Angela Constance: "the SNP has to be large-hearted..."

And last but not least, after blogs from Keith Brown and Stewart Hosie earlier in the week, Angela Constance has composed this third and final peaty pitch for the SNP depute leadership position, on her ideas and vision for the party's post #indyref future. Here's what Angela has to say. For SNP members and interested observers both, I hope all three pieces have opened an interesting and constructive additional window into the three would-be deputies to Nicola Sturgeon. 

Much of the focus during the campaign to elect the SNP Depute Leader has been on how we should approach the 2015 election. I’m delighted to be offered this opportunity to explain my view more fully.

The first question to answer is: who is the ‘we’ in “how we should approach the 2015 election”?

For me this is fundamental. Politics in Scotland has been transformed from a minority sport, led by a small number of parties with, to varying degrees, centralised policy-making processes, to a mass participation sport, being driven forward by self-motivated, and until after the Referendum, largely unaffiliated people. 

Although many of those people have joined a political party in the aftermath, it would be a mistake for any of them to expect new members to simply fit into the style of politics they have traditionally pursued. These new members have been inspired by the Yes movement and its approach to politics and they are looking for a way to progress that movement. It would be a huge lost opportunity if, in welcoming these new members, the SNP did not change some of its practices to meet their aspirations.

So my vision of the SNP – my definition of ‘we’, if you like – is a mass membership party, which I intend to help mould into a mass participation party, whose conscience is the wider Yes movement.

The SNP must now think more in terms of leading a wider movement than monopolising it; it must consider the aspirations of a much wider community than it has previously. That wider Yes movement wants the co-operation and spirit of the Referendum campaign to be maintained. There is much to be considered for the longer term (seewww.angelafordeputy.scot for more) but in the immediate term, I believe the 2015 Westminster election gives us the perfect opportunity to do just that.

It would be very easy to be seduced by current UK poll subsamples showing the SNP comfortably ahead of Labour in Scotland. But we have been in a similar position many times in advance of Westminster elections. The Labour Party in Scotland excels at winning Westminster seats; their leadership travails demonstrate just how ruthlessly they pursue this; nothing, absolutely nothing, matters more to Labour than gaining power in London. If we do not somehow decouple the election in Scotland from the rest of the UK, our vote will be squeezed, as it always has been in the past, as the contest becomes a choice of which London party would be least worst in Government.

While I believe the SNP could win the popular vote in Scotland by ploughing a lone furrow, I have doubts that the margin of victory would result in any transformative shift in the relative number of MPs Labour and the SNP win. We have to think much more creatively.

By standing as part of a ‘Yes Alliance’ we will be making a bold statement that this election is not business as usual in Scotland. It will be a statement that this election is, for Scotland, about something greater than party politics and who forms a London Government. It gives a platform upon which the decoupling of the elections in Scotland and the rest of the UK can occur.

While the term ‘Yes Alliance’ is firmly embedded in our consciousness it is not entirely helpful. It accurately describes the long-term, strategic objective of keeping the Yes movement together and sustaining what has been built in the last two years. But it also gives the impression that we are simply attempting a re-run of the Referendum and that perception will be used (and is already being used) as artillery against us.

This can be countered by arguing that the tactical objective of ‘Yes Alliance’ MPs will be to secure the best possible settlement from Westminster. After all, who should the Scottish people trust to deliver for them; Unionist MPs bound to their London Whips and therefore compromised when a coalition agreement with UKIP requires Scotland’s aspirations to be set aside? Or ‘Yes Alliance’ MPs, with no allegiance to any potential party of Government in London and therefore able under whatever circumstances arise to press Scotland’s case to the fullest.

But there should be no stepping off the gas in the fight for Independence. Firstly, of course, because that is our purpose. But secondly because we know that if there is no real prospect of Independence then there will be absolutely no motivation for Westminster to devolve anything to Holyrood. If we can articulate this case, which was proved beyond any doubt by the final panic-ridden days of the Referendum, then we will have established the platform to continue to present the case for Independence while also acting as guarantors of the vow made to Scotland.

But this needs to be done properly. If we stand divided we will fall. If we start divided, we won’t get to our feet in the first place. In my view, any candidate that stands as part of the ‘Yes Alliance’ must stand under the same banner. This means sacrificing the primacy of the SNP, Green, SSP or whatever other label on the ballot paper. In my view ‘Yes Alliance’ may be the wrong identity for that banner. This can wait for another day though; the important thing is to get the various parties and individuals making up the Yes movement to sign up in principal.

The SNP has a huge responsibility in creating this alliance. Being by far the largest partner, we have a duty to lead. But this should not be confused with a mandate to monopolise. All partners and their members must be involved in determining the practicalities of how this alliance will work, such as the selection of candidates. But what a great problem to have; ensuring the involvement of so many committed Independence supporters.

It is clear to me that Westminster, in the context of a Scottish Parliament, can never be more than a tactical tool for the Independence movement. And our tactic for next year must be to drive as much power as we can from Westminster to Holyrood.

To do that we must unseat as many Unionist MPs from Scotland as possible and replace them with MPs who will not compromise their aspirations for Scotland, regardless of what Government emerges.

To do that we must decouple the Scottish element of the 2015 election from the election in the rest of the UK and press the argument that only ‘Yes Alliance’ candidates can be trusted to deliver maximum powers to Scotland.

To do that we have to establish a completely different premise to the standard party politics which will dominate the debate south of the border and which, if we don’t, will drown out anything that happens in Scotland.

To do that we have to field a single slate of candidates, calling on all the talents of the Yes movement and representing all demographics as equitably as possible.

To do that we have to embrace the new political reality of post-Referendum Scotland; the SNP has to be large-hearted enough to put short-term, narrow party interest to the side for the sake of what is best for Scotland in the immediate term and what is best for our cause in the long term.

Angela Constance MSP

Stewart Hosie: "Our New Scotland – The Next Step…"

Like many folk in the party, I remain undecided about which of the three candidates for Deputy Leader of the SNP I should support. How do their visions differ? What are they all about? Having a wee platform here, I thought I'd take the opportunity to ask all three to write me up to 1,000 words on the thinking behind their bids to replace Nicola Sturgeon. Newspapers only have so much space. On telly and on radio, one has next to no time to say anything at all. On blogs, we can afford to be a bit more leisurely and considered. On Monday, we heard from Transport Minister, Keith Brown MSP. Today, it is Dundee East MP, Stewart Hosie's turn, to make his pitch.

The Labour Party in Scotland is in meltdown.

That’s an unusual way to start an article, but as we approach the next challenge the SNP and the wider Independence movement faces - it is important - because that next challenge is the 2015 General Election.

This should not, in my view, be a re-run of the referendum. Instead it is the Scottish people’s opportunity to hold Westminster’s ‘feet to the fire’ and force them to fulfil their promises.

So remember what they told us. “We’re going to be, within a year or two, as close to a federal state as you can be.” (Gordon Brown, 14 August 2014). Which, sounds very similar to the pledge (or vow) made by the Prime Minister. “If we get a No vote …, that will trigger a major, unprecedented programme of devolution with additional powers for the Scottish Parliament.” (David Cameron, 15 September 2014)

But the proposals published so far by the UK parties neither meet the public demand for “devo-max” or the expectations raised during the referendum campaign. 

Their proposals would devolve barely 30% of Scotland’s revenue base, or to put that another way, less than half the funding requirements of the Scottish Parliament. These are not “extensive new powers”, that is not “federalism”. Rather those are extremely modest proposals and likely to disappoint not just the 1.6 million who voted Yes, but the large number of those who voted No in order to secure substantial new powers.

The only way to make unionism sit up and take heed – and to secure substantial new powers – is to elect the largest number of Independence supporting MPs to Westminster ever. While we may win seats from the Lib Dems, and they deserve to lose them, our primary opponents in most seats in Scotland are Labour. That is why their all too public collapse is important. That and the fact their devolution offering is even weaker than the Tories. So far, so self evident. The question is how do we win these seats?

In my view, it hinges on keeping the Yes Movement together to campaign for Independence supporting MPs and for more powers while at all times making the case for Independence. And in arguing for real maximum devolution (everything bar defence and foreign affairs), we would reach out not just to those who voted Yes, but 25% of those who voted No expecting substantial new powers for Scotland

I am certain that the best way to make sure Westminster delivers will be to return the largest ever number of Independence supporting MPs to Westminster. I’m equally certain that many of the wonderful, talented people who emerged through the Independence campaign will contest the next election. But The SNP will be the engine of the campaign and with over 80,000 members it will be a turbo charged one. However, the wider Independence movement can provide further fuel and momentum to that campaign. 

In practice that means looking at ways of working beyond party interests to maximise the participation of those who campaigned and voted for a better Scotland by offering them an opportunity to campaign and vote again for change at next year’s General Election. I have no doubt that the SNP can and will send the largest ever number of SNP MPs to Westminster at next year’s general election, but if we build a Yes Alliance, there is an opportunity to do even more than that.

What is clear is that whether we campaign on a joint platform of maximum powers for Scotland, or select candidates from the range of hugely talented people who emerged through the referendum campaign, the SNP should show the same willingness to work with individuals and organisations to make sure the largest number of Independence supporting MPs is delivered to Westminster next May. 

By turning the strong desire for change into votes for change next year the Scottish people can sweep aside the vested interests of the Westminster old guard. This will deliver the best chance of substantial new powers for Scotland.

It is for agreement as to how formal or informal such cooperation would be, but what a powerful alliance we could deliver to stand up for Scotland. Of course any broad campaign will require approval from not just the SNP but many of the other parties and organisations involved in Yes but it is important that we begin build that alliance now to deliver for Scotland.

2015 is just the next step for Scotland. There will be many, many miles to walk to Independence after that. But it is an important step in a very important year. I believe I have the skills and experience to help offer some leadership over this period, which is why I have put myself forward as a candidate for Depute Leader of the SNP.

All the hopes and dreams we have for a richer, fairer, greener, more socially just society need Scotland’s people to take the next step and demand more powers. Let’s make sure the Independence Movement is united and sure-footed as we campaign, together, to take this most important next step.

Stewart Hosie MP

Keith Brown: "Stands Scotland where it did?"

Today, I bring you the first in what I hope will be a series of guest posts from the three contenders to replace Nicola Sturgeon as Deputy Leader of the SNP. I'm open minded about that contest, and persuadable, so wanted to provide an open platform to each of the candidates to articulate their visions and set out their values. First up, Keith Brown MSP makes his case....

L'Ecosse est-elle restée fidèle à elle-même?

Well, you can't start a guest post on Lallands Peat Worrier without a spot of French, can you? Stands Scotland where it did?

Scotland did not die; we did not collapse in September and we did not lift ourselves above the ordinary and soar in the clouds of independence. We stood, instead, in the full glare of the world spotlight and decided 'not yet'. They turned the spotlight off and we looked to ourselves again and defied explanation. The Yes campaign, defeated, gathered its strength and got back to its feet within hours. 

In days the membership of the independence parties rose exponentially, the Greens reaching 6,000, the SNP surpassing 80,000. Post referendum Yes demonstrations collected food for those less fortunate, showing the solidarity and social communion that elevated the Yes campaign. We're told we should accept the result, revel in the record electoral registration and marvel at the 85% turnout. Alternatively, we're told that the 45% should fight again, that the 55% were lied to and believed it, and that one last push takes us where we need to go.

I don't hang my coat on either side of that argument, I've got more hope and more ambition for my country than that - tempered with a bit of realism. We watched our country rise to the biggest democratic challenge that any nation can face and our achievement was not the registration or the turnout, and it was neither the 45% nor the 55%. We showed that political debate could be better than the skinking fare that jaups in Westminster luggies; we showed that political debate - the biggest political debate - could be conducted well and with good humour for the most part. 

We showed that the people can own the debate, that they can claim it as their own and that politicians can be and must be a part of the people's debate rather than thinking that they can rule without consent and participation, that somehow they are above the people. Scotland showed that politics can, in that time honoured phrase, be of the people, for the people and by the people. 

That is our achievement; we have raised politics to the level of the people and the greatest failure we could ever have is to let it fall back and become, once again, a playground for the rich, the ignorant and the uncaring. Westminster retains the right to govern, for now, but it cannot dictate how Scotland does politics. Indeed, it the task of all of us, to make sure it doesn't. Survival of the fittest may be how evolution works but society should aspire to something better.

We don't do that by fixating on the past, we do that by inventing the future. We have to look at what we can do now, argue in the Smith Commission for the powers to do what we need to do in the near future, and keep agitating for independence. So we have to prioritise and plan and keep dreaming. We have to be realistic about what we can do but never settle for thinking that it's all that should be done or all we can ever do. Let's keep lifting our eyes so we can see further, make sure we always believe in the strength of people and their imagination, and make sure we trust each other. We need government brave enough to dream and smart enough to face reality, a party hard enough to stand up in the face of the storm and flexible enough to change in the face of changing facts, and a movement still imagining a better future but working for a better present.

So while we dream of eliminating poverty and the need for food banks; while we work to improve education and campaign to get rid of nuclear weapons, what else falls to us to do? Scotland faces debilitating welfare cuts, indifferent economic management and an assault on human rights by the UK Government - including the undercutting of equalities legislation. and a Westminster elite, acting with unfamiliar alacrity to demonstrate that it has 'done Scotland'. Business as usual means looking forward to tax and welfare violence from the UK Government

We've seen John Swinney move to ease the pain of the Bedroom Tax - he can't change the benefits system, though, and that's the problem. We can spend Scottish Government money on one chase after another but there will come a time when we can't. At some point we have to start asking what else we cut to keep mending the wounds caused by Westminster - health? Education? Local Government? 

If we don't control the benefits system we can't change how they work and if we don't control tax we can't find the money to control the benefits system. We need to be able to control both systems just to get some sense of decency back. We don't have those powers now and the chances of the Smith Commission delivering them are fairly low; we'll need independence for that.

We need to be able to get people off of benefits, too - by creating jobs. Bringing forward the capital investment programme brought jobs to our communities but while we're constricted by Westminster rules on borrowing and spending that's a limited bounty. If we can't change the rules around employment we can't make a real difference to job creation, though; that needs independence.

Equality legislation suffers the same problems - someone will be saying that we can't have different laws governing equality here than in the rest of the UK. There won't be any rationale offered for that - just an assertion - but it will be taken to be true. There's no real reason at all why Scotland can't have control of equality, of basic human rights, but it will be 'too difficult' to manage or deliver. The real reason will be that it's too hard for Westminster to let go of anything they hold - any power they have they will seek to keep.

If you want an example of how there is a disconnect between Scotland's powers and the powers we need there's a perfect example in a decision I had to make recently. I'm Transport Minister and had to award the Scotrail franchise; I could award the contract to a public sector company but not a Scottish public sector company - it's illegal for us to own our own railway service. We've got some power over the railway provision but not all of it. I think that the deal I managed to get shows that we do what we can with what we have to get Scotland the best deal possible but the fact that we can't set the basic terms for making the deal points to the real flaw of devolution - you may appear to have power but if someone else has control over the framework you have no real power.

So we'll continue to work with the powers we have and we'll argue in the Smith Commission for the additional powers we need to improve the lives of Scots across the board but we cannot let it lie there. Devolution is the management of power, not the possession of it and that is simply not good enough for Scotland - it never has been. We have to reinvigorate the SNP and the larger campaign that the SNP is part of; we have to be part of a society that refuses to allow the poor to starve and stands up for all of our fellow citizens; we have to be part of a movement that refuses to lie down and allow nuclear weapons to be housed in our waters.

We have to govern well with the best interests of Scotland at heart and that means looking outwards and finding ways to improve the services we offer, we must never be content with how our NHS works, or our education system, or our Justice system. There will always be something that can be done to improve them and we have to look for that; in our newly expanded party membership there will be people who have expertise in all kinds of different areas and we should tap into that and the connections that they have. 

Our policy-making should be owned by our members and I want to give it back with regional policy forums, an online policy discussion site, regular National Assemblies and more open policy formulation. We have to have confidence in our members and in our activists and they have to have confidence in what they're doing. I want to set up training sessions and provide support material for our organisers, activists and local office-bearers. We have to build a party that is connected to every aspect of Scots society and reaches out internationally and that takes work.

Never again should Westminster feel that it can take Scotland for granted, either; we have to continue to agitate for more power to be devolved but we'll also have to continue to campaign to rid our country of nuclear weapons, to have our voice heard internationally, to encourage, social justice, fairness and equality. Independence remains the goal, remains the one major change which will give us the tools to really improve Scotland, and we have to keep working towards it.

Independence will come when the people of Scotland say it does and a new referendum will be called when the time is right because a referendum is the only way in which we can be sure that the people are with us in making that change. In the meantime we have to keep on persuading people, we have to speak to the 55% who said No, find out why they weren't persuaded and work to change their minds. We have to keep making the case for independence, keep campaigning to make Scotland a better nation, and keep working as if we live in the early days of that better nation.

Govern well now, improve Scotland as we can, but reach for the stars. A beacon of hope and aspiration shone across this land and it's our job to keep it lit; it's our duty to plan a better future and build a better present. I want to be a part of that and I can help organise towards it; that's why I want to be Depute Leader of the SNP - our task is not yet done - and I hope you'll join me on that journey.

Keith Brown MSP

Holyrood's Cadder Act ~ “Imprisonment is Freedom”

On Tuesday, the United Kingdom Supreme Court handed down their judgment in the case of Cadder v. H.M. Advocate. Later that day on behalf of the Scottish Government, Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill introduced the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill to the Scottish Parliament. Wednesday saw Holyrood stay up late in order to pass the Emergency Bill through all three stages in a single sweep. As I alluded to in this morning's post, regrettably I've not been able to commit the proper attention to how parliament has responded to the real challenges presented by the UK Supreme Court judgment. Quite reasonably in my view, many folk are extremely concerned about the largely unscrutinised implications of this hasty legislation, which will impact almost immediately on the liberty of the subject and the powers of Scottish police. It would seem exceedingly paradoxical if the upshot of a judgement predicated on the right to a fair trial effectively diminishes the rights of suspected persons. While I certainly intend to return to the issue when I'm better informed about what transpired in the chamber and what was agreed, I thought it might be interesting and helpful to canvass a range of views on Cadder and the response of Scottish political institutions. Up until now, bracketing quotations, everything you've read on this blog has been composed by yours truly. In a happy break with that tradition, I'm pleased to be able to host this  guest post from a practising Scottish solicitor, who is highly critical of the Bill passed so summarily yesterday by Scottish Parliamentarians.

Holyrood's Cadder Act ~ “Imprisonment is Freedom”. 

Guest post by Highland Lawyer

Before commencing this rant, a full disclosure. I am a practicing solicitor, who has worked in many locations in Scotland before settling in the North. Unlike my host Lallands Peat Worrier who is clear as to his political affiliations, I would declare myself to be a “crossbencher” - I support no particular party and will support or oppose policies or actions of any based on my personal views.

I entered and remain within the legal profession with the goal of promoting justice. Justice is not necessarily the same as law, but good law is law that gives fair and just results. I therefore feel outraged at the passing of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals)(Scotland) Bill, following on the from the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Cadder v HMA.

The case of Cadder was an appeal on the basis of Human Rights, claiming that the existing Scottish practice in the detention of people before being charged with a crime, and more specifically not giving detained people a right to consult with a lawyer, was contrary to Human Rights. The Supreme Court (successor to the House of Lords Court) upheld this point.

To explain the procedure before the Cadder decision: In Scotland, police had legal powers to detain (i.e. hold in custody) a person in connection with the investigation of a crime for up to 6 hours. At the start of detention, the police were required to caution the detainee as to their right to remain silent, then could ask questions. The detained person had no legal obligation to answer anything beyond their personal details, and after the 6 hours the police needed to charge the person with a crime or release them. While detained, the person had a legal right to have a solicitor informed about the detention, but had no legal right to consult with the solicitor. It is this last point that was the subject of the appeal.

Bear in mind, in the Scottish criminal law requires corroboration of evidence - it is impossible (unlike in many other jurisdictions) to be convicted solely on a “confession” made during detention without other evidence to back this up.

The Court ruling given was that detention, when statements give may be used in evidence, is contrary to Human Rights unless the detained person can consult with a lawyer.

Unusually, after hinting this was likely to be the decision the Court delayed giving its final judgement for a considerable time to allow the Scottish authorities to take steps to change the position for future detainees. The Crown Office immediately gave new guidelines to the police that all detainees were to be given access to a solicitor during detention. Much running around by Solicitors and the Law Society of Scotland, and by the Scottish Legal Aid Board ensued, to allow interim arrangements for Solicitors to give advice to detained persons. All parties then settled down to work out long term arrangements.

It must be noted that during these interim arrangements all detained persons had the opportunity to consult with a lawyer. Some chose not to exercise this right. In probably the bulk of the cases where they did, the Solicitor advised that the person had a right to remain silent, and should therefore exercise this right. Therefore the vast majority, if not all, of cases started during this interim period will have complied with the subsequent ruling of the UK Supreme Court.

During this period various problems and potential solutions for the long term arrangements were raised and discussed by various parties. For example, if a solicitor is present during an interview, and the detained person makes a statement that they later retract the persons own solicitor could be called as a witness by the prosecution. In the past this has not been a problem because when a solicitor became involved it was not longer possible for the police to question the accused person.

What advice a solicitor can usefully give on detention was also considered. The existing position, where a solicitor is instructed once a criminal charge is made, means that a solicitor can advise on whether the accused has done what is stated, whether they have done something else, whether their actions are legally justified, or simply if what is charged is completely factually wrong and what can be done to prove this. As part of this the solicitor can obtain “disclosure” from the prosecutor, sight of all the evidence collected to be used in the prosecution. On detention, the detained person might not even know what the alleged crime is, the solicitor has no idea of what evidence may exist on either side, and the safest advice will almost always be “you have a right to remain silent, use it”.

The issue of whether compliance with the ruling could be achieved by disallowing the use of statements made during detention was raised - the person does then need a solicitor because nothing they say can be self-incriminating, and can safely answer any and all questions raised.

All of these points were then blindly ignored by the Scottish Parliament when within a day of the judgement they passed “emergency legislation”. One part was straightforward - all detained persons now have the legal right to consult with a solicitor. Had that been the whole of the legislation then all would have been right in the world.

However, they then also added a provision so that instead of being detained for 6 hours only, the police can extend this for up to 24 hours. An amendment was tabled to make it a requirement that such extension would require to be approved by a judge, but this was brushed aside. The whole Act was passed in an afternoon, instead of the many months usually required to make laws. There was no consultation with any body, whether experts or general public; it was not something the general public were even aware of let alone demanding. There was no advance warning, no second thoughts; there is of course no second chamber to reconsider points, and the committee system that is supposed to give special scrutiny to legislation details was bypassed by having a committee of the full chamber. Just a complete fiat by the Parliament, and all done before the Scottish people are aware.

No notice was taken of the inconvenient fact that during the past few months when Crown policy was to require police to allow detained persons to have advice from a solicitor, there appear to be no reported cases where a person wishing such advice was not able to receive it within the existing 6 hours time limit.

An important point to remember is all detained persons are not guilty. As matter of law no-one is deemed guilty until convicted, under the presumption of innocence. However, logic dictates that some people detained will in time be convicted. Equally, some will be found not guilty, and some will never even be charged. Therefore this change involves innocent people being held by the police for a full day. In the past courts have often used a few hours detention as punishment for person showing contempt of court. If a few hours is punishment, what is a day? All police powers require a balance between inconvenience to individuals against the needs of dealing with crime. Being held for 6 hours is an inconvenience, it may even be a massive inconvenience, but it can be justified for the public good. What justification is there to imprisonment without charge for a whole day, wholly on the say so of police officers with no evidence? If there is evidence why is the person not charged?

Imagine, you travel away for a party. You have a good time, and as you go for your train home on Sunday, you are detained by the police - they have had an accusation of serious assault by you. You know nothing about this, but are taken off to the cells. You consult the duty solicitor, who has no details about the alleged assault, and therefore tells you to exercise your right to silence until you know what you are talking about. You stay in the cells for 12 hours. The police then tell you that they are holding you another 12 hours. Finally you are taken to the interview room, where you are questioned; it emerges that that you were nowhere near the place this assault took place, you consult again with the duty solicitor, tell the police where you were and who you were with. They stick you back in the cells. A few hours later they come back - your story checks out, it must be mistaken identity, you are free to go. You then have to travel home and on Tuesday morning explain to your employer that you weren’t in on Monday because you were in the cells. You lose a days pay or holiday, and have no right of compensation against the police since they were “only doing their job”. Has your Human Rights been less infringed by having access to a solicitor?

Even on a purely economic argument, imprisonment for a day requires “legalised” police cells, with more facilities than for a short detention. In many parts of Scotland there are a shortage to these facilities - do we really need to spend millions to create more of these, or do we propose shipping innocent people about the country to appropriate detention facilities? Of course being able to lock people up longer reduces the rush on the police to gather evidence quickly, so perhaps some overtime payments can be reduced as officers can knock off and carry on in another shift, but how much will that save?

And for those who have in fact committed a crime: the Scottish system has the 110 day rule, that any person charged and imprisoned pending trial must have their trial commence within that period. Of course we can now lock people up before charge, and that doesn’t count so…

So we have the bizarre situation where due to a ruling that the Scottish criminal system does not fully protect the Human Rights of detained people, people can now be locked up for much longer. No consultation, no explanation, just more time in the cells, cheers very much. Truly we are living in a Blairite society - one sharing the characteristics written of by Eric Blair under his name of George Orwell. In “1984” his government declared “War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength”; the Scottish Parliament has added another phrase to that “Imprisonment is Freedom”.