THE Scottish Parliament was perfectly entitled to pass the Continuity Bill to protect powers that are coming back to Scotland after Brexit, the UK Supreme Court ruled.
The Westminster Government, however, changed the rules by passing the Withdrawal Act that allows the Tory power grab to proceed and the Supreme Court therefore disallowed part of the Continuity Bill.
Only the Conservatives and one LibDem MSP voted against the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity Bill), passed under emergency procedures by the Scottish Parliament in March.
READ MORE: Westminster votes through power grab on Scotland in 15 minutes
The Supreme Court heard arguments from the UK Government’s Advocate General, Lord Richard Keen, that the whole Bill should fall as the Scottish Parliament did not have powers to pass it.
Keen summed up the Westminster case in one sentence: “The UK Parliament is sovereign, the Scottish Parliament is not.”
The Supreme Court, however, backed the Scottish Government’s right to bring forward the Bill and have it passed, but accepted that the Withdrawal Act had changed things.
Constitutional Relations Secretary Michael Russell said parts of the Bill have been found now to be outside the Scottish Parliament's competence only because, in an "act of constitutional vandalism", the UK Government took steps which cut Holyrood's powers without its consent after MSPs approved the new law.
Russell said: "The Scottish Government's position has been vindicated by the Supreme Court judgment, which confirms that the Scottish Parliament had the competence to prepare its own laws for Brexit when the Continuity Bill was passed.
"Worryingly, parts of the Bill have been thwarted as a result of steps taken by the UK Government. For the first time ever, UK Law Officers delayed an act of the Scottish Parliament from becoming law by referring it to the Supreme Court.
"Then the UK Government, for the first time ever, invited the UK Parliament to pass a Bill which they knew would cut the powers of the Scottish Parliament without its consent. The UK Government changed the rules of the game midway through the match.
"This is an act of constitutional vandalism but that does not take away from the fact this judgment makes clear MSPs were perfectly entitled to prepare Scotland's laws for Brexit at the time this Bill was passed. The UK Government's arguments have been clearly rejected.
"We will now reflect on this judgment and discuss with other parties before coming back to Parliament to set out the best way forward."
David Mundell, the Scottish secretary, said: “The Supreme Court has provided much-needed legal clarity that the Continuity Bill goes beyond the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
“This demonstrates clearly that it was the right thing for the UK Government to refer the Bill to the court. It is now for the Scottish Government to consider how to proceed, and we hope Holyrood will take a pragmatic approach and work constructively with us as we leave the EU.”
Completely ignoring the context, Tory MSP Adam Tomkins tweeted: “Supreme Court eviscerates the SNP’s Continuity Bill, striking down several of its key provisions. Judgment leaves the SNP’s legislation in tatters. The SNP were warned they were acting illegally. But they ploughed on regardless. Embarrassing day for Nationalist ministers. Again.”
He was immediately taken to task on his own Twitter account, with "Greyskull" pointing out: “This is a highly misleading tweet. I was in court for the judgment & @UKSupremeCourt made crystal clear that @ScotParl #Brexit bill when passed was not unconstitutional. U.K. Govt simply gazumped parts of it retrospectively thus strengthening case for #Indy @joannaccherry.”
Colin Dunn added: “So, if I understand this correctly, the ScotGov legislation was legal at the time, but Westminster then took steps to change their legislation so as to block it? Ah, there’s that ‘BetterTogether’ and ‘precious union’ kicking in big time.”
Jamie Whiteford added: “It’s a pretty low, underhanded and manky way to behave but then we already know Tories have contempt even for their own parliament.”
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