WHAT we witnessed yesterday and on Wednesday in the Scottish Parliament, with the introduction of an emergency Continuity Bill, was unprecedented. It’s also immensely complex and worth clarifying why this is genuinely the beginnings of a constitutional crisis.
Since the UK Government introduced their Withdrawal Bill back in July 2017, designed to ensure there is not a colossal black hole in UK law the moment EU law ceases to apply after Brexit, they have been locked in negotiations with both the Scottish and Welsh Governments over its impact on devolution.
To be clear, the Withdrawal Bill directly assaults devolution by permitting Westminster to make changes to areas of devolved law without consent from the Scottish Parliament. 111 areas of devolved policy are affected. All parties in the Scottish Parliament – including the Conservatives – have agreed that the Withdrawal Bill is unacceptable and must be amended to protect devolution.
The Westminster Government made repeated assurances that it would amend the bill to avoid this, yet has failed time and time again to actually do so. You can draw your own conclusions as to the balance of conspiracy to cock-up which caused this but be in no doubt, this crisis threatens the founding principles of devolution and the Scottish Parliament.
Amendments introduced by opposition parties in the Commons were voted down by the Conservatives, including their Scottish MPs. Potential progress has been halted by infighting within the Tory ranks, as a historically weak Prime Minister is held hostage by hard-right Brexit extremists, including those in her own cabinet.
With the Withdrawal Bill having almost completed its passage through Westminster, the UK Government have left almost no time to fix it. And to top it off, they’ve left no time at all to do so in the Commons, leaving it up to the unelected pantomime of the Lords to decide the fate of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.
The Scottish and Welsh Continuity Bills convert all EU law into domestic law on Brexit day and provide mechanisms to fix any issues which come out of this process. In this regard, they’re just like the UK Withdrawal Bill. However, they also ensure that all EU law in devolved areas comes to Edinburgh and Cardiff, not London. The alternative is the UK Government ruling on devolved areas without the consent of our devolved parliament and assembly.
The Continuity Bill was potentially to be rushed through in one day, as emergency legislation typically is, but the Greens successfully argued for a month-long process. When the issue at hand is the role of the Scottish Parliament, we must as a parliament be given our place to scrutinise, interrogate and debate what is proposed.
This still isn’t ideal, but it is unavoidable and entirely the right thing to do. I understand that MSPs from other parties are frustrated by the process. But throughout this saga the Scottish Government has held regular meetings with all opposition parties, keeping us updated on the situation. When our Parliament itself is threatened, the petty disagreements for disagreements’ sake which usually plague us really must be dropped.
If we cannot find consensus now, at least with the exception of the Tories, when can we find it?
Devolution aside, the Continuity Bill makes some welcome improvements on the Withdrawal Bill. It retains the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, for which the Greens had argued strongly, protecting our basic civil and social rights. No surprise that a Tory bill had deliberately excluded that.
There are changes the Greens would like to see though. The bill empowers Scottish ministers to make far-reaching changes without proper oversight or scrutiny by MSPs, and, in some cases, without even a vote in parliament.
Some of these powers are necessary. The scale of the changes needed to be made is truly massive. But this cannot come at the expense of proper democratic oversight. Without scrutiny, Scottish ministers risk making bad laws: laws that are unclear, inconsistent, and open to challenge before the courts. A minority government, at Westminster or Edinburgh, cannot be empowered over their respective parliaments.
We trust that the SNP and the other opposition parties will hear out our proposals for change over the coming weeks. Four of the five parties of our parliament, despite our differing eventual aspirations for Scotland’s constitutional future, campaigned together to bring the Scottish Parliament into being. It was a long road, with many bumps in the way but with the overwhelming vote of the people it was achieved and has served us well for close to 20 years.
The very principle of Holyrood’s founding is now under threat from a government we didn’t vote for, held to ransom by extremists we would never vote for and as a result of a referendum result we voted against. Now, in this moment of crisis, we must come together to defend the settled will of the Scottish people.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel