A second memo to Chris Hanlon: "recalling" two parliaments that haven't existed since the early 18th Century is not a "relatively simple matter"Chris Hanlon
left a comment on my previous post about his support for a multi-option referendum featuring a Devo Max option. I initially thought it was a spoof comment because it contained the line "DevoMinMax is the minimum devolution I can consent to", but I see from Mr Hanlon's opinion piece in The National that he does actually use the word "DevoMinMax", so it may well have genuinely been him.
In case you're wondering what the definition of "DevoMinMax" is, it would apparently consist of only three changes to the current set-up. The Scottish Parliament would be made permanent, with Westminster stripped of the power to unilaterally abolish it. The Sewel Convention would be enforced by statute, ensuring that Westminster can no longer legislate on devolved matters without Holyrood's express consent. And the Scottish Parliament would unambiguously gain the power to hold an independence referendum at any time without requiring permission.
It's doubtful whether this is actually describing a system of devolution at all, because a parliament that can no longer be abolished or overruled has effectively become sovereign. However, that's a point of pedantry, and in principle it would be perfectly possible to legally entrench Holyrood's existence in the way Mr Hanlon suggests - although that would involve restructuring the entire principle of unlimited Westminster parliamentary sovereignty. But what does raise an eyebrow or two is Mr Hanlon's suggestion of how that restructuring would occur.
"That would probably involve amending the Acts of Union but that would be a relatively simple matter of recalling the Scottish and English parliaments solely to approve the pre-agreed changes."
Er, what English parliament? There isn't one. There hasn't been one since April 1707. So what Mr Hanlon appears to be suggesting is the recall of the English and Scottish Parliaments that existed prior to the Acts of Union more than three centuries ago. Such an undertaking could be described in many ways, but I'm not convinced that a "relatively simple matter" is one of them. There is no legal provision for recalling parliaments that no longer exist. Even if there were such a provision, all of the members of both parliaments are, not to put too fine a point on it, long since dead, and there is no viable way of replacing them with a new membership in line with the pre-democratic laws of the early 18th century.
Let's be frank: Mr Hanlon is not presenting us with a remotely serious proposition.
* * *
2021 was another epic year for Scot Goes Pop: we commissioned three full-scale opinion polls, and produced fourteen podcasts with well-known guests such as Alex Salmond, Chris McEleny and Yvonne Ridley. If you'd like more of the same in 2022, donations are still very much welcome for the ongoing fundraiser. Direct donations can be made via Paypal. My Paypal email address is: jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk
Or, if you prefer, you can donate via the GoFundMe fundraiser page, which can be found HERE. Source: A second memo to Chris Hanlon: "recalling" two parliaments that haven't existed since the early 18th Century is not a "relatively simple matter" (//)