BREXIT minister Mike Russell has rejected a call for legal advice on the Scottish Government's EU Continuity Bill to be published, telling MSPs the move would set a "very difficult and dangerous precedent".
With the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament having opposing views over whether the Bill is within Holyrood's legislative competence, the Law Society has called for both Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC and Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh to publish their legal advice.
Michael Clancy, director of law reform at the Law Society of Scotland, said while it was highly unusual for such advice to be made public, the country was facing "extraordinary circumstances".
Brexit has prompted a fierce dispute between the Scottish and UK governments over where devolved powers should be held once they are returned from Westminster.
With the UK Government's EU Withdrawal Bill attempting a power grab of currently devolved powers, SNP ministers at Holyrood have published their own version of the legislation.
The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill is being rushed through the Scottish Parliament despite Macintosh claiming it is outside of Holyrood's legislative competence.
Lord Advocate James Wolffe advised the Scottish Government that the Bill fell within the Scottish Parliament's remit, with that few yesterday backed by two top constitutional experts.
READ MORE: Experts say Scotland's EU Continuity Bill is legitimate
Labour's James Kelly said MSPs had been left in a "difficult position".
He asked Russell, who was appearing before Holyrood's Finance and Constitution Committee, if he would "take on board the view of the Law Society that given the public interest here there is a case for both the Presiding Officer and the Lord Advocate publishing legal advice to inform these discussions".
Russell told him: "We have already undertaken an exceptional statement, permitted under the ministerial code, in which the Lord Advocate has indicated the reasons the Government has taken the action it has by saying why we believe this was in competence.
"He has also gone further, he has come to the chamber and he has answered questions from members on these matters, and that is an exceptional step to take.
"It is not the view of the government that we should then move into not only completely uncharted waters, but waters that would set, we think, a very difficult and dangerous precedent, if we were then to publish or give further legal advice, so that is not the intention so to do.
"We have indicated very clearly in publications, in statements, why the Scottish Government believes this is competent and we have given legal reasons for that."
He also said the Presiding Officer had "published a lengthier statement than I believe he has ever published before" on the matter.
Clancy said: "Our view in asking for both the Presiding Officer and the Lord Advocate to explain their thinking is based on the idea that there should be an element of transparency about this question and we should be able to see the rationale which led to the two statements.
"I know it is an extraordinary set of circumstances when law officers would do that, provide their advice, but these are extraordinary circumstances."
His view was backed by Alan Page, professor of public law at Dundee University, who said: "I think it is entirely within the legitimate expectations of members of this Parliament that they should have a full view of the basis on which the different views have been taken."
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