THE Scottish Parliament has been exhorted by two MSPs to withdraw a legal bid to evict a pro-independence camp outside Holyrood as a court petition to have the proceedings stopped will be heard today.
Jean Urquhart and John Wilson criticised the action to remove the protesters who have vowed to remain on the site until Scotland becomes an independent country. The two former SNP MSPs, now Independents, are the first senior politicians to criticise the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) over the legal action and said the campers had a right to express their views.
It emerged last week a court battle could cause the protesters financial ruin and today they will try to have the action stopped at a petition hearing at the Court of Session.
Urquhart called on the corporate body to take a more consensual approach. “We can be a little bit precious about the Parliament. It’s quite an extraordinary and bold thing to do to have a camp until you get independence,” she told The National. “I would certainly not like the campers to become bankrupt. I honestly think the legal action against them is an overreaction and I would urge the Corporate Body to think again. I think that would be fair.”
Urquhart, who is standing as a Rise candidate in May, added: “The Corporate Body needs to understand that people feel very strongly about getting independence and this is one group’s way of showing its views. It is important that there is that freedom of expression.”
Wilson, who is standing for the Greens, compared the indycampers with demonstrators who camped across the road from the Scottish Office at St Andrew’s House in Edinburgh for five years until the devolution referendum in 1997. He also likened them to protesters at the Faslane naval base. “I think the Corporate Body is being heavy-handed,” he said.
“The protesters are located on a section of the campus away from the parliament. The camp is not obstructing anyone in getting to or from the parliament. It’s not so different from the protest outside St Andrew’s House in the lead up to the referendum on devolution.”
He added: “The Corporate Body represents the Parliament, but members were not consulted about their views on legal proceedings. My own view is that I don’t think it is appropriate for the parliament to be taking legal action against a group of people calling for a second independence referendum.
“We had a camp outside St Andrew’s House which was tolerated, and there is one at Faslane. I don’t see any harm in allowing the one at Holyrood to remain. The corporate body should have a rethink.”
The campers first appeared last November and have vowed to fight a legal challenge to their presence by the SPCB. While the Parliament has to say how much it has spent on its legal case, which is being fought by the country’s largest legal firm on Holyrood’s behalf at Scotland’s top civil court, it says it will seek to recover its costs if it wins.
It leaves the activists, who at a first hearing last month officially responded to the action against them as “the sovereign and indigenous peoples of Scotland”, facing a possible bill of tens of thousands of pounds.
While legal experts say the campers may have a legitimate case by citing “right to roam” legislation and protections to protest and free assembly granted by the European Convention on Human Rights, they have instead declared their intention to deploy unusual legal arguments with a claim based on “common law” and rights from before the Act of Union.
A Scottish Parliament spokeswoman said: “The occupation of a public space on an exclusive basis and to the exclusion of others is not a precedent we wish to see established. The protesters have refused to consider alternative options and indicated they plan to camp on Parliament land indefinitely without permission. The Corporate Body has regretfully been forced to take legal action to protect the rights of all those who wish to use and access Parliament land.”
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