SCOTLAND would have the power to hold a fresh independence referendum every seven years – if the people vote for one, under a bill proposed at Westminster by an Alba MP.
Neale Hanvey put forward his Scotland (Self-Determination) Bill with the backing of five other MPs – Alba colleague Kenny MacAskill, SNP parliamentarians Joanna Cherry, Angus MacNeil, and Douglas Chapman, and independent Margaret Ferrier.
The bill would amend the Scotland Act 1998 to transfer the Section 30 power from Westminster to Holyrood, which can enable an independence referendum to be held.
READ MORE: MPs laugh as Rishi Sunak insists Brexit has 'nothing to do' with cost of living
It says the power to legislate for such a vote may only be exercised where the Scottish public has demonstrated its support for it, and that a repeat vote cannot be held sooner than seven years after the previous one.
Hanvey said: “Scotland will only become independent as and when the majority of people of Scotland choose that path.
“Yet this requires a democratic mechanism that is constitutional and satisfies international legal precedent.
“This bill seeks to standardise and codify such a requirement in line with the motion passed by this House, which endorsed the principles of the 1989 Claim of Right, which acknowledged the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs.”
The motion for leave to bring in the proposed legislation was unopposed, but ten-minute rule bills almost never become law without Government support.
Making the case for his proposals and drawing parallels with Brexit, the Alba MP suggested Conservatives would have been furious had the European Union moved to block the 2016 referendum.
He went on: “The notion is of course ludicrous because democracy is not a single event but an evolving and continuous process.
“That is how civilised people and fundamental rights of freedom of thought and expression are peacefully demonstrated.
“As a member of the EU, the UK Government possessed and exercised the veto, yet claimed its sovereignty was impeded by membership. Scotland has no such equivalent mechanism available to our people and remains subject to the wiles of our larger neighbour exemplified by Brexit.”
Hanvey also argued that the UK Government denies democracy to Scotland and not to Northern Ireland because “in the words of former prime minister John Major … the UK has no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland, whereas in the case of Scotland, the opposite is true”.
He concluded his speech, saying: “The decision on Scotland’s future ultimately and rightly must rest in the hands of the people of Scotland and in the constitutional tradition of popular sovereignty in our great country.
“This bill is neutral in its effect. It favours neither one side nor the other, but it seeks to codify the Scottish people’s right to choose their own constitutional future.”
The bill was listed for a second reading on March 24.
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