by a Newsnet reporter

The SNP has welcomed a statement by seven senior constitutional academics supporting the position that the Scottish Parliament has the authority to stage an independence referendum under its existing powers.

As reported in Saturday's Herald newspaper, Gavin Anderson, Sarah Craig, Aileen McHarg and Professor Tom Mullen from the University of Glasgow and Professor Christine Bell, Professor Stephen Tierney and Professor Neil Walker from Edinburgh have made a contribution to the UK Constitutional Law Group, in which they state that "a plausible case" can be made for the legality of a referendum Bill passed by the Scottish Parliament under the current provisions of the Scotland Act.

The view of the constitutional experts challenges the opinion of the Westminster government that the Scottish Parliament does not have legal authority to call a referendum.  The experts maintain that is not correct that only Westminster has control of constitutional matters, and argue that the law is not as clear cut as Westminster would have the Scottish electorate believe.

The legal experts point out that there is an equally strong argument that the Scottish tradition of the sovereignty of the Scottish people gives Holyrood the power it requires to hold a referendum on the country's future.

The group of constitutional experts also say that it is important that any agreement between Holyrood and Westminster does not implicitly surrender Scottish sovereignty to Westminster.  Speaking to the Herald, the group's statement said:

"It is important any such agreement should be not taken as an unequivocal endorsement of the view Westminster alone is entitled to authorise a referendum on the constitutional future of any part of the UK.

"Contrary to the views of the UK Government and a number of influential commentators, we believe the legality of a referendum Bill passed under the Scotland Act as it currently stands is a more open question than has been generally acknowledged.

"In other words, we believe a plausible case can be made that such a Bill would be lawful, and believe it is important these arguments are clearly set out."

The constitutional experts also dismiss the recent claim by the Lord Advocate Jim Wallace that a referendum held under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament could be contested in the courts.

The group points out that Mr Wallace's claim rests upon a literal interpretation of the Scotland Act, which denies Holyrood the right to legislate on anything which "relates to a reserved matter".  Mr Wallace argued that the "broad purpose" of a referendum Bill would be to dissolve the Union, thus relating to the "reserved matter" of the constitution.

However the constitutional experts reject this interpretation, saying that it is contestable.  They note that the Scotland Bill also tells the courts that they should interpret Holyrood Bills "as narrowly as required in order to allow them to be upheld".  In other words, where there is any legal doubt about Holyrood's competence, the courts are obliged to give Holyrood the benefit of that doubt.  

The experts also accuse the UK Government of conflating the intention of the Scottish Government with the intention of the Scottish Parliament.  The two bodies are strictly separate in law.  The experts accuse the Westminster government of issuing a "red herring" over questions of the wording of the question, saying:

"The legal effect of a referendum Bill is indisputably simply to seek the views of people in Scotland ... If this is the correct approach to the identification of the Bill's purpose, then the precise wording of the referendum question would appear to be a red herring; the legal effect of the referendum is not altered by asking an indirect rather than a direct question about whether Scotland should become independent."

Linda Fabiani, SNP MSP for East Kilbride and convener of the Scottish Parliament's Scotland Bill Committee, welcomed the contribution to the debate from the respected academic experts in constitutional law, and said:

"This is an important and very welcome intervention by some of Scotland's leading constitutional experts, supporting the principle that the Scottish Parliament does indeed have the authority to hold an independence referendum under its existing powers.

"The SNP has always argued that on the question of Scotland's future, sovereignty lies with the Scottish people, as has been the case throughout our history.

"The backing for that position from this group of experts follows similar support from Professor Matt Qvortrup and the Electoral Reform Society earlier this week.  There is a growing groundswell of authoritative opinion that Scotland's referendum does indeed belong to Scotland's Parliament.

"The blundering attempts of Westminster politicians to dictate the legality and the terms of the referendum will only drive the people of Scotland further away from the flagging anti-independence camp.

"In the face of this growing evidence that the referendum belongs to the people of Scotland, the anti-independence parties must rethink their stance and put the democratic rights of the people of Scotland at the top of their priorities."

Comments  

 
# Mad Jock McMad 2012-02-12 14:12
The people of Scotland are sovereign - sine die. A legal point made clear in McCormack vs the Lord Advocate in 1953 by Lord Cooper, President of the Court of session, and conceded by the Lord Advocate on behalf of Westminster.

The real question is the legality of section 5 and 30 of the 1998 Scotland Bill which seeks to assume rights to the people of Scotland's sovereignty, in terms of a parliamentary democracy, over which Westminster has no hold and have never been conceded. A point once again made clear in Lord Cooper's 1953 judgement in which he stated it was perverse for only English constitutional practice to hold sole sway in a UK parliament of equals, contrary to the Articles of Union, and the assumption had no basis in Scots Law or constitutional practice.

In the recent AXA and others vs the Scottish Government, the Supreme Court held that it could not put aside the bill being contested by the appellants as it represented the will of the people of Scotland expressed in the Scottish Parliament.

In effect the Supreme Court has tacitally accepted the people of Scotland are sovereign and not the Westminster Government. If this was not the case, as many 'legal and constitutional experts' such as Lallands Peat Worrier argued at the time, and the people of Scotland's sovereignty was constitutionall y bound to Westminster as in a parliamentary democracy then the Supreme Court would have had to find in Axa and others favour in terms of section 5 of the 1998 Scotland Act.

The growing reality is that we, the sovereign people of Scotland, would win any purported legal action raised in England under the 1998 Scotland Act because neither section 5 nor section 30 are sustainable in Scots Law because neither section reflects the Articles of Union with respect to equal partnership nor are they compliant with the constitutional reality that Scotland is a representative democracy, not a parliamentary democracy.
 
 
# Guy Dreich 2012-02-12 22:36
MJM: I would just like to say publicly how much I enjoy your writings on NNS. I am constantly heartened with what you say when, at times, I get to feeling down about the "lower than a snakes' belly" pronouncements from Westminster.

Chapeau Sir!
 
 
# mato21 2012-02-12 15:06
It's a pity A.S couldn't meet with M. Moore on Mon Hand him a piece of paper saying this is what we intend to do and when we intend to do it. Deal with it and walk out
How sweet that would be
 
 
# Matrix 2012-02-12 16:23
I am happy to see that finally there are respected legal minds coming out and giving the other side of the Westminster fear agenda. The Unionists cannot seem top understand that there is no such thing as UK law. Contracts are always under jurisdiction of either Scots or English law. By painting the picture that Scots law is in some way subservient to Westminster is fallacious in extremis. Now it is possible that in Eton they are too stupid or too arrogant to know the difference but in the year where Guy Fawkes masks became a symbol of resistance of the people against tyranny there is hope yet that the cellars of Westminster may tremble under the fury of two nations scorned by the people who were elected to serve them. Boom.
 
 
# UpSpake 2012-02-12 20:47
If Moore is a non-entity and his role in life obsolete, if he has absolutely no mandate whatsoever, then I support Mato21's scenario.
Salmond should start demanding of the likes of Moore and Cameron too. He has all the cards in his hand and either way, he simply cannot lose. It is THE 100% perfect position to be in - negotiation is a waste of time as he know from lasy May asking for Crown Estates, Corporation Tax etc. So far - nothing !
 
 
# gus1940 2012-02-13 10:08
Could I suggest the following question be asked at PMQ's:-

Is the function of the occupant of Dover House to be:-

a)Scotland's Representative in The UK Government with the task of acting FOR the clearly expressed wishes of Scotland and its people.

or

b)The UK Government's Representative with the task of acting for the interests of The UK Government AGAINST the clearly expressed wishes of Scotland and its peoples.
 

You must be logged-in in order to post a comment.

Banner

Donate to Newsnet Scotland

Banner

Latest Comments