JOANNA Cherry has called for Holyrood to hold a second independence referendum without agreement from Boris Johnson should he continue to refuse a new vote.
The SNP MP, who is the party’s justice and home affairs spokeswoman at Westminster, argued that if there is a pro-independence majority after next year’s elections, but the Prime Minister persists in failing to agree a second plebiscite, then the Scottish Parliament should continue to push ahead with one.
She made her intervention in a major lecture last night on the eve of the SNP’s annual conference, where delegates will debate a key resolution on independence following a series of polls returning a Yes majority.
The QC also told her online audience that Scotland was “on a highway to independence” and that too many US Democrats take the view that “the UK Government is the last outpost of the Trump project”. And she forecasts that once Scotland votes for independence, a united Ireland will follow.
On Holyrood holding an independence vote, she referred to the First Minister’s Brexit Day speech where Nicola Sturgeon raised this idea if Johnson refused to hand over powers to Holyrood.
However, Sturgeon warned that such a move would be challenged by the UK Government and could “move us forward – but equally it could set us back”.
Cherry, a QC, disagreed. “It is my view that if the pro-independence referendum parties obtain a majority at the Scottish election next year and the PM refuses to come to the table to negotiate a second Edinburgh Agreement, the avenue which the FM contemplated earlier this year should be pursued,” she said, delivering the Wales Centre for Government’s annual lecture.
She added that “it would require a carefully crafted bill to be piloted through Holyrood” and there would be “the inevitable legal challenge”. But she insisted that whatever the outcome, the independence cause would not be damaged and underlined the political context in which any future referendum bid was made.
She also suggested it was “unfortunate” that the debate about a new independence vote was dominated by a focus on “whether or not the UK Government will grant” the transfer of powers to Holyrood.
“It would be for the courts to decide whether the bill passed was within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and, thus, whether the referendum so authorised could proceed...The case would undoubtedly end up in the UK Supreme Court,” she said.
“If they found the bill to be within competence, then we would have a lawful referendum.
“And one which would be hard for Unionists to boycott. If we lost then I do not believe we would be any further back than the stalemate that will ensue if Boris Johnson digs his heels in.”
Cherry also called for the First Minister to publish documents on the new case for independence which would “provide the information and answers people want on how Scotland can make the transition from a Yes vote to becoming an independent country”.
She then gave her views on the potential implications for the Union: “Scottish independence could be the catalyst for the sort of constitutional reform in England which is talked about by the chattering classes. I say England because there is a very real question as to what the UK will consist of after Scotland resumes the status of an independent state.
“I find myself in agreement with John Major in that Scotland will go first then Northern Ireland will follow and reunify with the rest of Ireland.”
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