Scotland: The changing face of Scottish politics

A new year, a new decade but the same constitutional debate continues. The political narrative in Scotland has been dominated by the constitution long before the Scottish Independence referendum took place in 2014 and it looks set to continue.

The savvy SNP who have been in power in Scotland for twelve years and emerged as the dominant party following the 2019 election result recognise and understand that not every vote in the 2019 election was a vote for Scottish independence, but understand that people are open to the constitutional debate in a way that was different to 2014, and in turn have shifted their focus from a second referendum to the Scottish parliament having the power when to hold a referendum.

From a strategy perspective this is a stroke of genius as the focus becomes more about the principle of decision making as opposed to a yes versus no referendum, and let’s be honest who in the Scottish Parliament is going to say differently, so think of this as phase one and phase two will be when the Scottish Parliament casts a vote for a second referendum, which will likely take place in 2022 with those in favour winning the vote.

The writing is on the wall and all the signs point towards a second referendum in the next couple of years. Even more so since Richard Leonard, Leader of the Scottish Labour Party, announced that the Scottish Labour Party would not block a second referendum if pro-independence party’s win a majority in the 2021 Scottish Parliament election.

The Labour Party: What next?

Last Thursdays humiliating and crushing defeat for the Labour Party should be a wakeup call for what will almost certainly become a recurrent trend should it continue to ignore the reasons as to why the
electorate rejected Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, and learn from the lessons of the Scottish Labour Party’s downfall.

The reasons are varied and complex but ultimately come down to the electorates lack of trust for Jeremy Corbyn, an ongoing issue over antisemitism which further reinforced that mis trust and an ambiguous Brexit policy stance that confused the electorate. A manifesto that lacked inspiration, emphasised state ownership and lacked any real pragmatism to address any of the issues that Jeremy Corbyn hoped would transcend Brexit as the focal point and bring people together.

Once the backbone of Scottish politics the Scottish Labour Party was last in government in 2007 with the SNP securing a narrow win of 47 seats compared to the Scottish Labour Party’s 46 seats. The subsequent Scottish Parliament elections would prove catastrophic for the Scottish Labour Party with the Party losing eleven MSPs in 2011, all MP’s bar Ian Murray in 2015 and fourteen MSPs in 2016 which led to the party being replaced by the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party as the official opposition.

So, what led to the demise of the Scottish Labour Party? Like what happened last Thursday the reasons are varied and complex but part of it can be down to the party’s changing relationship with the electorate spurred on by the constitutional question of Scottish independence which continues to dominate the political narrative, but its fundamentally more than that, it’s the party’s disconnect with Scottish voters over a sustained period of time and it comes back to trust and the party’s offer to the people of Scotland.

Constitutional issues have always been a problem for the Labour Party and in 2016, Anas Sarwar
MSP summed it up and said, “the truth is we are not comfortable nationalist and not comfortable unionists which is difficult in a binary election.”

Following last week’s result, it’s understandable that some Scottish Labour MSPs are now arguing for the party to take a fresh look at its position on a second referendum on Scottish independence, but any change on policy needs to be well thought out and based on rationale as opposed to a knee jerk reaction. If the new strategy is a case of “if you can’t beat them, join them” in the hope it will make the party more electable then Its foreseeable that the Scottish Labour Party will alienate pro remain voters who will end up voting for the Scottish Liberal Democrats or even the Scottish Conservative Party and still find themselves on a downward spiral.

However, if the revised policy is to support the principle of the Scottish Parliament deciding when the next referendum should be then the argument becomes more about democracy and local decision making, but similar to Brexit if that becomes the adopted stance then the Scottish Labour Party will need to learn the lessons of Brexit and have a clear position on the constitution and make the case for either the union or independence.

So, what next for the UK Labour Party? Firstly, the party will need to take stock of the result, but the focus will be on who succeeds Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. Rebecca Long Bailey is a firm favourite to become the next leader and Angela Rayner is expected to run on the same ticket to become deputy leader but a strategy focused on winning back Scotland and the party’s traditional heartlands will be something that members will want to see in both Scotland and England.

So what now for the Labour Party ?

Tom Watson’s resignation of the Labour Party is undoubtedly a massive blow to the moderate wing of the party but is it indicative of the way things are going or a symptom of the status quo?

Tom who has been a member and an activist of the Labour Party since he was 15 and an MP since 2001 was often the voice for party moderates speaking out against antisemitism, urging people to remain in the party, a vocal critic of Jeremy Corbyn’s stance on Brexit and at logger heads with one time close friend Len McCluskey, leader of Unite the Union.

To many Tom’s resignation will come as a shock and surprise but to others it will be an occasion to rejoice. His decision to resign from the Labour Party is understandable given the attempts to oust him from the Labour Party and to abolish the deputy leaders position which received a stay of execution when Jeremy Corbyn announced that there would be a review into the position. Presumably that review is ongoing and a decision will be announced by the next Labour Party conference ?

So, what now for the Labour Party? Well, everything hinges on the outcome of the election. At the moment it’s hard to make any solid predictions about the outcome of the election which will be dominated by Brexit. The Labour Party’s stance on Brexit is ambiguous and confusing in the minds of the electorate which in turn could result in a swing of leave labour voters going to the Conservative or Brexit parties and conversely in Scotland a swing to the Scottish National Party who have had a consistent pro- EU remain message.

In Scotland the SNP are predicted to win the majority of seats with the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party retaining only two and it will be only a matter of time until we start hearing jokes about pandas.

A hung parliament is still a likely outcome which could see Jeremy Corbyn enter number 10 either as a minority Labour Government on its own or propped up by the SNP via a confidence and supply agreement. If that is the case the constitutional debate will continue with the SNP wanting a Section 30 order to hold a second Scottish independence referendum, presumably after a second EU referendum and this will be a big issue and problem for the Scottish Labour Party.

That said, if Labour fail to win the election and Boris Johnson wins with a majority then the Labour Party will be having elections for a leader and deputy leader which will shape the face and direction of the Labour Party, which could be a real game changer with the emphasis on re-building the party to become a credible election winning machine again.

The three B’s of Brexit: Baffled, Bemused and bamboozled: What does it mean, what happens now? Is this really the final countdown?

To some it’s another day another Brexit delay, to others it’s the reprieve or as some see it the stay of execution needed to put forward amendments into the withdrawal agreement that will guarantee workers rights, environmental and consumer protections and other protections that are currently afforded to European Union citizens of which the United Kingdom is still part of.

What was referred to as “super Saturday” saw the House of Commons sitting on a Saturday; the first time in thirty-seven years with parliament taking back control and voting in favour by a majority of sixteen for the Letwin amendment. The Letwin amendment in effect put the brakes on Brexit and forced the prime minister to write to the European Council to request an extension.

Johnson who has said from day one of his premiership that he will not delay Brexit is reluctantly complying with the law whilst making it known to his European counterparts that he does not believe a deal is In the interests of both the United Kingdom or the European Union, but the likelihood is that the European Union will grant a three month extension. So, what happens now?

Fast forward to today or “Mayhem Monday” in another blow to the prime minister the speaker of the House, John Bercow refused to allow a yes or no vote on the governments Brexit deal saying "it would be repetitive and disorderly" to debate it again.”

Tomorrow the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill 2019-202 will have it’s second reading in parliament and Wednesday and Thursday will be the committee stage of the process where members of parliament can table specific amendments such as any deal approved by parliament must be put to the people by means of a referendum.

The committee stage is where the emergence of realpolitik will take place with MP’s from all parties potentially putting forward specific motions to be voted upon.

For some, this could have the desired effect of further delaying Brexit, for others it’s an opportunity to mould the withdrawal agreement to include greater protection for workers rights, environmental and consumer protections, or it could simply be an amendment that ensures the future relationship between the UK and the European Union is on a “level playing field” a term that was removed from the revised Brexit deal but was in the previous Brexit deal put forward by Theresa May who advocated for the “ broadest and deepest possible economic partnership” between the UK and the European Union.

The government will most likely put forward a motion to Parliament to speed up the process of the Brexit Bill. If the motion is approved then the chances of the United Kingdom leaving on the 31 October rises significantly, if not then the most obvious outcome will be an extension and a delay, that said, if the motion is approved and irrespective of the tabled amendments that are voted for, it might not be the deal that Boris Johnson originally envisaged, but a deal nonetheless that all sides can live with.

Supreme Court Judgement on the suspension of parliament in full

Supreme Court Judgement on the suspension of parliament

"We have before us two appeals, one from the High Court of England and Wales and one from the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. It is important, once again, to emphasise that these cases are not about when and on what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union.

"They are only about whether the advice given by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty the Queen on 27th or 28th August, that Parliament should be prorogued from a date between 9th and 12th September until 14th October, was lawful and the legal consequences if it was not. The question arises in circumstances which have never arisen before and are unlikely to arise again. It is a "one-off".

"Briefly, the Scottish case was brought by a cross party group of 75 members of Parliament and a QC on 30th July because of their concern that Parliament might be prorogued to avoid further debate in the lead up to exit day on 31st October.

"On 15th August, Nikki da Costa, Director of Legislative Affairs at No 10, sent a memorandum to the Prime Minister, copied to seven people, civil servants and special advisers, recommending that his Parliamentary Private Secretary approach the Palace with a request for prorogation to begin within 9th to 12th September and for a Queen's Speech on 14th October.

"The Prime Minister ticked 'yes' to that recommend

"On 28th August, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Privy Council, Mr Mark Harper, chief whip, and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, Leader of the House of Lords, attended a meeting of the Privy Council held by the Queen at Balmoral Castle.

"An Order in Council was made that Parliament be prorogued between those dates and that the Lord Chancellor prepare and issue a commission for proroguing Parliament accordingly.

"A Cabinet meeting was held by conference call shortly after that in order to bring the rest of the Cabinet "up to speed" on the decisions which had been taken.

"That same day, the decision was made public and the Prime Minister sent a letter to all Members of Parliament explaining it. As soon as the decision was announced, Mrs Miller began the English proceedings challenging its lawfulness.

"Parliament returned from the summer recess on 3rd September. The House of Commons voted to decide for themselves what business they would transact. The next day what became the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act passed all its stages in the Commons.

"It passed all its stages in the House of Lords on 6th September and received royal assent on 9th September. The object of that Act is to prevent the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement on 31st October.

"On 11th September, the High Court of England and Wales delivered judgment dismissing Mrs Miller's claim on the ground that the issue was not justiciable in a court of law.

"That same day, the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland announced its decision that the issue was justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliamentary scrutiny of the Government, and that it, and any prorogation which followed it, were unlawful and thus void and of no effect.

"Mrs Miller's appeal against the English decision and the Advocate General's appeal against the Scottish decision were heard by this court from 17th to 19th September.

"Because of the importance of the case, we convened a panel of 11 Justices, the maximum number of serving Justices who are permitted to sit. This judgment is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.

"The first question is whether the lawfulness of the Prime Minister's advice to Her Majesty is justiciable. This Court holds that it is.

"The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries. As long ago as 1611, the court held that "the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him".

"However, in considering prerogative powers, it is necessary to distinguish between two different questions. The first is whether a prerogative power exists and if so its extent.

"The second is whether the exercise of that power, within its limits, is open to legal challenge. This second question may depend upon what the power is all about: some powers are not amenable to judicial review while others are. However, there is no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power.

"All the parties to this case accept that. This Court has concluded that this case is about the limits of the power to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament.

"The second question, therefore, is what are the limits to that power? Two fundamental principles of our Constitution are relevant to deciding that question.

"The first is Parliamentary sovereignty - that Parliament can make laws which everyone must obey: this would be undermined if the executive could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament from exercising its power to make laws for as long as it pleased.

"The second fundamental principle is Parliamentary accountability: in the words of Lord Bingham, senior Law Lord, "the conduct of government by a Prime Minister and Cabinet collectively responsible and accountable to Parliament lies at the heart of Westminster democracy". The power to prorogue is limited by the constitutional principles with which it would otherwise conflict.

"For present purposes, the relevant limit on the power to prorogue is this: that a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive.

"In judging any justification which might be put forward, the court must of course be sensitive to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister and proceed with appropriate caution.

"If the prorogation does have that effect, without reasonable justification, there is no need for the court to consider whether the Prime Minister's motive or purpose was unlawful.

"The third question, therefore, is whether this prorogation did have the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. This was not a normal prorogation in the run-up to a Queen's Speech.

"It prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional role for five out of the possible eight weeks between the end of the summer recess and exit day on 31st October. Proroguing Parliament is quite different from Parliament going into recess.

"While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither House can debate Government policy. Nor may members ask written or oral questions of Ministers or meet and take evidence in committees.

"In general, Bills which have not yet completed all their stages are lost and will have to start again from scratch after the Queen's Speech. During a recess, on the other hand, the House does not sit but Parliamentary business can otherwise continue as usual.

"This prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme.

No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken is the memorandum from Nikki da Costa of 15th August. This explains why holding the Queen's Speech to open a new session of Parliament on 14th October would be desirable.

"It does not explain why it was necessary to bring Parliamentary business to a halt for five weeks before that, when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queen's Speech is four to six days. It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and recess.

"It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31st October. It does not discuss what Parliamentary time would be needed to secure Parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

"The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the Court should grant. The Court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect.

"The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a "proceeding in Parliament" which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court.

"But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end.

"This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister's advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed.

"This means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.

"It is for Parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next.

"Unless there is some Parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court.

"It follows that the Advocate General's appeal in the case of Cherry is dismissed and Mrs Miller's appeal is allowed. The same declarations and orders should be made in each case.

What a load of Boris: The Brexit saga continues

In what can only be described as a historic defeat for any sitting prime minister in which opposition parties won control of the parliamentary agenda with a majority of twenty seven, helped by twenty one Tory rebels who are all set to lose the conservative whip, parliament has taken back control but the showdown over Brexit continues.

By convention, the prime minister is meant to command a majority in the House of Commons but after yesterday’s decisive move by opposition parties who won control of the parliamentary agenda it would seem that Mr Johnson is starting to feel the heat like his predecessor Theresa May and in the words of Sky News’s Lewis Goodall “is being commanded by parliament.”

Today, opposition MPs will attempt to pass legislation to extend the Brexit deadline to 31 January 2020 if no agreement has been reached and MPs have not approved a no deal Brexit.

After all the talk of “I don’t want a general election, you don’t want a general election, and the public don’t want a general election” Boris Johnson announced that he would be tabling a motion under the Fixed Term- Parliaments Act (2011) to have an election.

So, what does this mean, firstly the government would need to secure at least two thirds of MPs voting for this motion and the reality is that this is likely to fail. If opposition MPs are successful in their attempt to pass legislation to extend the Brexit deadline it will have to ensure that legislation receives royal assent prior to parliament being suspended but there is also mounting speculation that Boris Johnson could advise the Queen not to grant the Bill royal assent, something that hasn’t happened since 1708 when Queen Anne was advised by ministers to refuse royal assent for the Scottish Militia Bill.

In these unprecedented, unpredictable and uncertain times there is never a dull moment in British politics, but one thing remains certain, the United Kingdom will almost certainly have an election one way or another and at this moment it’s too early to make any concrete predictions as to who will be the next tenant at number 10.