IN his judgment yesterday, Lord Doherty expressed the view that proroguing is a matter for parliament rather than the judiciary. However, his view lacks the detail that over much of my own adult life an increasingly over-mighty political elite – let’s call it the executive or the cabinet – has gradually wrested power from the remainder of the House of Commons, substantially disengaging itself. Symptomatic of this are accusations of MPs being little more than “lobby fodder”, voting as their party leadership tells them.
This disengagement of the executive from the House of Commons was the issue when Gina Miller took Theresa May’s government to the Supreme Court. Then it was determined that the executive could not by itself take the UK out of the EU, that approval by the House of Commons was necessary.
I find it a little difficult to put these two decisions together. On the one hand the executive must seek approval for leaving the EU, but not when the House may sit. The latter may seem trivial, but if the House may not sit, how could it stop the UK leaving the EU?
However, there is an even more worrying element to Miller’s case. The Supreme Court made clear that the House of Commons is sovereign, and with Doherty’s decision in mind, if there is no protection from the courts the boundlessness of sovereignty becomes clear. If we cannot rely on the courts to place limits on what a House of Commons executive may do, then what protections do we have? While I understand and appreciate the unwillingness of the judiciary to involve themselves in what they perceive to be matters for politicians, particularly when there is a government in power as ruthless as Johnson’s, what are we to do?
Kevin McKenna’s article (The elite revolution has begun, September 4) is prescient, in particular that Nicola Sturgeon “must also know they [Johnson’s government] would stop at nothing to prevent independence even if we vote for it. Scotland is facing a serious threat to its way of life here which will make all the alarams and excursions of the first referendum look like a church fete.”
We are moving into unknown territory and the issues, as McKenna also points out, should be debated at the forthcoming SNP Conference (assuming a General Election doesn’t get in the way). One piece of wisdom which should inform any such debate is Craig Murray’s view of almost a year ago, that “one day, all supporters of independence are going to be forced to get their heads round the fact that London is going for the Madrid solution, and we are not going to achieve independence without using peaceful, non-violent routes which are nevertheless going to be deemed illegal by the establishment”.
The notion of securing a Section 30 order is most attractive, but perhaps equally unlikely with the present Westminster administration. Perhaps as Charles Gray (I think) said some years ago, immediately after the 1992 election, “perhaps we need to live a little dangerously”.
Alasdair Galloway
Dumbarton
IT was obvious from the moment the judge allowed UK Government documents that arrogantly were presented late to the court that the fight was already lost. A very worthy cause, but it’s time to let the English sort their own problems out – let us concentrate on independence now.
Lisa C
via thenational.scot
DOES that mean the refusal of a Section 30 for the SNP is a political matter and not legal? This is political territory and decision-making, which cannot be measured by legal standards, only by political judgements. Accountability for the advice is to parliament and, ultimately, the electorate, and not to the courts.
Billy Melrose
via thenational.scot
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