THERE should not be a second independence referendum even if the Supreme Court deems it legal, Liz Truss has said.
The Prime Minister was asked about her stance on the indyref2 case, with just days to go before the UK’s highest court hears oral arguments on Scotland’s right to hold the vote.
The Scottish Government’s top law officer, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain, has submitted a referendum bill for the court to decide if it falls within Holyrood’s competence.
READ MORE: SNP publish written argument in indyref2 Supreme Court case - read it in full
Under the Scotland Act, referendums are devolved, but anything which “relates to” the Union is reserved. This has created legal ambiguity on whether Holyrood has the power to legislate for a consultative referendum on the issue of independence.
Asked if she would be leading the Unionist campaign in the event the Supreme Court ruled Scotland could hold indyref2 without Westminster’s consent, Truss was non-committal.
She told ITV’s Tom Sheldrick: “I’m very clear that, in 2014 when there was a referendum, we said it was once in a generation.
“I'm very clear there shouldn't be another referendum before that generation is up.”
I asked the Prime Minister about what she will do if the Supreme Court rules another Scottish independence referendum is legal
— Tom Sheldrick (@TomSheldrickITV) October 3, 2022
She said: "I'm very clear there shouldn't be another referendum before [a] generation is up" pic.twitter.com/bvJtAaI2GN
Scottish Borders SNP MSP Christine Grahame further told ITV that it was "quite extraordinary" for the Prime Minister to say that she would oppose indyref2 even if it were deemed legal.
"But then, nothing will surprise me about Liz Truss", she added.
Truss has been adamant that she will not grant a Section 30 order, which would allow Holyrood to legislate in reserved areas and avoid any legal questions about competency.
READ MORE: The five UK Supreme Court judges who will rule on fate of a Scottish independence referendum
With the departure of Michael Gove from government, there have been suggestions that Truss’s time in No 10 could see the return of the “muscular Unionism” which characterised the earlier days of Boris Johnson’s government.
The Supreme Court is due to hear the case from October 11-12, just days after the end of the SNP conference in Aberdeen.
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