A FULL-TIME carer came forward yesterday to claim sole responsibility for the independence camp outside the Scottish Parliament.
In a dramatic twist, Moira Williams said she was behind the vigil to remain outside the Holyrood building until Scotland became independent and should face any consequences from the legal challenge.
Scottish Parliament bosses have taken court action to evict the campers, who moved onto the site in November, insisting it trespasses on their land.
But the campers say they want to highlight the cause of independence and have a right to be there.
During a hearing last month Lord Turnbull demanded the residential addresses of 238 people, said to be associated with the camp, in a bid to identify those potentially liable for costs. He warned of possible contempt of court action if all the addresses were not supplied by 5pm on 31 March.
But speaking exclusively to The National Williams, 46, from Falkirk, said only her name should have been given to the court, and not those of the 237 others, who had simply put their names to a home made document supporting Scottish independence.
“I knew exactly where those 237 names come from. They are people who signed a Declaration of Arbroath we drew up in support of the cause of Scottish independence. But they did not sign up to take legal responsibility for indycamp, that was not mentioned. When they signed the declaration they were not signing up as respondents in the legal case,” she said.
“I am the camp creator, it was my idea, it was me who set it up and am taking sole responsibility to avoid 237 other people being sucker punched for it. It would be a miscarriage of justice if they were held responsible.”
Williams said she and a legal representative went to the Court of Session last week before the deadline, handing over a letter putting forward her argument. She also supplied her name and residential address.
“The paperwork was taken by the court and delivered to the judge. The papers said I was the camp creator, that I accepted full responsibility and liability and there would be a miscarriage of justice if the 237 other people were pursued,” she said.
“The papers were sent back and we were told we were welcome to put them in later if it came to costs.”
She added: “Obviously I am worried about what is going to happen, but as camp creator I have a duty towards people who put forward their names innocently.”
Williams, who gave up her job as a shop manager to look after her son Zackari, 20, who has Asperger’s Syndrome, said she believed the case shone a spotlight on weaknesses in the Scottish legal system.
“I think the case has shown that in Scotland if you have money you can get the best lawyers to put your case in court,” she said. “But if you haven’t you can’t. There is a real imbalance in the system. Justice is not available to the poor man or woman. The system is loaded and I believe we had no chance whatsoever.”
She also pointed to other vigils, including that by peace campaigner Brian Haw, who camped outside Westminster from 2001 for almost ten years.
Williams added: “All we wanted to do was hold a vigil to support Scottish independence, and to this day, I can’t see what is wrong with that. In many places across the world there are vigils outside parliaments. From Westminster to Washington they have been tolerated, but not it seems in Scotland.”
One supporter, whose name was included on the list, was surprised to hear of the development.
“This is very brave of Moira who stands to lose everything,” he said.
“But we’ll have to wait and see if her argument will be accepted by the court. I got the impression in the hearing that names couldn’t come off the list.”
A spokesman for the Judicial Office for Scotland said: “A letter has been received by the court and will be considered if and when appropriate.”
A Scottish Parliament spokeswoman said: “Our primary aim is to return the Parliament’s land to general public use. We are seeking the addresses of those camping on Parliament land without permission so, should the Parliament be successful in its action, it is clear against whom any judgement applies.
“The protesters have argued strongly in court, including most recently on 24 March, that there are more than 230 people listed as members of the camp. It will be for the Court to determine whether the number of subscribers can and should be substantially reduced at this late stage.”
Lord Turnbull will publish his ruling on the case in due course.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here