AN increasingly “conservative” Supreme Court could scupper the Scottish Government’s plans to hold a second referendum, an expert has warned as a renewed debate over the constitutional question broke out over the weekend.
SNP chiefs are said to be considering a “consultative” referendum in the hopes this will be easier to get past legal challenges, according to reports.
The battle to hold a second, legally-binding vote will be fraught, warned constitutional expert Aileen McHarg.
McHarg, professor of public law and human rights at Durham University, has previously called the case for the Scottish Government holding a vote without Westminster’s permission “arguable”.
READ MORE: 'Tories running scared of indyref2 will only boost Yes case', expert says
But in an interview with Scotland on Sunday, she warned the Supreme Court had “become quite conservative” on constitutional matters since she first made the argument in 2012.
She said: “When I first wrote on this back in 2012, I thought that the case was arguable that they might uphold the validity of a bill.
"I didn't think it was by any means certain, but I thought it was arguable.
"Since then we've had quite a lot more jurisprudence, a lot more case law from the Supreme Court on devolution.
"We're also in a period where the Supreme Court has become quite conservative in its constitutional jurisprudence.”
A fundamental tripping point for the Yes side, she claimed, was that “the UK Parliament has to agree to dissolve the union”.
Sounding a more encouraging note for independence supporters, she added: “That doesn't mean that a unilateral process is completely pointless. It can serve a political purpose, it can continue to put pressure."
Ciaran Martin, an ex-cyber spy and former constitution director at the UK Government, argued in The Sunday Times that the Scottish Government could change the wording of the next referendum to simply ask voters whether they thought indyref2 negotiations with the London Government should begin.
READ MORE: 'No legal obligation' for independent Scotland to pay UK's debts, expert says
Martin said this may “stand a better chance in court” than a referendum asking whether Scotland should become an independent country.
He wrote: “The talk in Edinburgh circles is of a clever legal wheeze where softer legislation is drafted.
"Perhaps instead of a referendum on independence, the bill is instead about something like asking the people of Scotland for a mandate to open independence negotiations with the UK.
"Something like this might stand a better chance in court, though experts are sceptical.”
Reports in Saturday’s Times suggested SNP high command looked favourably on a consultative referendum paving the way for a second, legally-binding vote on Scotland’s future.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said he will refuse a Section 30 order for a second referendum, claiming the 2014 vote settled the independence question.
His ministers have told the Scottish people they must wait until 2039 before the question could be re-run.
Constitution Secretary Angus Robertson has said the Scottish Government plans to hold indyref2 in October 2023 and the First Minister has said this will go ahead with or without a Section 30 order.
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