Land Matters

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.

We live in interesting times. Here’s my take which reflects a post at the new Scottish politics site, Scotland Quo Vadis!

I rather despair of the sentiments being hurled across the floor of the Sccottish Parliament today. Many of use want a re-alignment of politics, want fair votes and thus want coalitions. That’s what we have in Holyrood. Why does the political class find it so amazing that it should happen at Westminster? I don’t buy the idea of betrayal of Lib Dem voters since this is the logic of their position on PR - you work with the coalition that gets you what you want. I think the situation now is interesting and different for a whole number of reasons and that stock responses may not be the most appropriate. Here’s why.

1. It is the first true coalition for over 70 years. The Lib Dems favour PR, as do many progressives, and there is huge pressure to make it work to demonstrate that coalition politics can work in Westminster as well as in Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh. Many of us have a stake in that success too (I am a member of the Scottish Green Party). Failure will mean the swing voters of middle England going back to the perceived certainties of tribal politics.

2. Coalition should provide better government. Just imagine a Tory government with a working majority after 13 years out of power and who it needs to appeal to.

3. The coalition is signed up to some very welcome political reforms - look at the civil liberties agenda for example - the Freedom Bill - fantastic - what’s not to like?! We will get our first Green member(s) of the House of Lords if it all goes to plan - just think of that…!!!

4. Some of us are Thatcher’s children and we perhaps should put aside our views on that era for a moment. There are some pretty unreconstructed dinosaurs from that era still in the Tory party BUT 2 things are important - first, many of them have left as a result of the expenses scandal and second, Cameron and his younger group of liberal conservatives know that the future lies well away from that brand of conservative politics. This is exactly the same calculus as Tony Blair made in 1990s

5. Above all, in comparison to the past, we now have a Scottish Parliament. That changes everything. The UK voted in a majority for Lib Dems and Tory and England also voted a majority Tory. So England gets the domestic policies it voted for and the UK gets a government with a majority of Uk votes.

6. I think that Cameron and Clegg are serious about forging a new politics because they see that the UK is a marginally centre right place and do honestly believe that politics needs to be fairer and more open.

So - I think we need to think carefully about how we engage with this new political landscape. I am not looking forward to the expected oppositionalist agenda of SNP and Labour deploring UK government cuts. Cuts there will be but at least we now have the opportunity to slice the smaller cake the way we want. As a self-employed writer and civic activist, I have seen how bloated and arrogant the public sector has become at all levels under the generous funding settlements of Gordon Browns cheap credit fuelled spending spree. We in Scotland never complained about that nor about rising house prices nor about cheap credit. Grown up politics means accepting that we all are in this mess together.

7. Above all, I think the coalition that has emerged offers more for Greens and other smaller parties than that which might have been forged with Labour who, as was apparent from their own unreconstructed dinosaurs, are implacably opposed to working with others and hostile to real political reform.

I make the above observations from the standpoint of one who is in terms of political philosophy about as far removed from the politics of the Lib Dem/Con coalition as it is possible to get.