With the fallout from last week’s news about the SNP’s dealings with Cambridge Analytica finally dying down to a grumble from a few irritable backbenchers, a new reason for MSPs to shout angrily at each other across the debating chamber arrived on Wednesday, with the announcement Nicola Sturgeon had rejected the UK Government’s latest devolution plans for the EU Withdrawal Bill.
There has been a lengthy dispute between the Scottish Government and the UK Government about how powers in devolved areas should be returned from Brussels. The Scottish Government believe they should go straight to Edinburgh, while the UK Government argues they should remain in London while common UK frameworks are created.
Before this week, Nicola Sturgeon had been joined by First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, in the fight to stop what they termed a “crude power grab” by Westminster. This alliance has, however, ended, with Wales accepting a deal that would see the time within which specific devolved powers can remain with Westminster limited to seven years.
The Welsh have decided this is a reasonable deal that protects the principle of devolution. Nicola Sturgeon describes it as a deal “no self-respecting member of [the Scottish] parliament will give the time of day”. There is genuine concern about this situation in Holyrood; this is not simply political gamesmanship.
Her issue with the proposals boil down to a disagreement over one word: ‘consult’. The current deal promises to consult the devolved administrations before introducing new laws which affect Scotland and Wales. In practice, however, this means even if the devolved administrations do not agree with those rules the UK Government can still pass them – leaving them free to impose new laws on Scotland to which the Scottish Parliament may be fundamentally opposed.
At minimum, Nicola Sturgeon would like to see the word ‘consult’ replaced with ‘consent’. This would effectively give the Devolved Administrations a veto over new legislation. An unacceptable notion for Theresa May, who points out this would also give Scotland a veto over legislation for the rest of the UK.
All this raises the question: what happens if Holyrood refuses to give its consent to the Withdrawal Bill? Legally, the Scottish parliament is not able to block the Bill. But the Supreme Court could allow the Scottish parliament to pursue its own continuity legislation, thereby retaining the relevant powers in spite of Westminster. Alternatively, the Supreme Court could rule against the continuity legislation, leaving Westminster to pass the Bill regardless of Scotland’s consent.
All of the above outcomes create the potential for constitutional conflict between Westminster and Holyrood in the years ahead - and possibly even chaos.
Both Governments have committed to continuing negotiations, with senior officials from both sides expected to meet next week. Like many Brexit challenges, for now there remains a stubborn impasse with little promise of resolution.
Elsewhere, the news broke that Donald Trump will visit the UK in June. It has been suggested by some of his UK-based supporters that Scotland would be the most appropriate venue. They somehow believe this will result in less protests than if the visit were staged in England. Some might actually welcome his visit. After all, last time he came we were treated to a frankly amazing display of protest signs (Chapati tae yer heid) and the time before that, a man used a balloon and static electricity to create what has to be one of the best photos of all time.
And finally, we end the week with some genuinely lovely news. After years of trying, Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson has announced she is expecting a child with her partner Jen Wilson. Congratulations poured in from all sides of the political divide, with Nicola Sturgeon one of the first to tweet out her support for the couple. Saying that, she was also one of the first to point out Ruth would be receiving a Baby Box in the post – a policy the Conservatives had spent a long time opposing.