COMMENTS from the SNP and a co-leader of the Scottish Greens about the legitimacy of the Scottish Parliament legislating for indyref2 without Westminster’s approval have justified the legal bid to prove just that, according to the campaigner spearheading the case.
Martin Keatings, who is behind the People’s Action on Section 30, was speaking after the Greens’ Patrick Harvie wrote in The National yesterday that if you are going to have a referendum, you want everyone to accept the rules of the game.
“It would clearly not be legitimate for them to dig their heels in and say no, never, no way,” said Harvie. “So I think the proposal to say if they continue to stick to that position, we will test the matter in courts, we will take forward the legislation and test the ability of the Scottish Parliament to legislate without a Section 30 is a perfectly legitimate approach to take.”
In January, The National told how the SNP had said in its new plan for indyref2 that if it wins the May election and there is a pro-independence majority, it will again ask for a Section 30 order – in the same way as for the 2014 referendum.
READ MORE: People's Action on Section 30 indyref2 court case dismissed as 'premature'
However, if that were refused the Scottish Government would press ahead and it would be up to the UK Government to either “agree that the Scottish Parliament already has the power to legislate for a referendum” or “agree the Section 30” or “take legal action to dispute the legal basis of the referendum and seek to block the will of the Scottish people in the courts”.
Keatings said supporters of his People’s Action on Section 30 had faced resistance from “every angle”, but now Scotland’s two pro-indy parties were confirming that “whether or not it is legitimate for Holyrood to legislate for a referendum without a Section 30 could be called into question”.
He said the issued had caused some “gnashing” of his teeth as the parties were now advocating spending what would be “vast sums of money” on what is currently a “live” case before Scotland’s highest court.
“Each and every one of them was invited to participate in the case, but I guess it’s easy to do it twice when you have taxpayers money to waste,” Keatings wrote in a Twitter thread.
“Putting aside the fact that I am now going to have to visit the dentist due to the teeth grinding, we all know what this means with these statements from both parties – the entire People’s Action on Section 30 was completely justified.
“It would be funny if it were not so serious.”
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