CLAIMS from a former top advisor to Alex Salmond that taking Westminster to court over indyref2 are a “waste of time and money” have been dismissed as “speculation”.
Alex Bell, who helped negotiate the Edinburgh Agreement leading to the 2014 vote, has claimed the Supreme Court case “is a piece of theatre designed to disguise how the SNP has failed nationalists”.
Nicola Sturgeon “does not expect the law to satisfy her”, said Bell, claiming that the Scottish Government know their bid is doomed because lawyers told the Scottish Government prior to 2014 it could not hold an independence referendum without Westminster’s consent.
The SNP have hit back at the comments branding them “speculation”.
Tommy Sheppard, the party’s constitution spokesman, told The National: “I doubt very much [Bell] is in a position to know about that.
“I think he’s wrong – I don’t know what Alex Salmond was told by what lawyers in 2011, I have no idea, nor does Alex Bell.
“But the fact of the matter is there is a reasonable case to be made that the Scottish Government does have the authority to ask the people of Scotland what they think about [independence] but it does not have the authority to do anything about it.”
Sheppard added that the last referendum was held because ministers had the “consent of the people of Scotland” and an agreement with Westminster.
“The United Kingdom has refused to allow them to be put together this time around,” he said.
“So we will pursue them separately – we will gain the consent of the Scottish people and then use that in order to negotiate with the UK.
“There is nothing to my mind in the devolution legislation that prevents the Scottish Government from asking people that question.
“Of course, it doesn’t have the competence to act upon it but to ask people what they think is the proper process of government and is within the general competence of the Scottish Government.”
Sheppard added: “I don’t think it’s a piece of theatre, I think it’s a real thing – there’s at least a 50-50 chance the Court will rule in our favour and if it does, then it’s game on for October next year and if it doesn’t then at the next General Election we will be asking whether people want to become an independent country.”
It comes after Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain said she was not confident the Edinburgh administration has the power to hold a second referendum without Westminster’s permission.
Bell – who backed the Scottish Greens ahead of the 2021 European Parliament elections – wrote in a Sunday Times column that a defeat in the Supreme Court would function as an “exit event” for the First Minister.
The 2014 referendum was held “because the various players followed the law” Bell wrote, adding: “The law has not changed since, and neither has the advice.”
He wrote: “The legal ruling may work as an exit event that allows Sturgeon to get a UN job in Geneva with her head held high, but it will be of no significance to Scotland.
“The Supreme Court will say no, she will claim to have done her best, and the SNP’s indy vehicle will splutter on.
“That is not to say that independence will die, or that the urgent need to govern Scotland intelligently will diminish.
“It just means that the Salmond, Sturgeon and Swinney era will end in ignominy. They made promises to the party they knew they could not keep.
“The present political myth is that the Tories ignore Scotland and Labour betrayed us. In time, the SNP leadership will join this list of disappointments.”
Bell, who worked as a senior policy adviser to Salmond from 2011 to 2013, said the Scottish Government received legal advice which blocked the SNP administration from publishing a referendum bill.
Former prime minister David Cameron granted a Section 30 order in 2012 – which temporarily devolved power to the Scottish Parliament allowing a referendum bill to go ahead.
Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss have both said they would continue to block indyref2 and have also pledged attacks on the devolution settlement by vowing to give Westminster greater oversight of the Holyrood administration.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "As the First Minister made clear in her statement to Parliament on June 28, the lawfulness of a referendum must be established as a matter of fact, not just opinion, and that is why the issue has now been referred to the UK Supreme Court, in line with the democratic mandate for an independence referendum.”
