A LEGAL expert has accused the UK Government of “sheer hypocrisy” over its move to block Holyrood from enacting a landmark children’s rights bill.
Legislation to incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) into Scots law is to be disputed in the Supreme Court by Boris Johnson’s administration, which claims the bill goes beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament.
But constitutional law specialist, David Allen Green, has condemned the move, warning Downing Street is treating the Supreme Court as if it were an “imperial court”.
In a blog post, he pointed to examples of the UK Government treating the judiciary as “enemies of the people”. In particular, he noted the “Miller cases”, when the Supreme Court ruled Tory ministers could not impose Brexit without Parliament’s permission.
Referring to No 10’s new court challenge against Holyrood, Allen Green writes: “My political view is that a Scottish parliament can and should be co-equal with the Westminster parliament – as the legislatures in Canada and Australia are, even if nominally under the same head of state. As such, it is frustrating to see the emphatically supported view of the Scottish parliament potentially stymied in this way.
“But a political view is not always the same as a constitutionalist perspective. And under the current constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom, this is a question that can be referred to the Supreme Court – and as such there is nothing unconstitutional about the London government doing so. (Whether those should be the constitutional arrangements is a different question.)”
WATCH: Boris Johnson claims Tory attack on child rights bill is 'fictitious'
He adds: “It is sheer hypocrisy – and there is not other word – for the London government, and its political and media supporters, to pick-and-choose when the supreme court gets to determine constitutional questions.
“Either the supreme court is a constitutional court or it is not a constitutional court. And it should not be regarded as only a constitutional court when the London government wants to face down Edinburgh, Cardiff, or Belfast.
“A constitutional court is not and should not be regarded as an imperial court.”
The Supreme Court case against the Scottish Parliament sparked outrage among Scottish politicians. Nicola Sturgeon branded it “morally repugnant” while John Swinney described it as “deeply menacing”.
Meanwhile, legal expert Professor Aileen McHarg said the Tory government is under “no obligation” to take the legislation to the highest court in the land, and added that “this seems much more about asserting the superior status of the UK Parliament”.
Pressed about the decision at Prime Minister’s Questions, Johnson dismissed SNP complaints as “complete nonsense”.
He added: “The Government of the United Kingdom ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 13 years ago, we all support it. It is nothing to do with the rights of vulnerable children which we all protect. This is simply an attempt by the SNP to stir up constitutional chaos and create another fictitious bone of contention between themselves and the rest of the country.”
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