which has 85 employees including 10 partners, isn’t making enough money. Those affected will be subject to a consultation process to begin on 28 November and conclude “early in the new year”.

The possible redundancy package is said to include an “enhanced scheme that will be discussed with employee representatives” or – if staff are very unlucky – there could be transfers to Edinburgh.

DLA Piper puts 251 in consultation across UK as firm mulls Glasgow closure

Scotch Whiskey at the Pub (Photo credit: cobalt123)

So, somewhat inevitably, the Scottish Government‘s minimum alcohol pricing laws have been challenged by the booze industry.

Specifically, the Scotch Whisky Association and two European bodies which represent producers of spirit drinks and the wine industry and trade are petitioning for judicial review of the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Act 2012.

The basis of the challenge to the Act is on two grounds:

1. the Act is outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, and
2. that there is no evidence for the proposition that imposing minimum pricing would reduce harmful consumption of alcohol or improve public health.

The judicial review was heard at the end of October, but with a decision yet to be issued, but in this decision by Lord Hodge the charity Alcohol Focus Scotland have been permitted to intervene in the case in the public interest.

Scotch Whisky Association and Others, Petitioners 2012 CSOH 156

The court allowed AFS to intervene by way of a written submission (not exceeding 5,000 words) and granted an order which protected them from liability to expenses – on the basis that they would not intervene at all unless they had no risk of an award of expenses being made against them.

AFS receive substantial funding from the Scottish Government and so it was argued by the petitioners that they were not truly independent.  However, they indicated that did not intend to spend grant income on the intervention, rather they would spend money raised by charitable donations – and only £3,000 at that.  This reassurance was enough for Lord Hodge.

It remains to be seen if the intervention will have an impact of the final decision, but my prediction is that the petition will fail and then on to the Inner House.  Let’s see…

Logo of the Church of Scotland. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

First of all, sorry about the gap in posting.  I’m going to try and post a bit more often now.

In my absence, the Scottish and UK Governments have agreed the “Edinburgh Agreement” which will allow a referendum on independence to take place in 2014.  And while there has been recent controversy about the impact of independence on EU membership or the nuclear detergent currently located in Faslane, near Rhu; the major issue for this blog remains that of institutional religion.

Previous posts have tracked the lack of a reply to my very reasonable question to the Scottish Government – in the event of an independent Scotland, what (if any) will be the constitutional position of the Church of Scotland.  Previous readers will know that the Kirk has an interesting relationship with the state, guaranteeing some independences but still entailing some fairly close ties between Church and State.  They will also know my own personal preference for severing all ties.  I am (as I delight in typing) a disestablishmentarian!

It seems, however, that I was going about things all wrong.  What I ought to have done is make some big splashy headlines across BBC Alba about “provoking God”.  That is the approach taken (back in June) by Rev Allan MacColl of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.  The Treaty of Union currently guarantees Protestant religion and Presbyterian church government in Scotland, and Rev. MacColl raised concerns that a new independent Scotland, involving – necessarily – a change in constitutional arrangements puts that position at risk.

Education Minister Dr. Allan, stated – with clarity that the government e-mail has not provided this website (!) – “the SNP has no plans to alter the present role of the established church upon independence, and is respectful of the role of religion in Scotland.”

This has passed without too much comment, but I wonder whether this is, in fact, compatible with the liberal, multicultural Scotland we might plan for ourselves. Being respectful of the role of religion in Scotland is one thing, but in drafting a new constitution for Scotland is the SNP really setting forth a proposal that the Church of Scotland be the established religion of that new state?  And, if that is what is being said, will the people of Scotland be in favour of it to the same extent?  And, does it really matter any more?  As Brian Taylor of the BBC observed: “Few, I suspect, will fret about the establishment or otherwise of the Kirk. Fewer still, I suspect, will alter their views on independence on the basis of advice from the Free Presbyterian Church.”

Tommy Sheridan dans un meeting de Solidarity, près d’Edimbourg, en février 2007. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Very exciting news that the Tommy Sheridan pantomime is to continue. The former editor of the News of the World Scotland, Bob Bird, has been charged in connection with Tommy Sheridan’s defamation action.

He has been charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice over Mr Sheridan’s successful action against the newspaper in 2006.  I don’t mean to worry anyone, but I think that we may have entered into some form of perpetual litigation machine – in which each round of court action is followed by at least one more.

As Mr. Bird intends to deny the charges, presumably there will be at least one more instance of perjury to follow up from this trial, which will allow Sheridan and/or News International to appeal again … ad infinitum.

And absolvitor will be there to report sporadic trivia.

Related articles

• Former Scottish News of the World editor held by police over claims of perjury in Tommy Sheridan case (dailyrecord.co.uk)
• Bird charged in NoTW case (morningstaronline.co.uk)

English: Sir Walter Scott statue by Sir John Steell on the Scott Monument, Edinburgh (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Michael McMahon MSP has launched a consultation on his proposed Reform of Criminal Verdicts (Scotland) Bill which proposes abolishing the peculiarly Scottish “not proven” verdict in criminal trials – famously described by Sir Walter Scott as “that bastard verdict”.  It also proposes increasing the majority required to return a conviction from 8/15 to 10/15.

The consultation is open until October and invites the views of all and sundry.  To be fair, Mr. McMahon appears open to the proposition that the system be reformed by moving to a proven/not proven choice.

That, it would seem to me would be the better solution, as it more accurately describes the task of the jury.  Juries are not mindreaders, psychologists or gods.  They cannot know what foul deeds occurred at whose hand, nor weigh a man’s soul, nor pierce his heart.  They are selected at random to fulfil one duty, which is to weigh the evidence and to determine whether the charge is proven (or not).

To ask 15 ordinary men and women to make a choice between “guilty” and “not guilty” is just silly.

Related articles

• Not proven verdict in dock again (bbc.co.uk)

Following another dismal showing from the United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest, Lord Graham of Norton, who was also in that Father Ted episode which had them enter “My Lovely Horse” as Ireland’s entry, said Scotland voting to secede from the UK would also mean leaving Eurovision.

This is because the United Kingdom is the existing Eurovision member and would continue to remain should Scotland decide to separate, he told Absolvitor.

His intervention is blow to Alex Salmond, who has claimed an independent Scotland would retain Eurovision membership and had hoped to be the first Scottish representative, singing his acclaimed version of “Bonnie Wee Jeannie McColl”.

Norton claimed: “The Scots would leave Eurovision when they left the union of the (British) island and they would need to apply.”

“To some extent, that would be a matter of form. The problem is that when you are applying all the existing members need to say yes, every one. That gives them an opportunity, if they want, to be obstructive in the voting.”

He warned that even if Scotland was admitted, it would lose the UK’s automatic entry to the final, raising the prospect of the Scottish artist being put out in the preliminary rounds by some minnows from Eastern Europe – as is the tradition already with the national football team.

But speaking at a conference in Edinburgh, Mr Salmond said yesterday: “The Eurovision Song Contest has been one area of scaremongering from ‘sources close to the UK Government’. In reality, of course, we would continue to be a full member of the Eurovision, trading cheesy pop songs freely with our neighbours.”

“Furthermore,” he added “Scotland has not done nearly as much as the UK to annoy the rest as Europe and should benefit from some politically motivated voting.” Mr. Salmond is understood to be optimistic about the Auld Alliance delivering a guaranteed 12 points every year.

Related articles

• Nil point? Eurovision song contest voting explained (itv.com)