Chamber and committees

Following on from the points that have been made about the so-called reset, I will make a number of points on which it would be useful to hear your comments. My points add up to my belief that the reset has not really worked or happened. In fact, from speaking to a number of ministers, I am aware that it seems to have gone backwards in recent weeks after a more promising start.

You will be aware that in around 2005-06, the then First Minister, Jack McConnell, commissioned a report that showed that there was appalling ignorance and something of a contempt for the devolved Administrations at the centre. When we were down in London, the committee considered a report from the Bennett school of public policy, which talked about centralist chauvinism. I would link that to Professor Wincott’s point about the perceived powerful position of Westminster and how that governs things.

From my point of view, the representations of both the Welsh and Scottish Governments made no impact on the repeal of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020; indeed, they were not even considered. We have not yet seen any outcome from the review of the Sewel convention. The UK Government’s position at the time of the independence referendum in Scotland was that the convention would be strengthened and put into law. However, its position now is that, as it said before the Supreme Court, the convention is merely a self-denying ordinance.

The most telling instance, though, is the pride in place initiative, which involves spending in devolved areas at the discretion of the UK Government without any real basis for that spending. For example, the constituency that I represent gets no money from the initiative, despite being one of the most deprived in the country. A central role in disbursing those funds is given to MPs, and the moneys will be disbursed during an election process in Scotland. I also learned yesterday that the Welsh Government was told about the initiative, whereas the Scottish Government was not.

I wonder whether there is a mix in there, with the Westminster system not adapting to devolution. I am conscious that we have been here now for 26 years, yet on Monday we heard from somebody who said that we are still in the early foothills of people learning about devolution, and that it took Canada 160 years. Surely it cannot take that long to learn that there are some devolved Administrations that people might have to take account of.

I know that I made a series of points there, but I would be interested in the witnesses’ views on them. I will go to Professor Wincott first.

Thank you.

Just before Dr Minto comes in, I want to raise another point about something that we heard in London during the committee’s visit. It relates to the ad hoc nature of some of the changes, with the council of nations and regions being overlaid on top of the top-tier meetings and the British Irish Council.

In relation to the JMC on Europe, there is now no consultation whatsoever with the devolved Administrations—for example, there was none in relation to the EU trade deal and Scotland’s fisheries. It just seems to be going a bit backward.

Sorry, Dr Minto—please come in.

On that point—

I have read your submissions and we, as a committee, have also had a chat with some advisers, all of whom are as esteemed and as knowledgeable as the members of this panel.

The submission that stands out to me is that of Adam Tomkins. I do not want to overstate it—and Adam Tomkins can correct me if I am doing so—but that is because of the extent to which it talks about the people as being central to this, which is often forgotten when we talk about legal and constitutional architecture and so on. However, as Professor Tomkins says at various points, the simple fact is that

“the decision-maker is the people of Scotland”.

That is very true, whether it is about trying to force the issue of having a mechanism to achieve independence or stay in the union, or whether it is about actually taking that decision. I think that it is also true of the European Union, where I have worked for a number of years in the European Committee of the Regions, and now the Council of Europe, which is often said to be bound by its constitutional and legal architecture. Very often, it will follow the people; the people are supreme in relation to that.

However, apart from in Adam’s submission, that point seems to be relatively absent. Aileen and Stephen, is that because of the way in which you were asked to contribute to this session, which is about finding a legal mechanism? Adam has made his position clear, but does either of you want to say something about the extent to which the people are pretty important in all this?

Maybe I introduced the confusion here. I do not think that that is what is happening with the Turks and Caicos Islands; it has not made an appeal to the United Nations or other international bodies on the basis of its origins as a colonial state. It comes back to the point that, if the UK Government decides that it wants to allow for an expression of self-determination, it can do so itself, and, indeed, it has done so on that basis. It is not, to the best of my knowledge, part of a wider campaign.

I have a final question. We have had a lot of discussion in this debate about the once-in-a-generation idea. It was mentioned by a couple of very prominent people on at least a couple of occasions—with, I think, a misinterpretation of what was said—but it seems to have been elevated almost to the status of a constitutional convention and become a cast-iron law. I point out that, during the 2014 referendum, it was said that the only way of securing Scotland’s place in the European Union was to vote no, and that has not been continued as a constitutional convention. What is your view of the once-in-a-generation tenet?

I have a very quick question that it would be great to get a quick answer to, because I am genuinely confused about the matter, and then I want to ask another question after it. It seems to be the fashion to refer to secession rather than independence—fair enough. What is it that we are seceding from if we agree independence?

Thank you.

The referendum in 1979 was not a secessionist one—the one in 2014 was.

I have a question on the legal position, based on your submission and also what we heard earlier from our advisers. When this inquiry came about, I asked how consent can be exercised in relation to the Act of Union, if it is said to be democratic and voluntary. However, from what you said and from what we heard from the committee’s advisers—Aileen McHarg also mentioned this in her submission—I know that there seems to be a view that the treaty of union is not that relevant to the debate that we are currently having. Am I getting that wrong?