THE weekend the results of the Scottish Election came out Michael Gove was despatched to work the Scots political TV studios to deliver the spin determined by the Tory machine. This spin had two messages.
Firstly the SNP had failed to win a majority and so had no political mandate to call indyref2. Secondly, because Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon had declared that the 2014 referendum was a “once in a generation” event the Scots would have to wait another 20-40 years to be “allowed” a referendum.
However during these interviews Gove was unusually coy about whether the British Government would challenge the legality of any indyref2 bill.
That coyness was abandoned yesterday in an interview in the Daily Telegraph with Gove’s clear statement that Westminster will refuse to grant section 30 permission to hold indyref2.
READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: Why we must pay attention to Tory attacks on Channel 4
However Gove remained coy about a legal challenge to the validity of referendum legislation presumably because he knows that having a court action which is a head to head battle between the Scots and British Governments, a legal version of a Home International, is not a good look and so a different tactic is needed.
The UK's Supreme Court in Parliament Square
A few weeks ago there were repeated stories in the Tory press a few weeks that instead of directly challenging the legislation directly themselves, under section 33 of the Scotland Act that the Government intends to rely on a “concerned citizen” raising a private court action to oppose the holding of a referendum in a way analogous to the Brexit and Prorogation of Parliament cases raised but Gina Miller, in England and Joanna Cherry in Scotland.
The legal battle would then be between a “plucky” Unionist and the Scots Government hoping to turn Holyrood from David fighting the Westminster Goliath into a Goliath fighting a Scots resident.
However it seems to me that Gove’s plan unlikely to succeed in diminishing the political backlash to Westminster opposition to indyref2.
There are three reasons why Gove’s plan is likely to fail.
Firstly, the use of a “MacMiller” figure to oppose Holyrood legislation is so transparent that it will fool no one. It will be obvious to the world that MacMillar is merely Boris Johnson’s court room sock puppet.
Secondly, by resorting to law to attempt to thwart the mandate of the SNP and Scottish Greens is so obviously anti-democratic that it is likely to convince more Scots to support independence not fewer.
Thirdly, the MacMiller route will drag out the legal process far longer than if the British Government were to have the courage of its convictions and exercise its right to object to indyref2 legislation under section 33.
This is because a section 33 case goes directly to the Supreme Court. The first hearing of the case will also be its last as there is no higher UK court than the Supreme Court.
However a MacMiller court case will have to commence in the Outer House of the Court of Session and then be appealed to the Inner House and only then to the Supreme Court.
READ MORE: Fury as Michael Gove quotes Proclaimers hit after Scotland defeat
In a case of this constitutional magnitude it does not matter who wins the initial case as it is certain that the losing side will appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.
The effect of such a process will simply be to remind Scots that their destiny is not to be determined by democracy but by the courts.
In many ways this would be the perfect recruiting campaign for Yes supporters. If indyref2 were ruled lawful by the Supreme Court that would be a win for the independence movement. But even if indyref2 were ruled unlawful then that might well increase support for independence.
Making it plain that the Union is a legal prison not a political partnership is no way to win the hearts of undecided Scots and would likely create a festering resentment which will hasten the eventual demise of the Union.
Scott Crichton Styles is a senior lecturer in law at the University of 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