On the 704th anniversary of the signing of The Declaration of Arbroath.
Press release on behalf of Not My Parliament by Allan Petrie.
On this historic anniversary of the Declaration of Arbroath, a significant letter has been dispatched to the attention of the Speaker of the House of Commons, challenging the current oath required of Members of Parliament (MPs) and advocating for an alternative oath to accommodate individuals with republican beliefs.
The letter, penned by Allan Petrie of the Not My Parliament campaign group, Leanne Tervit of Schemes for Indy, Eva Comrie of Independent for Independence Alloa and Grangemouth, and Sally Hughes of Independent for Independence Perth and Kinross-shire, represents the collective voice of electors in Scotland who hold republican beliefs and seek equitable representation within the political system.
In their letter, the authors raise concerns regarding the compatibility of the current oath system with the Equality Act 2010, particularly concerning the protected characteristic of belief. They argue that the requirement for MPs to pledge allegiance to the monarch may infringe upon the rights of individuals with republican beliefs, as enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The letter contends that individuals with republican beliefs are entitled to the same protections under the law as those with religious beliefs or other philosophical convictions. Therefore, the authors propose the implementation of an alternative oath that would allow MPs to pledge allegiance to the people of their constituency rather than to the monarch, similar to the provision allowing individuals to affirm rather than swear an oath based on religious grounds.
By advocating for an alternative oath, the authors emphasise the importance of upholding principles of equality, diversity, and inclusivity within the political sphere. They urge the Speaker of the House of Commons to consider their proposal and take the necessary steps to amend the current oath system to ensure compliance with the Equality Act 2010 and to respect the rights and beliefs of all MPs and electors.
As we commemorate the anniversary of the Declaration of Arbroath, a seminal document in Scottish history that espouses principles of self-determination and sovereignty of the people, it is only fitting that we reflect upon the ongoing quest for equitable representation and democratic participation. The call for an alternative oath serves as a testament to Scotland’s commitment to upholding fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens of Scotland and others who hold republican views.
THE LETTER SENT TO MR SPEAKER
For the attention of the Speaker of the House of Commons
We write to you as electors in Scotland, who hold republican beliefs within the United Kingdom. We believe that the current oath required of Members of Parliament (MPs) upon taking office may be in breach of the Equality Act 2010, specifically concerning the protected characteristic of belief.
Under the Equality Act 2010, belief is considered a protected characteristic. This extends to political beliefs, as established by case law and statutory interpretation. Among the various political beliefs held by individuals within the UK, republicanism stands as a recognised and legitimate ideology. As such, individuals who hold republican beliefs are entitled to the same protections under the law as those who hold religious beliefs or other philosophical convictions.
The current oath required of MPs, which entails pledging allegiance to the monarch, poses a significant dilemma for those whose political beliefs are republican in nature. Forcing individuals to swear allegiance to the monarch contradicts their deeply held convictions and infringes upon their rights to freedom of belief and expression as enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998 and protected under the European Convention on Human Rights.
It is our contention that the current oath system effectively discriminates against individuals based on their political beliefs, which is prohibited under the Equality Act 2010. In order to remedy this potential breach of the law and to uphold the principles of equality and non-discrimination, we propose the implementation of an alternative oath that accommodates individuals who hold republican beliefs, similar to the provision allowing individuals to affirm rather than swear an oath based on religious grounds, we recommend the introduction of an alternative oath that allows MPs to pledge allegiance to the people of their constituency rather than to the monarch. This alternative oath would ensure that individuals with republican beliefs are not unfairly disadvantaged or marginalised within the political system.
We believe that by providing an alternative oath, the House of Commons would demonstrate its commitment to equality, diversity, and inclusivity, while also upholding the fundamental rights and freedoms of all individuals within the UK.
In light of the above, we respectfully urge you to consider our proposal and take the necessary steps to amend the current oath system to ensure compliance with the Equality Act 2010 and to respect the rights and beliefs of all MPs and electors.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your response and to working together to address this important issue.
Yours sincerely,
Allan Petrie
Not my Parliament campaign group
Leanne Tervit
Schemes for Indy
Eva Comrie
Independent for Independence Alloa and Grangemouth
Sally Hughes
Independent for Independence Perth and Kinross-shire
Great letter which will doubtless be binned after a minion reads it.
I have no faith in Westminster nor any of its processes and wonder why, if we’re leaving when a majority of votes (or is it seats?) are gained for independence supporting candidates in the next election, are we bothering with what oaths that place demands. Or am I wrong? Let the English sort their own consciences and come up with something more appropriate for the 21st century, and if they’re too feart, it’s of no concern to us.
Morna, you realise our future is not at Westminster and you also know why we need to leave. Not everyone though understands those things. It is a matter of drip feeding things like this that will make ‘non believers see the reality. This might just persuade a few more that we are nothing more than an English colony
Ahhh. 🤔Thanks for that, Roddy. I’m just impatient! 😉
Do you have faith in the SNP/Greens to delivery Indy? In my view, they are not fit to govern Holyrood. We need change, or Indy will not happen in my lifetime.
No, I have absolutely no faith in the current SNP/Greens whatsoever. I dare not state my true feelings about them. I do have faith in the current Independents for Independence candidates, ISP, Alba and, if common sense ever prevails, a United Scotland effort from all of the true Independistas to demand the return of our independence. Time is running out for Scotland. We can’t wait any longer.
“If we are leaving”. I’ll be glad when we do but I can’t see it being anytime soon. SNP have ruined the chances of theire being a majority of ind votes (not that voting SNP is a vote for indy anyway). Meantime we have people like Eva and Sally who want to represent us but who don’t want to pledge allegiance to a foreign entity. The alternative is to refuse to take up seats.
Here’s hoping rabid britnats in the britnat media get a hold of this, get their knickers in a twist and give it maximum publicity.
BTW some in the britnat media seem to pushing the idea of the immediate need for conscription should England get us into another war, or even just at the threat of any war.
I hope Alba would speak out against any such idea and advise our young men and women to tell England to get stuffed.
A great step forward but unfortunately not one which I think will be considered with any kind of thoughtful input by the Speaker. I hope it will be followed up with a court case against WM if they throw the letter in the bin without even deigning to answer it.
I do wish that the writers had included the argument that Scots are sovereign and there is no legal reason WHY they should bend the knee to an English Monarch, when it comes to entering a Parliament, having been elected by Scots, according to SCOTS law. It would have done no harm to remind WM of what exactly the Claim of Right is about & who Scots law sees as sovereign. Thus who Scots MPs see as ‘their boss’.
But I do believe that this was a good issue to raise & I commend those who have put it forward. Now WM, let’s see how you view equality for ALL. Well done, Allan, Leanne, Eva and Sally! 🙂
Fantastic! The SNP should have done this decades ago.
During in independence referendum, I questioned the allegiance to Scotland of SNP privy councillors, including Sturgeon and Salmond, given that they were required to swear the much more onerous privy council oath. Campaigning for Scottish independence seems to me to be a clear breach of that oath.
Ordinary MPs swearing the parliamentary oath of allegiance often modify the oath saying something along the lines that their first allegiance is to the people of Scotland but the privy council oath is sworn in secret so we have no idea what it currently says or whether SNP privy councillors modify it in any way.
A version of the privy council oath was released into the public domain during Blair’s time as PM but we have no idea whether or not it has changed since then. In my opinion it is an affront to democracy to have a situation where the privy council oath is sworn in secret and where all dialogue between the monarch and the government / privy councillors is also secret. All such exchanges should be in the public domain except for matters of security related to the monarch’s personal safety.
I should have said Salmond and Robertson. Sturgeon didn’t become a Privy Concillor until December 2014.