HOLYROOD bosses are to consider "long-term measures" to prevent a repeat of the indycamp saga.
It has emerged that plans are being drawn up that will deter the establishment of new protest camps outside the Scottish Parliament, after it took almost a year to evict pro-independence activists through the courts.
Camper vans and tents became a fixture of the parliamentary estate for 11 months after activists arrived late last year and vowed to stay put until Scotland became independent. They were evicted last week after a lengthy, expensive and bizarre courtroom battle.
Green MSP Andy Wightman, speaking on behalf of the parliament's corporate body, said that fencing at the former indycamp site were a temporary measure but that permanent deterrents could be introduced.
He said: "The corporate body intends to consider possible longer-term measures but we are conscious any such measures must be effective both in terms of cost and function, but also have to be sympathetic to the landscape and to maintain freedom of access to the public areas for those who want to protest peacefully and lawfully or simply enjoy the surroundings.
"It's too soon to say exactly what the corporate body might be doing in response to this. We are considering landscaping works on the grounds, that's one obvious possibility, but there is a limit to what one can do lawfully to prevent incursions onto the estate without interfering with legitimate rights of access to our land.
"It has been demonstrated that there are legal remedies that can be used, if further encampments are attempted... the precedents have been set in this instance."
Adam Tomkins, the Tory MSP who raised the issue, said the campers had behaved in an "disruptive, aggressive and illegal" manner and that he remained concerned about a repeat.
He said: "Illegal camps should not be on the parliament's estate in the first place. Of course the public has the right to peaceful protest, but not where that protest interferes with the rights of others, causes physical damage to the parliament's grounds or is incompatible with the nature of parliament's grounds."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel