A LEGAL safeguard protecting the Scottish Parliament from being dissolved has been rejected by the UK Government.
Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael rejected the proposal which would prevent any future UK Government from dissolving Holyrood.
Legal experts have claimed there is no law that can stop a future government from disbanding the Scottish Parliament and repealing the Scotland Act of 1998.
MSPs had therefore proposed a new system in which rather than just a majority in the Houses of Parliament, a “super-majority”, two-thirds of the vote, would be needed to dissolve the parliament.
The proposals stated that this majority would be needed at the House of Lords, House of Commons and Holyrood, essentially making any move from the UK Government to end the Scottish Parliament impossible.
The proposals were rejected by Carmichael, however, the MP saying that suggesting a clause which would protect the parliament might “invite a scenario that was never envisaged”.
The Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee said the clause which secures the safety of Holyrood was “legally vacuous”.
The committee did, however, say the clause does “constitute a further political (if not a legal) obstacle to any attempted abolition of those institutions”, making the disbanding of Holyrood “inconceivable” but not illegal.
Carmichael sent a letter to the committee outlining his reasons for the rejection of the safeguard proposal, sparking outrage amongst MSPs.
The Scottish Secretary also cancelled his scheduled appearance in the Scottish Parliament tomorrow to allow him to vote in the House of Commons.
SNP MSP Mark McDonald claimed that the Scottish Secretary’s rejection on the safeguard proposal “speaks volumes” about his attitude to Holyrood.
McDonald said: “
If the Scottish Secretary is needed at Westminster in the afternoon, then surely appearing before the committee by videolink would be a perfectly viable option ...
“Instead, Alistair Carmichael has simply cancelled his appearance, despite it being the last opportunity for a Westminster Government minister to give evidence on the draft clauses that have been published.”
Liberal Democrat MP Carmichael said in his letter: “There has never been any question that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government are anything other than permanent.”
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 here