MP Joanna Cherry’s call for Holyrood to legislate to hold an independence referendum if Boris Johnson continues to block an agreed vote with the Scottish Government has been rejected by her Westminster colleague Alyn Smith as a “gesture”.
Cherry, the SNP’s justice and home affairs spokeswoman in the Commons, argued on Friday if that if the Prime Minister continued to veto a new plebiscite should there be a pro independence majority in Edinburgh after the May election, then the Scottish Parliament should hold one.
She referred to comments made by Nicola Sturgeon in her Brexit Day speech in January when she drew attention to the possibility with the First Minister warning it could “move us forward – but equally it could set us back”.
But 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.
READ MORE: Joanna Cherry: Holyrood should hold indyref2 if Boris Johnson blocks new vote
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.
“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.”
Asked on BBC Radio Four’s Any Questions, broadcast yesterday and on Friday, whether he agreed with Cherry about Holyrood holding an independence referendum if the PM continued to block a new vote, Smith, the SNP foreign affairs spokesman in Westminster, made clear he did not.
He said: “No I don’t. I don’t believe in gestures like that. I think we’ve seen in Catalonia where that leads to. I am here to defend party policy. The party’s policy is we want an agreed referendum with the UK as we did in 2014.”
Pressed that the Scottish Government “wasn’t going to get one” as Johnson had said he won’t agree to one, Smith added: “That position is utterly unsustainable in the eyes of the people of Scotland.
“And every time he does say no we go up in the polls so that is neither democratic or sustainable and that is a political argument.”
He added: “We are a constitutional party we want to join the international legal order as an independent state and that needs to be legitimate in the eyes of the people of Scotland and the international community. So yes of course there are other things we can look at, there are other things we will look at as things go forward.”
It is the latest clash between Smith and Cherry.
Last week he hit out at the SNP Common Weal Group (SNP CWG) for launching a list of candidates running for election to the party’s ruling NEC. The SNP CWG are backing candidates – including Cherry – who signed its manifesto calling for greater internal democracy in the party.
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