CONSTITUTION Secretary Angus Robertson refused to reveal if the Scottish Government has sought legal advice over a referendum bill despite being pressed repeatedly by fellow MSPs.
Robertson was asked three times to give a “yes or no answer” to whether or not the Scottish Government has taken legal advice on if the bill is within the devolved competence of Holyrood.
The SNP MSP cited the “long established convention” that government legal advice is not disclosed “other than in exceptional circumstances” and refused to be drawn any further.
READ MORE: Leslie Evans under fire from Finance Committee after refusing to appear before MSPs
Previously, the Scottish Government claimed it was not in the public interest to say whether or not law officers have confirmed the bill for a second referendum is within Holyrood’s powers.
Any bill introduced by the Scottish Government must come with a statement on it’s legislative competence - usually informed by advice given by legal experts such as the Lord Advocate.
Robertson was first asked by Tory MSP Donald Cameron for an update on any legal advice it sought on the proposed referendum bill.
The Cabinet Secretary (pictured above) responded: “It is a long established convention of this and previous governments that legal advice is not disclosed, other than in exceptional circumstances.
“This reflects the public interest in the provision of free and frank legal advice, maintaining the right to confidentiality of communications between legal advisors and clients.”
Cameron then asked a supplementary question asking if the Scottish Government has taken legal advice on whether the referendum bill is within the powers of Holyrood, adding, “Can he answer yes or no?”
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon rejects plea to ramp up oil production to 'deal a blow' to Putin
Robertson replied: “I’m going to rest on the answer that I gave previously, to the learned gentleman who, as a member of the faculty of advocates is well aware of the custom and practice in relation to the convention of legal advice, and I'm not going to depart from that tradition today, although I'm grateful for his opportunity to do so.”
In another follow up question, LibDem MSP Willie Rennie said: “It is extraordinary that the minister can even acknowledge whether he sought advice, not what that advice is but whether he’s even asked for that advice because I think this parliament deserves to know whether the government has done its due diligence, whether it's carried out all the right preparations on a legal basis, not what that advice is whether he even bothered to ask.
“So can he give us an answer to that? Has he asked and has he received it?”
Robertson replied: “Forgive me I don't know if Willie Rennie came into this portfolio questions not having heard me give the earlier answer because my answer hasn't changed.
“So rather than reading the question that he wrote before arriving, perhaps he would have listened to the answer I gave earlier, and I rest by it.”
A third request came from Tory MSP Jamie Halcro Johnson in a supplementary question after he asked about proposed legislation from the Constitution brief being brought forward in a “fair and transparent manner”.
READ MORE: Ian Blackford brands reports he's set to quit SNP chief role as 'total crap'
Robertson had said that any legislation would be of the “highest standard” and open to the “full scrutiny” of the Scottish parliament.
In the follow up Halcro Johnston said: “Unfortunately that response and the response he gave to my colleague Donald Cameron to Willie Rennie strikes at the very heart of fairness and transparency and suggests that that's not the case.
“If the cabinet secretary has to maintain the ridiculous position that in his own government's words it's not in the public interest for the people of Scotland to know even about the existence on advise of the legality of their proposals and it's clear secrecy has trumped transparency.
Cameron after Robertson's response to his question on whether legal advice was sought
“Can I give him an opportunity again, has the Scottish Government taken legal advice on their plans for another referendum?
“And if he still refuses to say, will he at least tell us as they did in 2013 will they spend taxpayers money defending, trying to hide that information from the public?”
Robertson said: “It’s a curious thing Deputy Presiding Officer we now have a third member who didn’t listen to the answer to the question.”
Robertson then repeated his original response, adding: “Rather than barracking, the Conservative benches should listen to the answer having asked for one.”
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