SUGGESTIONS that Scottish Government spending on building the case for independence would be illegal in the wake of the Supreme Court’s indyref2 ruling have been dismissed by a constitutional expert.
After judges found that Holyrood requires Westminster’s permission to hold a fresh vote on leaving the Union – because doing so would interfere with reserved powers – opposition politicians took aim at ministers’ ongoing work on independence.
Tories roughly estimated that the Government is set to spend more than £1.5 million a year working on the independence prospectus, after finding that 25 officials are involved in the work. They calculated the figure by adding up the maximum salaries of civil servants in relevant pay bands.
READ MORE: Indyref2 ruling ‘very problematic’, constitution expert says
There is also £20m set aside for holding indyref2 next year, but deputy first minister John Swinney is set to address how that cash will now be used at next month’s budget.
Donald Cameron (below), the Tories’ shadow constitution secretary, called for the “Scottish Government’s independence unit [to] be disbanded” and for civil servants involved to be moved to other departments.
Speaking to The Sunday Times, he added that using the next General Election as a de facto referendum is a “party-political tactic” and not a government matter.
“Therefore, it would be utterly scandalous if independent, publicly funded civil servants continued to be used for what is now purely SNP campaigning,” the MSP said.
Scottish LibDem leader Alex Cole-Hamilton also argued that having civil servants working on the independence case following the court’s verdict could be outside of Holyrood’s powers and “incompatible with the civil service code”.
However Aileen McHarg (below), a professor of public law and human rights at Durham University, dismissed any claim of illegality.
“On Thursday morning the usual suspects tried to push this line in a debate on an urgent question on the indyref ruling in the House of Lords,” she recalled.
“The fact that the Scotland Office minister, Lord Offord, studiously ignored it tells you all you need to know about its legal accuracy.”
The professor went on: “It only requires a moment's thought to know that it's a ludicrous position to adopt.
“Holyrood legislation is (theoretically) at risk of challenge indefinitely. In Salvesen v Riddell a provision was struck down 10 years after enactment. Should all the money spent on enacting it have retrospectively been declared unlawful?
“How would you separate out the sum involved from the rest of the statute in question? Would any expenditure on unsuccessfully defending the legislation on court also have been caught?”
READ MORE: John Curtice: Using election as de facto indyref2 is 'legitimate'
The expert added that this position would also suggest that civil servants working on new devolved powers are breaking the law until the change comes into force.
She concluded that it’s a “cheap line” pushed by “deeply unserious politicians”.
The Scottish Government has insisted that it will continue working on “what could be done with the full powers of independence, reflecting clear programme for government commitments”.
Speaking to the BBC on Sunday morning, SNP deputy leader Keith Brown defended plans to push ahead with the de facto referendum proposals.
He argued the UK Government is “scared” of allowing a referendum on Scottish independence because it knows it will lose.
“I think they know they’re going to lose this, that’s why they are doing everything they can to twist democracy, to refuse the opportunity for the people of Scotland, because they know they’re going to lose,” he told the Sunday Show.
Brown pointed to a snap poll by Find Out Now for Channel 4 of 1006 Scots, which suggested 51% would vote for the SNP if they knew their vote would be used to negotiate independence.
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