GIVEN the content of many recent letters on your pages I thought it might be worth emphasising that because Britain does not have a written constitution, precedents can have influential binding effects. I believe there are two precedents in recent Scottish political history which have a bearing on current discussions on the route to independence: the referendum of 1997 and the Edinburgh Agreement of 2012.
The current Scottish Parliament was created by the Scottish people via the 1997 referendum. It cannot be either abolished or upgraded to an independent parliament without political authorisation from the Scottish people in another referendum.
Westminster has the legal authority to abolish Holyrood but lacks the political authority. Our MSPs are not going to agree to disband just on the say-so of Westminster. Similarly the long-term SNP policy of independence via a majority of seats in a General Election became obsolete the moment the Scottish people created the Scottish Parliament with their 1997 referendum vote. Since then, independence needs to be won via a referendum.
READ MORE: SNP slam last minute appeal by Tories over ruling to release Union polling
When Alex Salmond and David Cameron signed the Edinburgh Agreement in 2012 they both created important precedents. Alex Salmond has created the precedent that Scotland only gets to hold an independence referendum with the cooperation of Westminster via a Section 30 order. As Nicola Sturgeon found in both 2017 and 2020, this in practical effect has given Westminster a veto. However it is also important to recognise the precedent David Cameron created: when a majority of MSPs are elected on a manifesto with a commitment to an independence referendum then Westminster is obliged to co-operate.
In 2016 the Green manifesto did not contain a commitment to an indyref. Hence only 63 MSPs were elected with such a commitment. The consequence was that Nicola Sturgeon did not possess the necessary political authority to make Westminster feel bound by precedent.
I might add that a mandate for the Scottish Parliament to legislate for an indyref cannot come via a Westminster election because a parliament cannot claim a mandate on the basis of an election to a different parliament. Therefore the 2021 election is the first occasion since 2014 that the Scottish electorate has given the First Minister the necessary political authority to make an independence referendum happen. That is because this time the Greens actually did include an indyref commitment in their manifesto and the SNP and Green MSPs combined are 72, an overall majority.
Despite what any Conservative spokesperson says, a second Edinburgh Agreement has become more likely.
Ewen Cameron
Glasgow
DAVID McEwan Hill writes that the idea we should campaign for indyref2 in the face of the pandemic is nonsense, and claims this is what I wrote (Letters, Jul 9).
I thought I made it clear that I was perfectly aware of the impossibility of such a campaign at the height of the pandemic, but what I failed to understand is the total lack of preparation, such as a permanent task force working on the vital components of a future campaign so that we would not fail as we did in 2014. There has been no sign of such preparation for years and no attempt to address the vital issues or engage with the Yes community. All this should be “oven-ready” for 2022, or whenever it is decided to hold indyref2.
As for multiple mandates, apart from the obvious Brexit withdrawal, surely every time the SNP is elected to govern is such a mandate, as the first item in our constitution (after naming the party) is to strive for independence for Scotland.
I write as a long-term member of the SNP but one who is rather weary of the lack of direction from the leadership.
James Duncan
Edinburgh
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