Analysis
By Bernard Thompson
The BBC has claimed
that Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon could try to block
Britain's Brexit from the European Union.
In fact, the
broadcaster's website went so far as to say that Members of the
Scottish Parliament “could veto Brexit”.
It's an interesting
choice of words for an eye-catching headline but, of course,
inaccurate.
The Scottish parliament
has no powers of veto over British constitutional matters and so it
is curious that the BBC should overstate the ability of either Sturgeon
or Holyrood to influence events.
Speaking to Gordon
Brewer on Sunday Politics Scotland, Sturgeon said: “If the Scottish
parliament is judging this on the basis of what’s right for
Scotland, then the option of saying we’re not going to vote for
something that’s against Scotland’s interests, that’s got to be
on the table. You’re not going to vote for something that is not in
Scotland’s interests.”
While the article goes
on to refine the difference between the Scottish parliament affirming
or withholding its consent, it doesn't touch on an altogether
trickier scenario – what happens in the event of a House of Commons
motion calling on the UK government to discard the results of the
“advisory” referendum.
Madness
Mooted before the
referendum, the idea has been put forward by Labour's Tottenham MP David
Lammy, who was quoted in the London Evening Standard on Saturday:
"We can stop this
madness and bring this nightmare to an end through a vote in
Parliament.
"Our sovereign
Parliament needs to now vote on whether we should quit the EU.
"The referendum
was an advisory, non-binding referendum. The Leave campaign's
platform has already unravelled and some people wish they hadn't
voted to leave.
"Parliament now
needs to decide whether we should go forward with Brexit, and there
should be a vote in Parliament next week.”
That would leave
Sturgeon with a vital decision to make. Before the referendum she
stated that only Scotland being dragged out of the EU against its
will would represent sufficient material change to trigger a second
Scottish independence referendum.
That scenario has now
come to pass and calls for IndyRef2 have been immediate and
vociferous.
Should the House of
Commons vote on the issue of whether to press ahead with Brexit or
ignore the referendum, the SNP's 54 MPs could well be vital.
Pro-Remain MPs
significantly outnumber their pro-Leave counterparts but many will
baulk at the idea of overturning a democratic expression of the
people's will.
Dilemma
In that case, Sturgeon
would have to decide whether to stand by her word as First Minister
of Scotland and SNP leader, to take all possible steps to keep
Scotland in the EU or go ahead with planning for IndyRef2, having
weakened the democratic case for independence.
While Sturgeon would
face the same issues of democratic principle as any other leader,
such a scenario would surely alienate – and even enrage – some
Scots, whichever way she chooses to turn.
If she declined to
instruct her MPs to overturn Brexit, she would anger a substantial
proportion of Remainers and face the accusation that she consented to
leaving the EU. This would undermine one of the main pillars of the
case for a second referendum.
If she ordered her
party's MPs to vote to ignore the referendum, many of those hoping
for a second chance at independence – with a ScotPulse survey for
the Sunday Post finding 59% support – would see that as a betrayal.
Sturgeon has
consistently said that, while she wants independence for Scotland,
she does not want to achieve it through Brexit.
She may not have a veto
but she could be forgiven, if she privately hoped that the
consistency of those two positions were never to be tested.
