Scottish first minister says she opposes any weakening of human rights laws – not just in Scotland but across the whole of UK

The Scottish government will not do a deal with Westminster over human rights, Nicola Sturgeon has said, as the first minister laid to rest suggestions that SNP MPs might abstain on Conservative plans to scrap the Human Rights Act in exchange for a Scottish bill of rights.

In a speech the Liberty director, Shami Chakrabarti, described as “an incredibly important intervention”, Sturgeon said Holyrood would oppose any weakening of human rights protections across the whole of the UK, not just in Scotland.

The first minister told an audience in Glasgow on Wednesday: “We would have no interest and no truck whatsoever in doing a deal with Westminster which leaves rights intact here in Scotland but dilutes them in other parts of the country or, as is perhaps more likely, protects human rights on devolved issues but not on reserved issues.”

In what will be seen by many as a clear indication that for Sturgeon human rights trump nationalism, she said: “To put it bluntly, there are no circumstances in which my party’s MPs will choose to view this as an English-only issue and opt to abstain. Human rights, after all, are not English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish rights – they are universal rights.”

Sturgeon also repeated the pledge first made in the Scottish parliament by the justice secretary, Alex Neil, that her government would withhold legislative consent on the Conservative proposals to scrap the 1998 act.

“It is inconceivable – given the breadth of support which the Human Rights Act commands across the Scottish parliament – that such consent would be granted. The Scottish government will certainly advocate that it is not granted,” she told the Pearce Institute in Govan.

Under devolution legislation, acts of the Scottish parliament and decisions of Scottish ministers must comply with the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. To further complicate matters, although the act is reserved, human rights issues are devolved. This creates two different human rights regimes across the UK, which could technically act as a lock on Westminster moves.

In practice, the Scottish parliament would be invited to refuse legislative consent via a Sewel motion. The Sewel convention applies when the Westminster parliament legislates on a matter normally dealt with by the Scottish parliament and can only happen if Holyrood has given its consent.



Civil liberties campaigners are confident that, including the support of SNP MPs and Tory rebels, they will have sufficient numbers to defeat the government. Noting that the original 1998 act attracted cross-party support, Sturgeon argued that the repeal of the Human Rights Act “isn’t inevitable” and that she would be prepared to work with the many Conservative MPs opposed to the government’s current proposals.



Scotland 'will not consent' to Tory plans to scrap Human Rights Act Read more

Soon after May’s general election, the Guardian learned that the SNP had already been in contact with potential Conservative backbench rebels with a view to bolstering cross-party opposition to the move.

“There is still a huge amount to be gained by making the case for it as strongly and clearly as possible,” said Sturgeon, adding that her government would work “with anyone and everyone to achieve that: whether they are from other political parties - and that includes members of the Conservative party - other devolved governments, organisations such as Liberty, Amnesty International and the Scottish human rights commission, or civic society more widely.”

Taking questions after the speech, Sturgeon also referred to the Scottish government’s plans for opposing the UK government’s trade union bill, saying “it is not the intention of the Scottish parliament to cooperate with a bill that breaches the rights of trade union members” and calling for the devolution of labour rights.

Chakrabarti, who chaired the event, concluded by saying: “I have waited for a long time for a senior politician in power to make a speech like that.”