Cherry calls for PM to prepare for consultative referendum
JOANNA CHERRY has called for Prime Minister Boris Johnson to be “put on notice” over an SNP bid to hold a consultative independence referendum without Westminster’s approval.
Ms Cherry, the SNP’S justice and home affairs spokeswoman at Westminster, said the move could form part of a “multi-faceted strategy to move us away from the current impasse”.
She insisted “now is the moment to begin the preparations”.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon previously ruled out a consultative referendum in the short term, arguing it would be challenged in court and the legal outcome would be “uncertain”.
But Ms Cherry suggested Holyrood should pass a bill to hold a consultative referendum and then let the Prime Minister mount a legal challenge on whether it has the power to do so.
Writing on social media, the QC said: “I believe Holyrood passing a bill to hold a referendum could be part of a multi-faceted strategy to move us away from the current impasse and stop the constant and unproductive talk about Section 30 orders and seeking ‘permission’ to act from Westminster.
“The balance of legal opinion is we might well win any court challenge and I don’t believe losing would set us back any further than where we are just now. Boris Johnson should be put on notice we have options we are not afraid to push forward.”
Ms Cherry rejected suggestions this would constitute a “wildcat” or illegal referendum.
She added: “What I’ve advocated is the following: Holyrood passes a bill to hold a consultative referendum then lets Johnson mount a legal challenge on whether they had the power to do so.
“The UK Supreme Court decides whether such a referendum is lawful. Many legal experts think we would win the argument.
“To lose would not set us back any further from where we are now.”
Ms Cherry was previously involved in the successful legal battle against Mr Johnson’s decision to suspend Westminster for five weeks ahead of Brexit.
She spoke out as a poll showed a majority of Scots are in favour of Holyrood legislating to hold a referendum if Westminster continues to block demands for Indyref2.
The Panelbase survey, published in the pro-independence National newspaper, asked people for their views on what should happen if the UK Government continues to refuse to give permission for an independence vote.
It asked if the Scottish Parliament should legislate for a consultative ballot and then allow the courts to decide if it can go ahead.
Of those who expressed an opinion, 56 per cent agreed with such an approach, with 44% opposed.
Last month, Ms Sturgeon poured cold water on short-term hopes for a consultative referendum, but did not rule it out completely.
She said: “The issue of whether the specific constitutional reservation in the Scotland Act puts any form of independence referendum outside the powers of the Scottish Parliament – or instead leaves open scope for a non-binding consultative vote – has never been tested in court.
“That means it cannot be said definitively it would not be legal, but equally it cannot be described as being beyond legal doubt.
“If a proposal for a referendum on that basis was brought forward it would be challenged in court.
“If a court ruled it was legal, it wouldn’t be a ‘wildcat referendum’ as our opponents like to brand it – it would be within the remit of the Scottish Parliament.
“Now, should the UK Government continue to deny Scotland’s right to choose, we may reach the point where it is necessary for this issue to be tested.
“I am not ruling that out. But I also have to be frank: the outcome would be uncertain. There would be no guarantees. It could move us forward, but equally it could set us back.”
Pamela Nash, chief executive of pro-uk campaign group Scotland in Union, said the majority of Scots “don’t want a divisive second independence referendum”.
She said: “This is just yet another diversionary tactic by senior SNP figures in a desperate attempt to avoid focusing on the crises in our schools, hospitals and council services. Trying to break up the UK via the back door through an unofficial contest is simply not acceptable and would end up in a huge cost to the public purse, taking money away from lifeline services.”
The balance of legal opinion is we might well win any court challenge