SCOTTISH independence campaigner Martin Keatings says the dismissal by Lady Carmichael of his action to prove that Holyrood already has the power to hold indyref2 is not “a silver spike through the heart”.
He told The National that he has already started the process to refer the case to a higher court.
Keatings said Carmichael’s ruling was expected and she had dismissed the People’s Action on Section 30 “on a neutral basis”. However, he said she had not mentioned the SNP’s 11-point road map to independence, which was revealed the day after the hearing and had rendered the defenders’ pleas “meaningless”.
READ MORE: People's Action on Section 30 indyref2 court case dismissed as 'premature'
He said: “This means that as a matter of course, she believed she had no choice but to dismiss because she didn’t have all of the necessary information to move it from one column (hypothetical, premature, academic) to the other (not hypothetical, not premature, not academic).
“This is purely a technical issue, which would not have been an issue if the Scottish Ministers had been more forthcoming.”
Keatings said Carmichael could not be held responsible for something that was not divulged to her.
“She can only opine on what she sees in front of her, and you will all recall that I have already raised the issue of the 11-point plan released a day after the hearings, and whether the Lord Advocate or Scottish Government Legal Department already knew about that plan before arguing at the hearings during the two previous days.
“All 'round one' has done is show the public that the uncodified constitution is a bit like waving your open hand in front of your face.
READ MORE: Section 30 court case will be inconclusive, public law expert says
“You can blur things in the short term, but eventually, you realise that there are still gaping holes that you can see daylight through.
“The Advocate General and Lord Advocate have done everything they can to blur the lines in this case but the gaping holes in the constitution are there for everyone to see.”
Keatings added: “It was, to all intents and purposes a neutral ruling because she did not have available to her, all the information she required to rule, and from first glance the ruling is highly appealable, especially considering the release of the 11-point plan, conveniently delivered to the public after the hearings.
“What we need now is a referral to a higher authority and that comes in the form of the Inner House of the Court of Session.
“I’ve already instructed that process to commence.”
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