THE Scottish Government’s plans to bring forward legislation to hold another referendum will face hurdles – but they are “not insurmountable”, a former Tory MSP has said.
Adam Tomkins, who represented Glasgow between 2016 and 2021, predicted a bill will inevitably “sail through Holyrood” before ending up in the Supreme Court.
Writing in The Herald today, he said many are of the view that the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 means the court would rule the legislation would be unlawful and that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to hold a referendum.
But the professor of public law at Glasgow University said the matter is “not as clear cut” as some people might suggest.
One major legal hurdle, he argued, is that Holyrood’s legislation cannot relate to reserved matters, which includes “aspects of the constitution” as outlined in the Scotland Act.
READ MORE: Scottish independence: Adam Tomkins says Yes would win indyref2 if held tomorrow
He wrote: “Plainly, a Bill that sought to terminate the Union would be unlawful, as it would relate to a reserved matter. But Nicola Sturgeon’s Bill will be designed not to terminate the Union but to authorise a referendum on whether Scotland should be an independent country outside of the Union.
“As such, it could be argued that its 'purpose' is simply to ask the people of Scotland for their opinion; and it could be conceded that its “effect in all the circumstances” is actually very little.”
He added: “Referendum outcomes do not of themselves change the law. Brexit, for example, was not delivered by referendum. It was delivered by Acts of Parliament which took years of bitter negotiation and serial “meaningful votes” to enact.”
Tomkins said no court had yet ruled whether a bill authorising an independence referendum relates to reserved matters – and it is “probable, but not inevitable” that it would.
READ MORE: Indyref2: Nicola Sturgeon hosts top level meetings to plan white paper
He said another hurdle is that the Scotland Act means Holyrood cannot do anything which affects the powers of Westminster to make laws for Scotland – which means it is again likely but “not inevitable” the Scottish Parliament could not legislate for a referendum.
But he added: “These legal hurdles are formidable. But they are not insurmountable.”
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