I have raised this petition because I believe Section 39 may entirely negate the clear defined and important purpose of the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020, and leave it open to legal challenge, in that:
- it potentially denies and may entirely negate any legitimate, evidence based, legal challenge through the restrictive timescale envisaged for such a challenge, namely 8 weeks, and/or
-
due to the substantial and initially undeterminable costs likely to be incurred in preparing and providing the relevant factual evidence to the hearings to be held at the Court of Session in the determination and eventual ruling on the challenge raised. Again, subject to the ability so to do within a predetermined legal limit of 8 weeks.
I am concerned that Section 39 of the Referendums (Scotland) Act establishes a legal challenge, namely that it breaches protections afforded by the Human Rights Act 1998 and in so doing also establishes a right of challenge to the Referendums (Scotland) Act itself, given the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998, were Section 39 found to be incompatible with rights identified in the ECHR, and that Scottish Government Ministers did not have the power to act in a way that breached these ECHR rights.
This Petition is borne out of a series of detailed and intensive research studies into the systems of voting used in Scotland, in the United Kingdom, and geographically wider, examining both their strengths and their weaknesses, and drawing on both academic and regulatory studies and analysis. The research base is extensive, and in a series of short videos, has been made available for public discussion on Facebook.
Inter alia, amongst the subjects raised, with the factual documentary evidence, involved these examples:
Section 39 of the Referendums (Scotland) Act – the subject of this petition (addressed in more detail in the next item, immediately below).
The role of the Electoral Commission (EC) – with emphasis on the comparative timescales involved over events 1) to precede any Referendum, public information and campaigning - a period of perhaps - 6 months, 2) the time the EC states it may require for its scrutiny and deliberations on any question to be posed in a Referendum - a period of perhaps 12 weeks, and 3) the times to be allowed for the financial accounts to be finalised by recognised parties in a referendum - periods of 3 months and 6 months – all of which stand in stark contrast to the period allowed for any legal challenge - a period of only 6 weeks. One simple example: if that challenge involved verifiable evidence of improper funding by any recognised party which only became available after the stipulated periods of 3 or 6 months – any legitimate challenge would already be time barred within the 6 week restriction on such challenge – no matter the relevance and accuracy of the evidence in support of that challenge.
Warnings from USA Senators and British Ambassadors over data hacking and social media manipulation in the USA, France, Germany and Spain – but where the warnings issued were specifically targeted and directly related to Scottish Referenda/Elections.
The lack of specific cyber security within Scotland and/or its reliance on existing UK cyber security systems, whether prior to or post-independence.
Miscellaneous items, such as the possibility of threshold requirements being raised as relevant.
Examples of voter participation/apathy, or where vote participation was denied, including the background as to why 1.7 EU citizens were prevented from voting in the relatively recent EU Referendum.