JOHN Swinney must go to the people of Scotland to ask whether the country should have a second independence referendum, according to Alex Salmond’s former top aide.
Chris McEleny, who was Salmond’s right-hand man during his time as Alba leader, told the Sunday National a referendum on indyref2 was the way forward in light of the Prime Minister’s comments on the constitution last week.
Andy Burnham said there should be a Scottish independence referendum if there is a “clear consensus” that the Yes side would win, claiming the situation was “exactly” the same as the process for triggering an Irish border poll.
He later reiterated his opposition to a second independence referendum.
McEleny said that the SNP should bring forward a bill in Holyrood to lay the groundwork for a referendum on a referendum.
If Westminster were to challenge this in the courts, said McEleny, it would be a “win-win for the Scottish Government and a lose-lose for the UK Government”, with the former politician-turned-lobbyist claiming attempts to block the vote would drive up support in Scotland.
He said: “Andy Burnham has presented a gift to the SNP and they should grasp it.
“Westminster expects that the Scottish Government will continue to ask for an outright independence referendum and to suppress the issue, they just need to keep saying: ‘No, now is not the time.’
“They are completely unprepared for the Scottish Parliament acting independently.
“The Prime Minister is now on record as saying there won’t be a referendum if there’s no appetite for one. What Alex would’ve done in this situation if in the Parliament is bring forward a bill to ask the people of Scotland if there should be an independence referendum.”
McEleny insisted such a move would be within Holyrood’s gift, though the 2022 Supreme Court ruling on Nicola Sturgeon’s indyref2 gambit made clear that her proposed bill was unlawful because it pertained to constitutional matters reserved to the Westminster government.
The unanimous judgment noted: “A lawful referendum on the question envisaged by the bill would undoubtedly be an important political event, even if its outcome had no immediate legal consequences, and even if the United Kingdom Government had not given any political commitment to act upon it.
“A clear outcome, whichever way the question was answered, would possess the authority, in a constitution and political culture founded upon democracy, of a democratic expression of the view of the Scottish electorate.
“The clear expression of its wish either to remain within the United Kingdom or to pursue secession would strengthen or weaken the democratic legitimacy of the Union, depending on which view prevailed, and support or undermine the democratic credentials of the independence movement. It would consequently have important political consequences relating to the Union and the United Kingdom Parliament.”
The ruling went on to state that the bill in question – which proposed a question identical to that posed by the 2014 referendum – clearly related to Westminster’s privileged powers over the constitution.
It said: “It is plain that a bill which makes provision for a referendum on independence – on ending the Union – has more than a loose or consequential connection with the Union of Scotland and England.”
But McEleny said that even if an English legal challenge against his proposal was successful, this would be advantageous to independence supporters.
He said: “It would be a win-win for the Scottish Government and a lose-lose for the UK Government, as all they could do is campaign on the losing side or try to block it in the courts – either way, they drive up support for independence by telling the people of Scotland they can’t choose their own destiny.
“In the event of an overwhelming Yes vote, the Prime Minister would be faced with a mandate from the people of Scotland that none of his predecessors have been confronted with in recent times.
“He would then be forced to either concede or tell people in Scotland that there’s no circumstance that they can ever choose their own future. Either way he loses and Scotland wins.”
The SNP were approached for comment.
