There have always been three routes to a second referendum onand, despite the buildup and rhetoric around Tuesday’s statement, they remain unchanged – a section 30 order from the UK government; risking a domestic boycott and international opprobrium with a wildcat vote; or putting a referendum bill to the Holyrood parliament and facing down an almost inevitable court challenge.
The Scottish government on Tuesday introduced a referendum bill and – in a pre-emptive move that seizes the political agenda and leapfrogs the danger of Holyrood’s presiding officer ruling the bill out with competence – has asked the lord advocate, Scotland’s most senior law officer, to raise the matter with the supreme court.
Sturgeon’s emphasis on the consultative nature of the vote is curious. As Kenneth Armstrong, a professor of European law at the University of Cambridge, pointed out: “Every referendum in our constitutional setup is consultative rather than self-executing, unless the legislation mandates what has to happen if a vote goes a particular way.
The most notable aspect of the statement was that Sturgeon had set the ball rolling on another campaign, said Mitchell, “but beyond that there is nothing new”.In terms of how the supreme court may rule on the lord advocate’s reference, Armstrong said it must first decide if it is willing to accept it without seeing the final version of the bill, which has only just been published.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: GuardianAus - 🏆 1. / 98 Read more »
Source: FinancialReview - 🏆 2. / 90 Read more »