WHAT’S THE STORY?

WAS an SNP councillor discriminated against by the Ministry of Defence on the grounds of his political views?

That’s the question set to be considered as an employment tribunal reconvenes today.

Chris McEleny of Inverclyde Council launched a discrimination case against his former employer in 2017, claiming he was ill-treated because of his Yes views.

HASN’T THIS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED?

YES and no.

In July last year judge Frances Eccles agreed that the pro-independence opinions held by McEleny constituted a philosophical belief and should be protected under the Equality Act 2010.

The decision would give Yes voters the same legal workplace protections as those who hold religious beliefs.

A full hearing was supposed to go ahead to determine whether or not McEleny had been subject to discrimination.

But the MoD challenged this and another session was held to reconsider whether a belief in Scottish independence should be covered by the equalities legislation.

READ MORE: Leaked emails shine light on MoD pro-indy discrimination case

In March, Eccles upheld her decision and paved the way for a full hearing to take place.

That begins in Glasgow today.

WHAT’S THE CASE ABOUT?

MCELENY, who was employed as an electrician, was suspended and had his security clearance revoked in 2016.

The move happened after he announced his candidacy for depute leader of the SNP and the councillor, whose Inverclyde West ward covers Gourock, was also quizzed by the MoD over his opposition to Trident and views on Irish politics.

McEleny, who has Irish heritage, was reinstated two months later but subsequently left his position.

WHAT’S BEEN SAID SO FAR?

WHAT hasn’t.

The case has generated significant news coverage and commentary, with strong opinions on both sides.

Outside of public and media reactions, the MoD’s case challenged the idea that core views on Scotland’s constitution could be considered a “weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour”, as required under the law, because it would have “no substantial impact on the lives of citizens in, for example, Tanzania, Peru or India”.

It was further argued that most Yes voters were less “fanatical” than McEleny, and that while these individuals may change their minds depending on economics, McEleny would not.

WHAT DID THE JUDGE SAY ABOUT THAT?

SHE stated: “I was persuaded from the evidence before me that the claimant’s belief that Scotland, as opposed to any other country, should be independent was of sufficient weight and

importance to human life and behaviour to be philosophical in nature.

“I did not find the claimant’s belief in political independence was unique to Scotland or people living in Scotland.

READ MORE: Judge upholds McEleny tribunal ruling on independence beliefs

“I was persuaded that it is a belief of material relevance and application to human life and behaviour generally.”

However, that finding does not mean that she will find in his favour as the case proceeds to a full hearing.

Those facts must be heard and considered separately, with both sides given equal chance to make representations.