The Court of Session has today published the Opinion in the case of the Crown Estate Commissioners seeking declarator that they have authority to impose charges for the rent of the seabed. This was opposed by those who claimed that the Royal Charter of the Burgh of Rothesay provided that the inhabitants of the town already enjoyed this privilege.
The Court agreed with the Crown Estate Commissioners.
Latest news on access situation in Inverleith Park
The Park Rules for Glasgow and Dundee make it explicit that any event charging money needs a Section 11 order.
The Edinburgh Access Forum noted in 2006 that the existing park rules conflicted with access legislation on 10 points.
Four years later, nothing has been done to remedy the situation and the council is still relying on 1982 legislation which, in their latest email to me they claim provides them with the same level of authority to block public acess as is provided for by the Military Lands Acts and the Railway Acts. This is patent nonsense.
What I found interesting was that the police confirmed that they would arrest me for breach of the peace if I attempted to enter the area of the park that Taste organisers have cordoned off. However, when I asked them if they would arrest the Taste of Edinburgh security guards if they attempted to block me in exercising my legal rights, they declined, saying that the organisers had reasonable grounds for enforcing a no payment, no entry policy.
Further news about the access situation at the Taste of Edinburgh event in Inverleith Park at Guardian blog posted at 1552 hours today.
Since then I have had a further response from the Council claiming that access rights are exempted under Section 6(d) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. This is getting bit desparate. Section 6(d) relates to acts such asthose covering railways and military land. I do not (and never have) denied that the Council have the power to lease the park. I merely claim that no-one has any rights to erect fences and block public access unless the land is exempt under any part of Section 6 or unless and Section 11 order has been issued (it hasn’t). Thus the fences are unlawful and shoud be removed and no-one has any lawful right to obstruct any citizen exercising their legal rights of access across the site.
Edinburgh Council has now replied to me declining to uphold my access rights. They don’t deny I have them though. I’ve written back asking them to take action under Section 14 of the legislation (the bit about removing obstructions)
Meanwhile, follow the Guardian blog for further details. I will post the whole story once the event is over as it raises important issues about the public realm and the rights of the citizen.
I have written a piece in the Guardian Edinburgh blog today about the Taste of Edinburgh food festival taking over Inverleith Park.
A huge fence has been erected around the park denying the public access. On Friday, I wrote to the Chief Executive of Edinburgh Council
as follows.
Dear Mr Aitchison,
Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003
I am writing to you to ask that you take action in fulfilment of your duties under Section 13 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (the Act) to “assert, keep open and free from obstruction or encroachment any route, waterway or other means by which access rights may reasonably be exercised”
This afternoon, I observed a number of people, lorries and equipment in the south east corner of Inverleith Park. A high steel fence has been erected around most of this area of the park preventing the large number of members of the public from exercising their rights of access..
The land enclosed is land over which access rights as defined in Section 1 of the Act apply.
I am unaware of any statutory grounds for blocking public access to this land. In particular, I am unaware of any exemption under Section 11 of the Act.
As a matter of urgency, could you please use your powers under Section 13 (3) of the Act to remove these obstructions.
I reserve the right to take whatever further action I deem appropriate to uphold the public right of access to Inverleith Park.
Please confirm receipt of this email and provide an early indication of your intention to carry out the duties required of the City of Edinburgh Council under Section 13 of the Act.
yours etc.
Andy Wightman
My email has been acknowledged. The Council is consulting its lawyers and I await a reply.
The Issue of the Moment
Much gnashing of teeth over the coalition’s proposals to introduce the 55% rule. This is the proposal whereby it would require a vote of 55% of MPs to dissolve Parliament.
Parliament is currently dissolved either on the whim of the Prime Minister (witness Gordon brown’s dithering in October 2007) or following a vote of no confidence by Parliament (a simple majority being sufficient).
The coalition propose a fixed five year term for Parliament. As I said yesterday, I think fixed terms are a good thing (though no doubt in 50 years we might get sick of them and move back to flexible terms). But for fixed terms to work, for there to be stable government, and for coalition politics to work efficiently there needs to be a way of ensuring that fixed terms can stick and, conversely, a method of dissolving Parliament in exceptional circumstances mid-term.
You make it stick by removing the PM’s prerogative to dissolve Parliament - this is what Cameron proposes. And you provide a method for dissolution which requires not the minimum bare majority but actually quite a sizeable one (otherwise, why have fixed terms if they can be terminated by a simple majority). The Scottish Parliament, for example, can only be dissolved mid-term by a two-thirds vote.
Repeat - if you want fixed terms, you need to make it difficult to dissolve Parliament, not easy.
The objections being raised by MPs and others is that the existing method of a no-confidence vote is being over-ruled by the new 55% rule. The coaliton respond by saying that the no-confidence rule remains and it can bring down the Government as before. The difference is that the PM does not then exercise his of her prerogative and dissolve Parliament. Instead, Parliament remains but a new Government then needs to be formed. If Lib Dems were to walk away from the coalition, the most likely result would be a minority Conservative government.
In the Scotland Act, the First Minister must resign if he or she loses a vote of no-confidence. The Scottish Parliament is then given 28 days to form a new government. If it can’t it can vote (by two-thirds majority) to dissolve Parliament.
If Westminster is to have fixed terms (which I believe to be a good thing for democracy), the question is not whether the threshold should set as high as 55% but why it should not be actually be higher - more like the 66% for the Scottish Parliament. I understand the claims of those who complain that a simple majority should suffice but if you do want fixed terms you must set the bar high or that worthy aim will be easily defeated. You can’t have your cake and eat it.
My colleague James Mackenzie points out of course, that, unlike the Scottish Parliament which has a “constitution” (the Scotland Act), Westminster does not (the UK does not). Any 55% rule will me merely an Act of Parliament which could be repealed by 51%..! But that would be a big undertaking so my view remains that bedding down fixed terms with a, let’s say 60% vote needed to dissolve Parliament would represent a significant improvement to the way we do business.