Reserved Powers – Seán Crossan's Scots Law

A voluntary union or Albatraz (Indyref2 derailed)?

This is a relatively short article about today’s major constitutional law story which relates to the future of the United Kingdom as a unitary state.

The U.K. Supreme Court has finally ruled that the Scottish Parliament does not have the legislative power to hold a referendum (either a legally binding one or a purely advisory one).

A link to the judgement can be found below:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2022-0098.html

This clearly represents a significant set back for supporters of independence for Scotland and the casual observer may arrive at the lazy conclusion that the matter is decided for the foreseeable future.

I think this is somewhat premature. The judgement of the Supreme Court contains difficulties for the U.K. Parliament and the Government of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in the sense that the Union of the Scottish and English Parliaments in 1707 is clearly not one of a voluntary nature.

By implying this, the judgement may represent something of a red rag to the bull for many pro-independence Scots. It will certainly give the SNP/Green Government in Edinburgh a rather large stick to beat whichever British Government happens to be in power over the next few years.

In any event, there are legal precedents for dissolution of the union of nations within the framework of the British and Irish State (as I have previously argued in The Long and Winding Irish Road).

It should not be forgotten that 26 Irish counties (now the sovereign state of the Republic of Ireland) are obviously no longer in union with the United Kingdom. In fact, the original Acts of Parliament which led to the Union of Great Britain and Ireland stated:

The First Article of the Act of Union (Ireland) 1801 (above)

This piece of legislation (and it’s Westminster counterpart) contained the (very) ambitious statement that Great Britain and Ireland were to be united for ever. The ancient Greeks had a word for this type of mindset – hubris. This word means an excess of pride or over confidence.

Unfortunately, for the parliamentary draftsmen of both pieces of legislation, they could not possibly foresee that this permanent union would be seriously undermined by the Government of Ireland Act 1920. I shouldn’t have to say this, but 119 years is self evidently not a union for ever.

It is also worth highlighting that the remaining six counties of the North of Ireland are still part of the political framework of the United Kingdom, but it is not a racing certainty that this will continue. The rise of Sinn Fein as the largest political party in the Northern Ireland Assembly has raised huge question marks about the constitutional status of the six counties. I don’t think it’s a stretch of the imagination to say that the future of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland looks very uncertain.

Even the Soviet Union (the USSR) explicitly gave its constituent Republics the right to secede in its 1977 Constitution (a right which had existed in previous versions). This right, of course, was more apparent than real as long as the Cold War endured. With the fall of Communism in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the political space was created for the Soviet Republics to chart their own courses. Admittedly, this hasn’t always been plain sailing as the current war in Ukraine and other conflicts in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia amply demonstrate).

Interestingly, when the Brexit Referendum of 23 June 2016 produced a narrow majority in favour of the U.K. leaving the European Union, there was no clear constitutional process for a member state to secede. Yet, on 31 January 2020, the U.K. became a former EU State.

This really leads me to the conclusion of this very short article: independence for Scotland is a political question rather than a legal question. The Supreme Court has answered a relatively easy question in the sense that the architecture of the Scotland Act 1998 does not currently permit the Scottish Parliament to hold a binding or non-binding referendum. As with the Irish Question over a century ago, permanent unions between countries or political units tend to be anything but.

One door closes and another opens …

The link to my previous article, The Long and Irish Winding Road can be found below:

https://seancrossansscotslaw.com/2021/01/10/the-long-and-winding-irish-road/

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 23 November 2022

A step closer? Indyref2?

Photo by Seán J Crossan

Can you contain your excitement? Indyref2 (or a second Scottish Independence Referendum) is definitely on the horizon…

… except that it isn’t, but this is the impression given by sections of the Scottish and UK media.

On 28 May 2019, Michael Russell MSP, a senior Scottish Government Minister introduced the Referendums (Scotland) Bill in the Scottish Parliament.

Does this pave the way for more constitutional upheaval (as if Brexit woes aren’t enough at the moment?) across Scotland and the rest of the UK?

Well … actually, no it doesn’t.

Are we on the cusp of a political event approximating the Apocalypse or the Second Coming? Hardly.

From a cursory glance of the Bill and its accompanying documents, it’s very hard to see any mention of Indyref2. In fact, the aims of the Bill are incredibly modest:

“This Bill provides a legislative framework for referendums. It provides a power for the Scottish Ministers, by regulations, to provide for the holding of referendums throughout Scotland within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.”[my emphasis]

Critically, even Ken MacIntosh MSP, Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament has stated:

“In my view, the provisions of the Referendums (Scotland) Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.”

The Bill is very limited in scope (or timid depending upon your viewpoint). There’s nothing problematic about a future Scottish Government wishing to consult the people of Scotland through the medium of direct democracy (i.e. a referendum) on issues that are firmly within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. Off the top of my head, I can think of several matters which might be suitable for direct democracy e.g. local government, NHS reorganisation, Police and Fire Services reform; education and more thorny, ethical and moral matters such as abortion and euthanasia.

In terms of the Scotland Acts 1998 and 2016, the Scottish Parliament is confined to legislating upon matters or issues which are deemed to be “devolved”. It is not permitted to legislate upon matters which are deemed to be “reserved” to the Westminster Parliament.

In a previous blog (“Bring it on! (or Indyref2?)” published on 26 April 2019), I emphasised that the last Referendum on the question of Scottish Independence (held on Thursday 18 September 2014) was permitted to go ahead because the then UK Government and Parliament gave their consent. This constitutional arrangement became known as the Edinburgh Agreement of 15 October 2012 and operated under the auspices of Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998.

Currently, it does not seem likely that the UK Government and the next British Prime Minister (who we know will come from the Conservative Westminster Parliamentary Party) are likely to agree to Indyref2 going ahead.

So, what does the Scottish Government hope to achieve?

Be in no doubt: this is about the political long game and the Scottish Government is attempting to shame the UK Government into giving it the right to hold a second referendum.

Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon MSP is calculating that she can portray the refusal of the UK Government to approve another referendum as a deliberate denial of the Scottish people’s fundamental democratic rights. If a UK led Conservative Government becomes even more unpopular, SNP activists and other independence supporters are hoping that it will become politically costly for the Conservatives to continue to oppose a second referendum.

Where will it all end? At the moment, who can really predict the future with any degree of certainty.

Interesting times indeed!

An infographic (taken from the Scottish Parliament’s website) showing the introduction of the Referendums (Scotland) Bill can be seen below:

The subsequent progress of the Bill can be seen in the info graphic below:

A link to the Bill and its accompanying documents can be found below:

https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/111844.aspx

Finally, you can find links to some news articles below which discuss the implications of the Bill:

https://news.sky.com/story/nicola-sturgeon-clashes-with-tory-hopefuls-over-second-independence-referendum-11731033

Indyref2 ‘framework’ bill published at Holyrood

The Scottish government wants to hold a new independence referendum in the second half of 2020.

Postscript

On Friday 6 December 2019, 6 days before the UK General Election, Nicola Sturgeon MSP, First Minister of Scotland conceded that a legal Indyref2 was a ‘hard fact’ that some supporters of Scottish independence would have to accept.

What Ms Sturgeon was alluding to was a question of fact as we like to say in the law: the power to hold a future referendum on Scottish independence lies with the Westminster or UK Parliament in terms of Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998.

Boris Johnson, the current UK Prime Minister has emphatically ruled out any second independence referendum if a majority Conservative Party Government is re-elected next Thursday.

Some Scottish independence activists have advocated a Catalan style independence referendum i.e. going ahead with a poll without legal authority. Understandably, this not a popular option where the First Minister is concerned when one remembers the chaotic (not to say) violent events in October 2017 during the independence referendum in Catalunya

A link to a discussion on the BBC website about the tensions over tactics in the Scottish pro-independence movement can be found below:

General election 2019: Sturgeon says legal indyref2 is a ‘hard truth’

The first minister says the only way to win a second indyref is for any vote to be legally-binding.

Bring it on! (or IndyRef2?)

Photo by Andrew Buchanan on Unsplash

Well, there you have it: Scotland’s worst kept political secret. First Minster, Nicola Sturgeon announced this week at Holyrood that she wishes to bring legislation forward to hold a second, Scottish Independence referendum sometime in 2021.

The trouble is that this is a matter reserved to the Westminster or UK Parliament in terms of the Scotland Acts 1998 and 2016 i.e. it is a constitutional matter. In other words, the UK Parliament must agree to any request from the Scottish Parliament to hold another referendum. The referendum of 2014 was permitted because the then UK Prime Minister, David Cameron agreed to it. This was known as the Edinburgh Agreement signed by representatives of both the Scottish and UK Governments on 15 October 2012. Under Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998, a legislative instrument (known as an Order-in-Council) was drafted permitting the referendum to proceed on terms agreed by both Governments.

Fast forward 5 years from the last independence referendum and it would seem that any permission from the UK Government, let alone the UK Parliament is most unlikely. In fact, David Liddington MP, Prime Minister Theresa May’s de facto Deputy, hit back almost immediately in response to Ms Sturgeon’s announcement to state that permission for a referendum would not be forthcoming.

Now, Mr Liddington is correct in strict legal terms. The future territorial integrity of the United Kingdom is a matter reserved to the national parliament at Westminster – not a local parliament such as Holyrood.

And yet … this is where politics rather than strict legal interpretations might come into play. The current UK Government ‘led’ by Theresa May is weak, divided, obsessed with Brexit and lacking a majority in the House of Commons. It has a limited shelf-life. This is an administration which no longer speaks with any real authority on the great political questions of our age (and that’s just the opinion of most Conservative MPs).

Mr Liddington’s refusal may well come back to haunt the Conservatives both in Scotland and nationally. Expect Ms Sturgeon to make maximum political capital here by saying that this is a deliberate attempt to thwart the political will of the Scottish people. At the last UK General Election (8 June 2017), the Conservative Party made impressive gains in the number of Scottish Westminster seats. Since then, with the mishandling of Brexit, continuing opposition to an independence referendum might mean that these electoral advances could be undermined, even reversed. It’s by no means certain that a future Jeremy Corbyn led UK Government (not a foregone conclusion) will favour a second independence referendum. There are many factors that still have to be played out here.

Ms Sturgeon (or one of her Ministers) could introduce a Referendum Bill to Holyrood, but would this be a credible legal move? Almost certainly not: Holyrood’s Presiding Officer would (rightly) be under huge pressure to declare the Bill as not having the necessary legislative competence in terms of the Scotland Acts. The Bill would have tremendous symbolic power and would almost certainly fire up independence supporters who are itching for IndyRef2.

Never mind the legal arguments, expect the action to take place on the political front.

Please find below a number of links to articles discussing the prospect of IndyRef2:

https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-plan-of-little-action/#more-109725

Nicola Sturgeon calls for indyref2 by 2021 Holyrood elections

Scottish independence: UK government ‘will not grant indyref2 consent’