Lord Wallace, Scotland's Advocate General, Says A Scottish Referendum Could Be Challenged In Courts

Scotland Referendum Advocate General Lord Wallace

PA/The Huffington Post   First Posted: 20/01/2012 07:41 Updated: 20/01/2012 07:42

Lord Wallace Of Tankerness, Scotland's Advocate General, will confirm today that the Scottish Parliament could not trigger an independence referendum. The government's top legal adviser on Scottish law will contradict claims by Alex Salmond, who believes that he could iniate an advisory referendum without consultation with London.

Lord Wallace will give a lecture in Glasgow, where he will say there is no meaningful difference in law between a non-advisory and legally-binding one.

"A referendum must do something, and mean something, otherwise it is hardly a proper use of public money," he will say. "It would not have a purpose in its own right and it is not merely an opinion poll – a referendum is, or at least purports to be, a form of political decision making, where a decision is best made directly by the public rather than by their representatives in Parliament.

"If, as the law currently stands, the Scottish Government were to proceed with this legislation, it would be open to challenge in the courts. It is the view of the UK Government that such a challenge is likely to be successful."

Lord Wallace, a former Deputy First Minister of Scotland and Scottish Liberal Democrat party leader, says: "If, as the law currently stands, the Scottish Government were to proceed with this legislation, it would be open to challenge in the courts.

"It is the view of the UK Government that such a challenge is likely to be successful.

"It could be initiated in the Court of Session by any individual or organisation which could demonstrate sufficient interest to bring proceedings.

"The challenge could invalidate the outcome of the referendum, it would cause delay, and it could stop any referendum from happening in the first place."

A spokesman for Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond, said: "The UK Government has published its opinion, not its legal advice - and the Scottish Government have set out our position in a number of documents since May 2007.

"We are entirely confident about our legal basis to hold a consultative referendum - as confirmed by a range of experts.

"In any event, we have absolutely no objection to a Section 30 enhancement of Holyrood's powers to hold a legally binding referendum, but what we cannot possibly accept is Westminster dictating the terms of Scotland's referendum.

"The Westminster parties should have a care, for their own sake - they have badly misjudged this issue, and badly misjudged the mood of people in Scotland.

"The sabre rattling of the Westminster parties - ganging up with each other, and trying to bounce Scotland into an early referendum and dictate the terms - has seen support for independence already reach 40%."

Talks are due to take place between the governments in London and Edinburgh later this month, where the government is expected to attempt to pin Alex Salmond down on conentious issues, particularly whether the referendum's ballot paper had just one question - a simple in-or-out choice

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK POLITICS

Lord Wallace Of Tankerness, Scotland's Advocate General, will confirm today that the Scottish Parliament could not trigger an independence referendum. The government's top legal adviser on Scottish l...
Lord Wallace Of Tankerness, Scotland's Advocate General, will confirm today that the Scottish Parliament could not trigger an independence referendum. The government's top legal adviser on Scottish l...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 71
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
11:00 PM on 02/01/2012
Alex Salmond does not represent the majority of Scottish people as I see it. If he wan't to stay part of the UK, retain the NHS, retain the Queen, retain the Armed Forces, hold on to the Welfare State....then what's the point in wasting millions of pounds to wax his rather over inflated EGO so that he can hold court in his hideously ugly concrete garage at the bottom of the Royal mile. And If he ever realised his tartan singular fantasy then all us 5 million or so McCitizens would see huge Jocktax bills arriving on our doorsteps to pay for his fantasy.
No No, I am a proud Scot with a proud history and strong heritage. I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with my Welsh, English and Irish brothers and sisters and together rally in time of adversity and call ourselves BRITISH. I have no inferiority complex as Mr Salmond obviously always has had. "United we stand divided we fall"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mark B Robertson
10:35 AM on 01/22/2012
Just a small addition to this argumentative discussion. A very interesting article on the Treaty of Union under international law (it is not an Act of Union, this is misinformation ). This is by a former Regius Professor of Law at the University of Glasgow - David M. Walker (1958-1990) , and is very interesting in way that will make David Cameron quite ill.
www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/52-6/1004238.aspx
Read, think and enjoy the implications!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:44 PM on 01/20/2012
I see that the separatists are out in force today.

Could I ask a small favour?

Stop equating 'SNP' to 'Scotland'.

Stop equating 'SNP Activists' to 'the Scottish people'.

There is a difference, you know.
09:36 PM on 01/20/2012
And I see the extreme Britnats' are out in force today.
This comment has been removed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mark B Robertson
02:08 PM on 01/20/2012
Wonderful, the abuse of democracy to stop the will of the people being heard. Whether we would agree to part or stay joined, the panic in the voices of those who should support democracy and the right of self-detemination of any people, is very illuminating. The use of scare-mongering, or any 'legal' means to accomplish this is something that China, and various non-democratic countries could learn from; how to destroy democracy through use of democractic state mechanisms. Lord Wallace, England is proud of you!
02:00 PM on 01/20/2012
The reality is if the majority of Scots want to leave the UK Westminster cannot actually stop them - but they can make the terms so totally unattractive that they will vote to stay -putting a turnstile in Hadrians Wall and a £1000 admission fee to cross the border would do the job !!!!!
photo
Chiefy17242011
Cyber-Nat, Cyber-Democrat
02:10 PM on 01/20/2012
It would be a great revenue generator for the Scottish Economy though. Who wouldn't want to live in a land where the NHS is free, unprivatised ? Where your kids don't pay tuition fees for Tertiary Education ? Where nobody pays for a prescription ? Where your old folk get free personal care.

Actually, we should make it ten grand.
02:26 PM on 01/20/2012
If the £10K was for admission to England then no doubt the NHS in England could be free - Westminster could if it chose to make an independent Scotland financially unviable from day one - a ban on all trade , any crossing of the border etc etc would be much less damaging to England than Scotland - just like the US can bankrupt Canada at a stroke if it chose to .

So if they REALLY want Scotland to stay they vcan make the leaving terms so unattractive that the SNP lose the vote - personally I belive Mr Cameron privately wants them to go - its hugely in Tory interests in England but he does not dare admit it - most people in England either want to see the back of Scotland or are not bothered - their is certainly no major political or public outcry for them to stay !!!
11:55 AM on 01/21/2012
All those services are backed up by the nations' tax payers and support from Westminster, you are not so gullible or naive to actually believe that Scotland alone could pay for all these services, with or without oil revenues, which it is not entitled to, again by law? Think again old chap.
photo
Chiefy17242011
Cyber-Nat, Cyber-Democrat
12:41 PM on 01/20/2012
Easy.

All the Unionists have to do is say "Here is where this appears in Law".

Otherwise, it is Opinon.

At the end of the day, is anybody from the Unionist side going to say "You can not have a referendum unless on our terms. We decide the question. We decide when it will be held. We decide whether or not we will take any notice of it. Try and do anything else and We will use "The Law" to stop you".

Canon Kenyon Wright, head of the Constitutional Convention, a body to which the "Scottish" Liberal Democrats, including Jim Wallace signed up to, said (referring to Maggie) at the first meeting of the Convention

"What if that other voice we all know so well responds by saying, 'We say no, and we are the state',? Well We say yes - and We Are The People."

Prophetic words, Mr Wright. Over to you, Lord Wallace. Was it true then when you sat in that hall ? Is it true now that You Are "The State" ? Or have you continued your tradition of selling your principles for Power ?
12:17 PM on 01/20/2012
This is all so sad. The break up of what was once the greatest country in the world. So sad. Especially when some Worldt matters need a more united front rather than more independent states arguing as happens now.

However I do think Mr Salmon who I used to admire (but sadly no longer) has got it wrong.

If Westminster want to dictate terms then bring it on should be his stance.

1. He says that such a stance would only strengthen his cause as more Scots would see Westminster for what it is and go for independence. Then put your money where your mouth is.
2. He says they already have 40% because of Westminsters fumblings. Well put your money where your mouth is.
3. If Westminster dictate the terms and he wins, as he seems to suggest he will, then no body on earth can deny the will of the Scottish people.

Mr Salmon, put your money where your mouth is.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:58 PM on 01/20/2012
Scots are indeed seeing Westminster for what it is. The more they (westminster) try to hijack and derail the democratic processes in Scotland they more Scots will see it. In the last 2 weeks the SNP has increased its membership numbers by over 5% from a strating point of being the largest party in the country already. The more Cammo, Osbourne, Alexander, Wallace and their ilk sound off the more Scots will decide to flip the finger in their direction. It's been suggested that they have a hidden agenda of trying to "offload" Scotland. If that is so, then they are doing an admirable job so far. What a shame then that they can't get their act together to do something beneficial for their primary goal of rescuin the economy. Without Westminster, Scotland will do just fine. We don't expect to be filthy rich, we do expect to get the government we vote for as opposed to the government "middle England" votes for.

Be sure on this much dale.. Alex's money and his mouth are very definitely occupying the same space. Not everyone up here agrees with the path he wants to follow, but nobody who thinks in straight lines can doubt his commitment to the betterment of Scotland and the Scottish people.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WillieBlack
01:17 PM on 01/20/2012
"Scots are indeed seeing Westminste­r for what it is."

Hang on a minute.

Scotland's Advocate General has confirmed that Alex Salmond was wrong to state that the Scottish government could not trigger an independence referendum without reference to the UK parliament.

Where is the nefarious hand of Westminster in this?
02:15 PM on 01/20/2012
The vast majority of Scots are happy with the way things are so your statement "Scots are indeed seeing Westminste­r for what it is" is completely misleading and misrepresenting the attitude of the majority of Scotland's voters.
But then again you are a SNP activist so a true statement would not be expected from you.
04:55 PM on 01/20/2012
@ dalejohno,

Your first line said it all. Britian is not a country.

It has been so sad for Scots to live like this for 300 years too.

Alex Salmond will put his money where his mouth is.
12:38 AM on 01/21/2012
Again so sad you don't see us all as one country. Another person who like the republicans in Ireland, cannot see past the History of hundreds of year ago and help to build something that is better. I'm Welsh and our history of being ruled from England is far longer than yours or Irelands. Get over it. It happened.

By the way, don't apply the history too much ease your end up splitting Scotland as wellm into your true clan states.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ian Matthews
11:05 AM on 01/20/2012
The original Scotland bill back in 1998 was designed so that the executive powers on issues such as a referendum were reserved for the British Cabinet. That is the clear intention of what became the Act that created the Scottish Parliament and remains so. The Scottish Parliament exists through the delegation of powers from the Westminster Parliament and executive, who are the heirs of both the English and Scottish Parliaments under the Act of Union 1707.

As such, the courts can prevent a referendum in Scotland taking place if it is not granted by Westminster. The Scottish executive does not have the legal authority to spend money on a referendum without the approval of the Cabinet, unless the Cabinet delegate that power to the Scottish executive which they propose to do with specific conditions including a time-limit.

It is very simple really.
11:34 AM on 01/20/2012
No it can't.

Including the wording on the ballot paper!
Including percentage of yes votes!

It's called hijacking and controlling (rigging) Scotland's affairs and that is not going to happen.
Scotland's people are sovereign and Wallace himself signed that document in Holyrood.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:57 PM on 01/20/2012
Without the say-so from the UK government, any "referendum" would have all the legality of a Daily Record opinion poll.

Good luck with that one.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ian Matthews
01:43 PM on 01/20/2012
Any declaration prior to the 1707 Act of Union, passed by both houses, was superseded by the treaties that approved the creation of the Union.

That's just a fact really.

I hope that Scotland do have a referendum, and I hope it puts this issue to rest for a few generations, one way or the other.
07:57 PM on 01/21/2012
Too simple for you then, because you are wrong of every count. eg the parliaments of both Scotland and England passed enabling acts in 1706 ie the Act of Union, this in turn paved the way for the 1707 Treaty of Union creating the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

Neither the First Lord of the Treasury or his Executive have powers of their own in this matter, those are reserved to MPs in the House of Commons sitting at Westminster.

No court in the land has a right to prevent the people from exercising their democratic mandate, but try it I dare you, make our day and just see how far it gets you!

What you are getting het up about is that the Scottish parliament has no authority to make the result of such a teferendum binding on the UK parliament because only Westminster has the power to alter the UK constitution.
However under the UN charter every People has the right to self determination, the UK government would be on very shaky ground indeed if it were to deny the settled will of the People of Scotland. QED
10:09 AM on 01/20/2012
A majority of Scots vote for independence, who is going to take that to court and say no you're not having it?
That in essence is the position of the SNP government at Holyrood.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ian Matthews
11:06 AM on 01/20/2012
The point is that the courts would prevent the referendum going ahead unless it was deemed legal.
10:31 AM on 01/21/2012
You have missed the point Ian, incidentally you are mistaken, the Scottish government can conduct any referendum it chooses within its own electorate, what it cannot do is make the result binding on the UK, constitutional matters being reserved to Whitehall.

The principle around this, conceeded by Margaret Thatcher of all people, is that if the People of Scotland can demonstrate that it is their settled will to end the Union with England then no Westminster prime minister could stand against them. Self determination being enshrined in the charter of the United Nations.

The unionists problem is being able to prevent the the people of Scotland demonstrating their settled will by such as this referendum.The Scottish parliament was set up in such a way as to ensure unionist parties with proportional representation would always have a built in majority guaranteeing the issue could never be put to the test.
No-one ever expected the people of Scotland to reject unionist parties to the incredible extent they did last May, giving the Scottish National Party a landslide victory and their mandate to hold this referendum.
Only a failed politician like Jim Wallace would be either brave or stupid enough to risk his party's utter obliteration by swimming against the settled will of the electorate!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimbraid1
10:06 AM on 01/20/2012
I wonder why the media consider Wallace's comments relevant. This man was the most inneffective MP and Scottish LibDem leader of all time, he would do us all a favour and disappear in to the remote highlands or islands somewhere.
09:50 AM on 01/20/2012
Wouldn't it be ironic if a referendum, which many regard as the highest form of democracy, were to be declared "illegal"?

Would anyone be prosecuted and sent to prison?
10:03 AM on 01/20/2012
This is old news: It was accepted years ago that the Scottish administration in Holyrood had no power to legislate on Independence but there was nothing to stop it asking the people what their settled will might be on the issue?
The point being that if the People of Scotland declared their desire to restore their nation's sovereignty then under the UN it is every people's right to self determination. Even Maggie Thatcher conceded that if it was the settled will of Scots to become independent then her government could not stand in their way.

It was her business to ensure that Scots were never asked the question. Jim Wallace is simply following in her footsteps.
09:42 AM on 01/20/2012
This is becoming very confusing. What is a 'consultative' referendum? I don't recall this term being used until very recently. Sounds as though the result of such a referendum would not be legally binding so what would be its purpose? Another legal referendum would then be needed if the Scottish Parliament decided to go ahead with leaving the Union.

This is descending into the realms of farce and letting down the people of Scotland who would not appear to be getting what they thought they were getting.
09:54 AM on 01/20/2012
Pretty much every referendum is consultative, what it would do is tell us the wishes of the Scottish people regarding their constitutional position. The recent AV referendum was not legally binding either, didn't seem to be an issue then , so what's the problem now?

What it comes down to is Jim Wallace(Lord Wallace to you), the old leader of the Lib Dem MSPs at Holyrood and coalition partner of the Labour party, says he is The Establishment and no you can't have your referendum on independence, but the people of Scotland say we are The People and we Will have our independence referendum.

Between 85-90% of the Scottish electorate have said this is what they want. It would be a very brave or very foolish person who tried to stand in their way!
10:12 AM on 01/20/2012
I find it ironic that you are having to fight for independance against a man called Wallace.
10:16 AM on 01/20/2012
Totally agree with you. !
10:15 AM on 01/20/2012
There are certain poliitical bodies, who would wish it very much to be confusing.
I see our back door political leader. who would deprive the sick, unemployed, (of whom he has created many), the old and elderly in an attempt to support support the banking and financial sector, and who tells us these austerity measures are necessary , because the country is near bankruptcy, will still manage to find billions to fund his new high speed rain service, and even more billions, to finance a 3rd airport for the country he represents, London.!
photo
hearthammer
If left is right and right is wrong, decide!
04:54 PM on 01/22/2012
The fact is that if you believe one word from the unionist parties, you are being eminently foolish. I wouldn't believe them Labout, Tory or LibDums id they told it was raining! I'd have a look out the window to check!

The game has changed folks. Those who prefer being a dependent nation are on the way out. A new, independent, forward thinking Scotland has emerged an what's more, we don't need nukes to give us confidence.

Trident is just Viagra for Westminster politicians!