Politics Home reported yesterday:
In the Commons, SNP MP Stewart McDonald asked Mrs May "if a legislative consent motion will be required for the Scottish Parliament for the Great Repeal Bill".
The Prime Minister said: "There is a possibility that a legislative consent motion may be required in the Scottish Parliament, but that is a matter that is being considered currently between the Westminster and the Scottish government."
They added:
The prospect of Scotland effectively having a veto over Brexit will enrage Leave supporters and has the potential to spark a full-blown constitutional crisis.
A spokesman for the Prime Minister pleaded with MSPs not to vote against the Great Repeal Bill.
I think the word 'pleaded' one we will need to get used to. But let me ask the more important question, which is whether it is appropriate for the SNP to seek to block Brexit using a Legislative Consent Motion. Parliament says of these:
A legislative consent motion is the means by which a devolved body grants permission to the UK Parliament to pass a law on something that is a devolved matter. Sometimes referred to as Sewel motions, they arise out of the convention that the UK Parliament would not normally legislate on a devolved matter without the consent of the relevant devolved institution.
In other words, when it has been decided that a devolved nation has the right to decide on an issue then its consent is sought to Westminster legislation if it relates to that area of activity. There is, of course, a corollary. Because we now have EVEL - English Votes on English Law - Scottish MPs cannot vote on English legislation. So, Scotland is ring fenced from English decision making. Legal Consent Motions might be seen as ring fencing English MPs from Scottish decisions.
And in that case, and because Brexit very clearly does impact Scotland in ways Scotland may not want then of course it is right that Scotland must have the right of veto in this issue. Without EVEL I would find that vey hard to justify. But Cameron demanded EVEL. And his party has to live with the consequences. Whether or not we leave the EU may be down to Scotland. And it's all Cameron's fault.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
EVEL may well win the prize for possibly the most misunderstood piece of legislation on UK constitutional history. What it doesn’t do is 1) exclude non-English MPs from voting on English-only legislation (as determined by the Speaker) or 2) allow English MPs to force through such legislation: ALL it does is introduce two extra stages where English MPs can veto it. If they don’t do this, the rest of the parliamentary process is exactly the same as any other legislation, voted on by all MPs.
But it’s the principle that matters here – not the reality
And because it exists a Scottish veto is just fine
With respect. Sir, your artical states “Because we now have EVEL — English Votes on English Law — Scottish MPs cannot vote on English legislation.” which is clearly not the ‘reality’ of this legislation. As a statement of fact, it’s not only inaccurate, it also undermines the credibility of the article and makes readers question the real agenda. More what we would expect from politicians spinning faux grievance than analysis from an independent expert.
The point I make, the point I often make, is about the substance of the matter. This is the accountant’s view of the world. What is the reality? The reality may not be the same as the liberal form of things, but that is irrelevant. What I am interested is in the behavioural consequence of an issue. I suggest I have EVEL right as a result, and you have it wrong, whatever the technical dimension.
Well put.
But what a mess. Honestly!
I think it’s important to note that this would NOT amount to a veto over Brexit. At best/worst (depending on your point of view) it would be a veto over the Great Repeal Bill, which is not a veto on Brexit. In reality though, it isn’t even that. If Holyrood decides to withhold consent, Westminster can just overrule it.
The Article 50 High Court case last year showed us clearly that the Sewell Convention is not judicially enforceable, and that Westminster is the senior parliament. So Westminster could overrule Holyrood. Whether it would be wise to do so is another matter though. Our constitution and politics rely heavily on conventions, and deciding to start ignoring them could have serious consequences.
Wait and see what happens
You ignore political reality
The SNP are using Brexit as means of pushing for independence, nothing more nothing less.
Turnout in Scotland was 67%, turnout in England was 73%.
Part of the democracy process in turning up to vote, as it was a UK wide poll.
( Ps this isn’t thinly veiled criticism of Richard, whom I hold in the highest of regard )
5th May 2016 Scottish parliamentary election SNP sets out situation where a 2nd referendum vote might be sought…no-one expected this scenario to happen
23rd June 2016 EU referendum takes place…completely unexpected result
23rd June 2016-24th June 2017 SNP adheres to manifesto promise and gets slated by usual suspects in Scotland as well as those who think a working set of vocal chords and/or an internet connection makes their lack of an informed opinion on Scottish politics a qualification for views on Scotland’s constitutional position.
The political reality of the SNP is that they are focused solely on gaining full independence from the UK.
At the same time however, they wilfully ignore the expressed opinion by the majority of Scots who wish to remain an integral part of the Union. (No/Remain: 2,001,926 representing 55.7%% Yes/Leave: 1,617,989 representing 44.7%) This in Nov 2014.
Sometimes articles by those living in rUK fail to recognise fully just how much Scots reject the SNP’s position. The move away from the SNP is rapidly gaining pace, as the recent GE results North of the border indicate.
The SNP is not Scotland.
I am not suggesting the SNP is Scotland
I am saying Scotland is a viable state
It’s also true that the SNP is the Scottish government right now and the largest Scottish party in Westminster
I recognise that may not be true if there was PR
On the other hand it may be too
Your position disregards the obvious observation that irrespective of who is in power in Holyrood, the majority of Scots have never expressed the desire to become a separate state.
The unionist vote as expressed by parties who value being a part of the UK, are approximately two thirds of the voting electorate.
There is no serious evidence to suggest otherwise.
Oh come on
Since when was 45% a third?
This is indeed a mess. It shows what comes from having a serious ambiguity introduced into your constitutional settlement. If we were a genuinely federal or confederal state then the various parts of the UK would have the power to veto decisions like this or at least significant aspects of them. However that isn’t where we are – the Crown in Parliament (i.e. a majority of the Commons) is still sovereign. It has delegated some of its power to the other legislatures but as Enoch Powell observed “power delegated is power retained” so it can ultimately override the other legislatures. This however is the place where law smacks into political reality in a very painful way. Doing that would really be to stick your head in the dragons jaws. This is not a new question either – precisely this kind of question was raised during the debates over Irish Home Rule in the 1886-1914 period.
Richard, since when was 45% a third? The last time Scots voted is the simple answer.
The SNP won 37 per cent of votes and 63 per cent were won by the Unionist parties collectively;
The SNP’s vote fell from 50 per cent in 2015 to 37 per cent in 2017;
The SNP won 35 seats, a loss of 21;
The Tories’ vote rose from 15 percent in 2015 to 29 per cent in 2017;
The Tories won 13 seats, a gain of 12;
Labour’s vote rose from 24 per cent in 2015 to 27 per cent in 2017;
Labour won seven seats, a gain of six.
Hope you agree, but perhaps my maths isn’t as good as yours.
You said there had never been more than a third want independence
You have just admitted 50% voted SNP in 2015
I think the problem is all yours
And I don’t do party politics
All I am pointing is out that your claim is crass
Regardless of all the numbers you quote the SNP still won an overall majority of the seats in Scotland in the UK general election. Pity no party in England could say the same.
But, more importantly, in Scotland the parliament voted on a motion for another independence referendum – and won.
Using Brexit as a means of pushing independence? I care deeply about the future of Scotland. I have been horrified at the result of the European referendum since day one like many of my fellow Scots pro Indy or not. Please don’t make such vacuous statements and expect to be taken seriously.
‘You have just admitted 50% voted SNP in 2015’ says Richard. You then proceed to make a few observational errors.
It’s quite clear that observers (such as your good self) don’t appreciate fully the context of many voter’s intentions North of the border. SNP did receive a substantial vote share in the 2015 GE as I have pointed out. This was on the back of the upswing gained from the 2014 Indy referendum. Those who voted SNP didn’t or don’t necessarily want full independence of course. The Scottish electorate vote quite differently between seismic events that will change the future history of their country, as opposed to a GE vote that can be changed at the very least 5yrs later.
The SNP’s vote now stands at 37% in 2017. That’s a 25% fall from their last GE result, and a loss of almost half a million votes. With an upsurge in Corbyn support in the UK, and by default in Scotland, the next few years leading to 2021 and the next Holyrood elections, look fraught with difficulties for the SNP leadership.
I am disappointed that you interpreted my posts as insensitive and/or stupid. I thought them reasonably thought through. It does however call into question your claim that you are politically neutral and wilfully objective. Someone with this predisposition in politics is a rare bird, even if they are also have a chartered accountant or an economist’s background.
I understand the SNP is not doing as well
I am not a member of the SNP
I am not a member of any party
I do think Scotland us a viable state
I would support its independence
But all you want to claim is that there us anti-Englishness and a supposed sea change in Scottish opinion
Niwrhorth why not debate the raak use instead of your prejudices?
Turnout in England was not 73%…from memory…
Southwest 71.8% was highest
Southeast 71.2% 2nd
London 70.2%
Wales 68.8%
Northern Ireland’s turnout was in the high 50s% in 2015 but much higher in 2017.
So now that we have correct (I hope) figures, could you explain the 73% figure and why the completely unnecessary juxtaposition of Scotland and England?
This issue really bothers me because in the 70s there was a casual kneejerk
anti-English attitude in Scotland generally but that has almost completely disappeared. It doesn’t make anyone a saint but things have really improved here (though this anti-English canard is still alive in the tabloids).
FWIW I think the same thing has happened in Ireland but I’m prepared to be corrected…
Visit any pro-Indy political page and witness your observation that anti-English sentiment is dead, to be a myth.
Intrinsic to national socialism (or civic nationalism if you’d prefer) is the need to have a target upon which to attach a motivating grievance. Westminster is synonymous to England as the prime motivator that catalyses SNP opinion.
The rank and file SNP supporters would be deflated without it.
I think you need to be aware that Wetminster is profoundly unpopular in England
The Estbalishment is widely loathed for being out of touch
Scotland just has its own variant on this
Donald Scott – your comments are unmitigated rubbish. I don’t know anyone who is anti-English (I’m sure they exist but their views are not considered acceptable by the vast majority of people living in Scotland).
Also, your jibe about “national socialism” shows a deep ignorance of the reality of living in Scotland and supporting independence given that the vote in the last referendum was open to all who lived in Scotland. This caused some dismay among many people who considered themselves “Scottish” but who were not living in Scotland at the time and who could not, therefore, vote. Therefore, surely you must admit that “Civic nationalism” is a more apt description – or would that not fit the narrative?
Thanks Gordon
One of the amazing things to come out of the independence debate has been a flowering of political thinking and writing, and the dissemination of those ideas much more widely than ever before. In all that writing, I would challenge you to find a single instance of anti-English sentiment: it is without exception degrees of highly idealistic visions of how society can be made fairer, more equal, and more inclusive. The fairest criticism which could be thrown at it is that it’s too idealistic, relying on the shared vision being enough to replace the nitty-gritty detail, such as tax and currency (as Richard, among some others, has eloquently pointed out.) What you won’t find, either in that writing, or in any public manifestation of civic society, is anti-Englishness – as opposed to anti-Westminster, which is very strong indeed. To conflate that with Englishness, though, is pure nonsense (as pointed out by Richard, not least because that same abhorrence is widespread throughout the UK, including England.) As (from my speech) a very obviously English person living and working in Scotland for nearly 30 years, I’ve never once experienced any anti-English sentiment, or even, as far as I can recall, had my nationality even remarked upon.
I visit Scotland serveral times a year and have never encountered or seen that prejudice, and I suspect I largely meet pro-independence people
You’ll be meaning the Edinburgh Establishment then?
Are they any less manipulative and Machiavellian than their Westminster counter parts? Now that would make an interesting discussion.
What are you talking about?
I have a life and you are wasting it
Make a point or get used to being deleted
I try not to comment late, as a courtesy to Richard and other commenters, but I have been struck very forcefully by the dislocation between some of the comments on this post and the world we see around us; it’s as if the seismic shift when Grenfell Tower burned hasn’t really dawned on people determined to argue that we should stop messing around and get on with unanimously supporting, in a properly patriotic manner, whatever plan the Brexit Department is clutching to its bosom. This is, after all, a government which has admitted that they got the response to this tragedy dreadfully wrong, and is only now belatedly trying to set things right because even the massed ranks of the Tory press couldn’t spin their way out of it.
The sheer grubbiness of those at the Kensington and Chelsea authority who tried to get people, traumatised by a dreadful catastrophe, to sign documents purporting to agree compensation for now and the future goes without saying; the fact that they thought this was a wizard wheeze, and carried it out, beggars belief. And yet they did, and in doing so revealed a culture which, sooner or later, was bound to result in catastrophe.
Yesterday some of the Grenfell survivors were evicted at short notice from the hotel they had been staying at; apparently K&C neglected to ask the hotel whether they had continuing vacancies. K&C have now apologised, but this is yet another demonstration of, at the very least, incompetence, and, more likely, the culture of contempt for those at the bottom of the pile.
As tower blocks with similar deficits in fire safety are identified up and down the country, and Camden have evacuated buildings because their fire experts have advised them that they cannot guarantee the safety of those living there, Brexiteers are still promising a bonfire of regulations in a new and wonderful post Brexit world. This disassociation from the real world is mirrored in some of the comments in which the very reasonable concerns of people are dismissed as flowing from Scots who don’t like England. This is the culture of contempt, and we have to recognise it for the poison that it is…
If a small Belgian federal municipality can veto Brexit, then sure, why not?
Precisely