THE SNP have hit back at Alister Jack for stating that a second independence referendum held without the UK’s agreement would be “illegal”, saying the Tories’ stance is “indefensible and untenable”.
The Scottish Secretary made the comment in an interview yesterday as he discussed Constitutional Affairs Secretary Michael Russell’s proposal to hold a new vote should Boris Johnson fail to give his consent to one, even if there continues to be a pro-independence majority in Holyrood after the May election.
Responding to Jack’s intervention the SNP depute leader Keith Brown said: “The Tories sound more rattled by the day and it’s clear they are completely out of ideas and excuses.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon outlines 'Plan B' to European newspaper readers
“Trying to block a democratic mandate is an indefensible and untenable position – the bottom line is the Tories are panicking as they run scared of a referendum they fear they will lose.
“It’s not for Alister Jack, or his boss Boris Johnson, to deny the people of Scotland the chance to determine their own future.
“That choice belongs to the people of Scotland and any Trump-like attempt to deny that would be utterly undemocratic – and would not hold.”
Jack’s comments came just days after the Prime Minister tried to tout the strength of the Union on a visit to Scotland amid successive polls recording an independence majority.
READ MORE: Douglas Ross: Scots must boycott indyref2 if held without UK consent
Amid Johnson repeatedly ruling out a new vote and suggesting there should not be a second referendum until 2055, the SNP released an 11-point plan last month stating they would hold another vote if a pro-independence majority of MSPs were returned in May’s Holyrood elections, whether a Section 30 order granting it from London was forthcoming or not.
READ MORE: Scottish independence referendum could be held by Christmas, Michael Russell signals
The document, put together by Russell, would effectively dare the UK Government to challenge another referendum in court.
However, the Scottish Secretary told the BBC yesterday another vote without express permission would be illegal.
He said: “I’m afraid the constitution is a reserved matter, it would be an illegal referendum, let’s be clear about that.”
The Tory Cabinet minister said it was “not the time” for another vote on the constitution in Scotland, reiterating that senior figures in the Yes campaign and its own white paper said the vote was “once in a generation”.
READ MORE: Mail on Sunday columnist Dan Hodges urges Boris Johnson to agree to indyref2
He added: “We can’t go into a process of ‘neverendums’ until eventually they get one that they win, that’s not what responsible government is about.
“We had a referendum in 2014, we’re now in a global pandemic, we’re going to have double-dip recession the way things are going.
“It’s about recovering our economy as one United Kingdom, pulling together, doing the trade deals we want to do, improving Scotland’s economy and rebuilding it as quickly as we can, and after we’ve saved people’s lives with this vaccine, then saving their livelihoods.”
Johnson last week refused to say whether he would mount a legal challenge to Holyrood legislation to hold a referendum. Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross called on voters to boycott one which had not received the UK Government’s consent.
Nicola Sturgeon last week dared Johnson to mount a legal challenge to Holyrood legislation. She told an event on Thursday such an action by Johnson would not be the behaviour of a democrat.
She said: “He’d have to go to court to stand in the way of the democratic wishes of the Scottish people. All I would say to that Boris is ‘good luck’. It’s not a position any self-respecting democrat ever contemplates finding themselves in.”
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