AFTER last Saturday’s AUOB online event, there has been a profusion of commentaries on how and when we will have a second independence referendum, and the need for a Section 30 order. All this and the fact that the SNP will need to win a majority in May’s election.
The one fact that everybody has overlooked in all this is how the Martin Keatings court case (cited for two days in January) could alter everything.
Presently, we all know that the Scottish Government can hold a non-binding advisory referendum without a Section 30, and as such Westminster can ignore any result. However, if Martin Keatings were to win the Court of Session action, then the Scottish Government would then have the legal right to hold an independence referendum without a Section 30 order which would be binding on Westminster. That of course changes everything.
READ MORE: Time to get the band back together and start campaigning
The best Westminster could do in the short term would be to appeal the decision through the Supreme Court – which they are threatening to alter to take away its right to make judgements on political matters! Not only that but the Supreme Court has always been reluctant to overturn decisions reached in the Court of Session. The earliest an appeal could take effect would be in February but more likely in March, and would be a major issue right at the time that the Scottish parties are campaigning for the Holyrood elections in May. Not the ideal position the Unionists would like to be in, I’m sure.
Secondly, and maybe more importantly, if Martin Keatings does win, then that could signal a referendum to take place alongside the May 6 Scottish Parliament elections. Messers Ross, Jack and Johnson can then talk all they want about once-in-a-lifetime referendums and once-in-a-generation. Alternatively, if the SNP/independence parties win a mandate, it could be independence by default.
Effectively, this means that the Unionists have to win a mandate by a convincing majority to prevent a second independence referendum, which right now the opinion polls say they won’t. Of course the SNP have to win to secure their chance of indyref2, but it could mean the difference between six months and a year of talks before a second referendum could be set.
Alexander Potts
Kilmarnock
(NB this letter has been corrected to indicate that the case will be heard in the Court of Session, not the High Court)
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