Annabelle Ewing’s support for a Scottish citizens’ assembly on drugs
Annabelle Ewing’s backing for a Scottish Citizens’ Assembly on Drugs reflects a wider debate about how Scotland should respond to drug-related harm. The proposal places evidence, lived experience and public participation alongside the work of ministers, police, health professionals and local councils.
For voters in Ochil and South Perthshire, the question is practical as well as constitutional. Rural communities, market towns and larger centres can face different pressures around addiction, treatment access, mental health and policing. A citizens’ assembly could give those communities a structured voice in shaping a national drugs policy.
Why the proposal matters in Scotland
Scotland has recorded serious levels of drug-related harm, with the impact felt by families, emergency services, housing providers and community organisations. A policy focused only on punishment may miss the health issues that often sit behind dependency, including trauma, poverty and untreated mental illness.
Ewing’s position connects drugs policy with a broader case for Scottish decision-making. A citizens’ assembly would allow people from across the country to examine the evidence and develop recommendations rather than leaving a complex issue to party politics or short election cycles.
What a citizens’ assembly would do
A citizens’ assembly usually brings together a representative group of residents selected by demographic criteria such as age, location, gender and socio-economic background. Participants hear from specialists, people with personal experience, police, clinicians, charities and families affected by drug use.
The group then considers evidence over several sessions before publishing recommendations. It would not replace Parliament, courts or medical authorities. Its value would come from creating a transparent, informed process in which ordinary citizens can test competing claims and explain the reasoning behind their conclusions.
A public health approach with democratic oversight
Supporters of the proposal argue that drug policy should give greater weight to prevention, treatment and harm reduction. That could include easier access to recovery services, better mental health support, naloxone availability, housing assistance and early intervention for young people.
This does not mean ignoring crime or community safety. A balanced assembly could examine organised supply, exploitation and public disorder while distinguishing those issues from the treatment of people who are dependent on drugs. That distinction matters to families who want safer streets and effective help for relatives at the same time.
Lessons for an Australian audience
Australia offers useful comparisons, although its federal structure and state-based drug laws are different from Scotland’s. Debates about pill testing at festivals, supervised consumption services, medicinal cannabis and the response to ice show how quickly health, policing and politics can collide.
In Canberra and parts of the Australian Capital Territory, drug checking has been discussed as a way to reduce risks at festivals. Victoria’s supervised injecting facility trial in North Richmond also demonstrated how a service can become a focus for arguments about local amenity, public safety and public health. These examples underline why public deliberation needs clear evidence and strong community input.
| Issue | Scottish citizens’ assembly proposal | Australian comparison |
|---|---|---|
| Decision-making | National deliberation feeding into Scottish political debate | Responsibilities are divided between the Commonwealth, states and territories |
| Health response | Greater focus on treatment, prevention and harm reduction | Services vary across NSW, Victoria, Queensland, the ACT and other jurisdictions |
| Community concerns | Rural access, town-centre safety and pressure on local services | Festival safety, ice use, overdose response and regional treatment gaps |
| Public participation | Residents hear evidence before making recommendations | Citizens’ juries, health consultations and parliamentary inquiries offer related models |
Making participation genuinely representative
A credible assembly would need participants from Glasgow and Edinburgh, but also from places such as Perth, Stirling, Alloa and rural Perthshire. People in regional Scotland can encounter long travel times, limited specialist services and fewer confidential treatment options than residents in major cities.
The process should also include families, people in recovery, frontline workers and communities affected by drug-related crime. Meetings would need independent facilitation, accessible information and safeguards for participants discussing distressing experiences. Publishing evidence and minority views would help prevent the process from becoming a symbolic exercise.
Representation at Westminster and beyond
Ewing’s parliamentary experience and legal background inform her emphasis on accountable government and careful scrutiny. In her campaign for Ochil and South Perthshire, support for a citizens’ assembly can be understood as part of a wider argument that Scotland’s communities should have a stronger role in decisions affecting their lives.
Westminster retains powers that influence criminal law, social security and parts of public health funding, while the Scottish Parliament controls important areas such as health services and justice. A citizens’ assembly could help clarify these responsibilities and give elected representatives a stronger public mandate when negotiating across institutions.
What voters should expect from the process
The proposal should be judged by its terms of reference, independence and follow-through. Participants need access to competing evidence, not a pre-written answer. Ministers and parties should also explain which recommendations they accept, which they reject and why.
Australians are familiar with policy debates where a “fair go” means hearing from people affected by a decision, not simply counting media headlines. The same principle applies here. A well-run assembly could build trust, while a rushed or selective process could deepen public scepticism.
Practical priorities for a credible assembly
- Recruit participants from urban, rural and island communities across Scotland.
- Include people with lived experience, families, clinicians, police and recovery workers.
- Publish an independent evidence library in clear, accessible language.
- Examine treatment, prevention, enforcement, housing and mental health together.
- Set measurable targets for reducing deaths, hospital presentations and repeat offending.
- Require the Scottish Government and Parliament to respond publicly to each recommendation.
Annabelle Ewing’s support gives the proposal a clear place in the political conversation around Scottish democracy and drug reform. For communities in Ochil and South Perthshire, the strongest case is a process that listens carefully, tests evidence and links national policy to the realities of local services.
Read the campaign’s position, follow updates on the proposed assembly and use the available contact channels to share views on drug policy, public health and community safety.("")]
//