Parliament Workbench

Petition · PE01791 · Session 5

Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020

Closed Submitted 31 Jan 2020 Parliament & Constitution
Signatures
0
33 online signatures with a country
Comments
3
Considered
3 meetings
in the Official Report

What it asks

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to recognise and respond to concerns that Section 39 of the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 establishes a legal challenge, namely that it breaches protections afforded by the Human Rights Act 1998.

What the petitioner did first

The issue has been raised with my constituency MSP, Kenneth Gibson and with Ministers at the Scottish Government.

Where it was considered

Official Report
  1. 3 Sep 2020
    Public Petitions Committee
    New Petitions
    1 mention
  2. 12 Nov 2020
    Public Petitions Committee
    Continued Petitions
    1 mention
  3. 16 Dec 2020
    Public Petitions Committee
    Continued Petitions
    1 mention

Signatures by country

33 online signatures
  1. Scotland27 81.8%
  2. United Kingdom6 18.2%

Comments

3 comments, oldest first
  1. Barbara Reid 16 Feb 2020
    We have a right to choose our future path.
  2. Ian Anderew Tully 29 Feb 2020
    Hightly concerned that this Bill does not recognise any difference between constitutional matters and other referendum subjects. It seems to treat citizens and non-citizen residents at equa status, when EU legislation only secured that position for region decisions without National implications.
    Further it allows a simple majoiry to decide all matters regardless of any constitutional implications.contrary to most international convention.
  3. Mike Fenwick 9 Mar 2020
    I comment as the Petitioner.

    The Human Rights Act, referred to in the Petition establishes a base line against which the treatment of any individual may be established as correct or incorrect, it presupposes each individual should be accorded their rights on a equal basis.

    I am not a lawyer, but would ask the Petitions Committee to be aware of the legal precedents in support of that statement from these cases:

    R v Secretary of State for Education and Employment, Ex p Begbie,

    R
    - On the application of Gallaher Group Ltd and others v The Competition and Markets Authority,

    Matadeen v Pointu

    R
    - O'Brien v Independent Assessor

    Any departure from the equality of treatment of an individual when being addressed under judicial review must be treated with the greatest care, or be open to legal challenge, supported by legal precedent.

    PS: The restriction on the characters allowed in these posts prevents me from stating the legal cases as they should appear.