WHETHER or not Scotland has won the right to have a Continuity Bill in order to prevent a Westminster power grab is to be decided next week.
It was announced yesterday that the UK Supreme Court will issue its decision on whether the Scottish Government’s Continuity Bill is legal next Thursday.
The decision is set to be made two days after a meaningful vote on the Brexit deal is held in the House of Commons.
During the case, and before the Supreme Court in July, the Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Richard Sanderson Keen, Baron Keen of Elie, reduced the Tory government’s argument to one simple sentence: “The UK Parliament is sovereign, the Scottish Parliament is not.”
READ MORE: David Mundell said he'd resign over his Brexit red lines ...
As the senior legal adviser to the UK Government on Scots law, Keen argued that the Continuity Bill relates to international relations, which is a power reserved to Parliament and thus beyond the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
The Scottish Government’s view is that the UK Government’s definition of “international relations” is excessively broad and that the bill is needed because it is the only legal way for the Scottish Parliament to deal with the domestic effects of Brexit.
Before the Supreme Court, Lord Keen argued that the Continuity Bill affects the powers of the UK Parliament as it gives Scottish ministers a veto over changes made by UK ministers to retained EU law in devolved areas – the power grab, in other words.
The Scottish Government’s case is that the bill simply regulates the exercise of executive powers in devolved areas, which is within the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Ironically, given subsequent events, it was Lord Keen who said that Scotland cannot legislate for a prospective future scenario of UK withdrawal – nor, it appears now, does the Tory government he serves.
Around that time Lord Keen said the UK Withdrawal Act was to create a single and consistent UK-wide regime by which EU law can be brought into domestic law.
He argued that the Continuity Bill would create a new sub-category of devolved EU law that would frustrate the will of the “sovereign Parliament” as “the UK Parliament is sovereign, the Scottish Parliament is not”.
As The National pointed out at the time, in both Scots law and the Westminster-approved Claim of Right, “sovereignty in Scotland resides with the people of Scotland and they and they alone must define the future of this country”.
The whole case may be rendered completely redundant if as expected, the so-called meaningful vote on Tuesday goes against Theresa May’s government and the whole Article 50 process has to go back to square one or is rejected in a fresh referendum.
A legal expert told The National that the UK Supreme Court justices would still issue their judgement.
“If it goes against the UK Government,” he added, “they will only have one course of action to fight on, and that is to take the case to the European Court of Justice, but they cannot even contemplate doing such a thing as they’d be a laughing stock.”
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