Government lawyer claims the plebiscites are consultative and not a constitutional issue to call them
Nicola Sturgeon will have to wait months before the British Supreme Court decides whether the Edinburgh Parliament has the power to call a referendum. Chief Justice Lord Reed warned in a prologue to the first hearing that “the two-day hearing is just the tip of the iceberg.” The five judges received 8,000 pages of documentation, Reed explains.
The Scottish Prime Minister’s commitment is to convene the second independence consultation on 19 October 2023. Her plan could be affected depending on the court’s delay in publishing the conclusion. For the September 2014 referendum, the date of the vote in March 2013 was confirmed, while it is not yet known whether there will be a consultation or not.
The case before the Supreme Court has two problems. In the first, the parties make arguments about the jurisdiction of this court to analyze the second issue, which is whether the Home Rule Act gives the Scottish Parliament the power to hold a consultation. In the fine print, if he has the power to table a bill to organize a referendum at the Holyrood assembly.
The counterparties are the Scottish Government and the British Government. The first is represented by the Lord Advocate. Until 1998, this legal adviser held his positions with the Department of Scotland, the head of which has a seat on the London Executive. With autonomy, that legal position became an advisor to the Scottish government. He is in the cabinet and is also a prosecutor.
The Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain, like all her colleagues, changed the initials of her rank in the profession (Queen’s Counselor, or QC) to King’s Counsel (KC) after Carlos III’s accession to the throne. But the male title of Lord Advocate will be maintained for this position. Since the Department of Scotland did not have a Lord Advocate, an Solicitor General was established in 1998. He is now attorney Keith Stewart.
Bain explained to the judges that, in the absence of a decision from this court, she does not have the certainty to decide whether the bill Sturgeon introduced on June 28 is legal to be introduced in parliament. Stewart will set out on Wednesday his arguments over the Supreme Court’s lack of jurisdiction to analyze bills, but Bain argues it’s an earlier stage: the legality of a proposal.
According to her, the Lord Advocate wants clarity about a matter of public interest. In the parliaments elected since the ‘no’ victory in the 2014 referendum, a majority of seats have been elected after committing to hold a new referendum. But the Home Rule Act of 1998 reserves powers over the Constitution to the London Parliament.
Bain looked at the history of referendums in the UK. They were praised in the late 1800s by the great constitutional writer AV Dicey. But they were held in the 20th century and were all advisory. “Although they have political ramifications,” the lawyer noted. His question to the court is whether the constitutional powers include an advisory vote.
Source: La Verdad
I am an experienced and passionate journalist with a strong track record in news website reporting. I specialize in technology coverage, breaking stories on the latest developments and trends from around the world. Working for Today Times Live has given me the opportunity to write thought-provoking pieces that have caught the attention of many readers.
