Seòmar agus comataidhean

That was evident on our visit to London. I forget the name of the committee whose members we joined for a meeting, but the big casualty for us was the lack of transparency at parliamentary level about what is going on between the Scottish and UK Governments.

I understand the difficulties that the Scottish Government has because it is not in control of much of this, but the bottom line is that the punter does not have a chance of finding their way through all the conventions, the ad hocery and all the rest of it, which is also usually wrapped in confidentiality. From a punter’s point of view, there is no real transparency. They cannot see whether the Governments are working together, or where, if necessary, to apportion accountability or blame.

We discussed a bit in London the prospects for a joint committee of the two Parliaments—even one that resurrected the old Scottish Grand Committee, which would not be practical at all. There was a bit of exploration of different methods by which we could try to increase transparency, one of which included all the devolved Administrations and parliamentarians, and those from Westminster. I do not think that that would lead to the breakthrough that we want, but would the Scottish Government support that kind of initiative?

Thankfully, we have a member of the Smith commission here.

That is exactly what you said. On the point that was made about ambivalence, a report was produced in 2006 for Jack McConnell as First Minister that excoriated the UK Government, because most departments were not even being made aware of the need to talk about devolution. When we were in London, a senior civil servant or somebody from a think tank—I forget who it was—said that, in 2025-26, we are actually only in the foothills of devolution. The prospects of any immediate change and of people standing back and taking stock of devolution seem pretty remote if senior civil servants in London are saying that we are still in the early days. It is 20-odd years since that time—surely attitudes should have moved on in the meantime, and the fact that they have not means that we will have to do something quite different to effect change. I am talking about making changes in the context of the union now—it is nothing to do with independence—in order to see an improvement.

Or that unemployment has risen, which is not the case in Scotland.

There is a difference between the UK and Spain, for example, in that Spain does not allow a legal mechanism for a referendum on the independence of its various constituent parts. Spain also does not acknowledge the right to self-determination for those areas.

In the UK, various Prime Ministers and the Smith commission have stated explicitly the idea that Scotland should have the right to decide on its own future. That is in the Smith commission report, which the UK Government signed up to. In a recent change to the constitution of Turks and Caicos Islands, the UK Government recognised and facilitated a legal mechanism and, as the cabinet secretary just mentioned, there is a mechanism in Northern Ireland.

It seems to be the case that the UK acknowledges and apparently supports the right of Scotland to exercise self-determination, but that can be done only at the whim of a Westminster Government. When it is decided by somebody else, self-determination is not self-determination. That cannot be. If the right to exercise self-determination has to be approved by somebody else, that is not self-determination. Is that the key point here?

In summary, the evidence that we have heard so far shows that the UK says that it recognises Scotland’s right to self-determination, but it is deliberately withholding Scotland’s ability to exercise that right. The UK keeps jealously to its own heart the idea that only the UK Government can decide on that and, in that way, it can prevent that right from being exercised. From what we have heard, the fact that the UK recognises the right but refuses to facilitate the exercise of it seems to be very odd in the international context.

Mr Halcro Johnston has been telling us about what traders are asking for, but what process has he followed to find that out? I would also just note the point that Neil Bibby, I think, made in an earlier evidence session that this is pretty much a take-it-or-leave-it kind of deal with UEFA. It calls the shots. If you really want to host the championships, do you not feel that these are pointless amendments?

I wonder how interventionist the UK Government—with the backing of the Supreme Court, if it happened—would become. What if it were to say in Scotland, “You’re not going to have a referendum even to discuss section 30 with us”? Imagine if the state had intervened in the referendum that was held by Strathclyde Regional Council on water privatisation. There are consequences for continuing to prevent any discussion of these things. It is not a zero-sum game where it stops there—there are consequences. For example, if the Scottish Parliament, with the required majority, were to decide to cease its current session to force an election based solely on independence, how far could the Supreme Court and the UK Government continue to go to prevent the question from being asked?

Thank you.

When I studied parliamentary sovereignty, it was recognised—certainly by my lecturers—that the concept is mythical. For example, the idea that the UK Parliament could legislate to award Scotland the world cup next year is nonsense. It is bound by international agreements and all sorts of other limitations—at the time, it was bound by membership of the European Union, for example. However, the one thing that the UK Parliament did not seem to be bound by was public opinion or what the people actually thought, because it could exercise its power in the face of public opinion.

The precedent is that we agree on the principle of a referendum and then agree on the process, so it seems unlikely that we will be able to agree on the process beforehand in the way that Professor Henderson suggested we should. I still think that we are underestimating the extent to which the UK is unique in its irrationality and the fact that it has no basis or principles for dealing with different areas in relation to these issues.

In his written submission, Professor Skoutaris mentions the limitations on the Scottish Parliament following the Supreme Court’s ruling, but he says that the Scottish Parliament could, within devolved competence, ask

“whether the people of Scotland support the Scottish Government entering negotiations with the UK Government for the issuing of a section 30 Order”.

Despite the UK Government’s intransigence, he gave that as an example of a way in which the matter could be advanced, which is quite interesting. Do the other witnesses have a view on that? Are there other possible ways in which to progress the issue?

I will bring in Professor Skoutaris first, given that I quoted him.

I have a very quick comment. The previous amendments that we discussed, and the ones in this group, provide a way of finding the right line to be drawn. We might face the issue again, because the Government might make a bid to host the women’s world cup in Scotland, and I do not know what restrictions we will face from FIFA in relation to Scotland’s participation in the upcoming world cup. On the one hand, we are right to try to avoid precedents that we would find it hard to repeat. On the other hand, we need to find the right balance between people’s rights and the imposition of whatever requirements are set by UEFA or FIFA. I support the amendments in the group.