���˿���

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.

Good morning. I thank witnesses for coming along and for their submissions.

I have two questions to begin with, but if I get a chance, I might come back in again. This is a follow-up to the convener’s question. I am trying to draw out the extent to which the UK is different from other jurisdictions, not least in the way that it treats different parts of its devolved areas and—I do not know what they are called these days—its dominions.

I am struck that, before the referendum that we had in 2014, we were told that Scotland was going to be the most powerful devolved legislature in the world. I am also aware that, in December last year, the UK Government, by order in council, changed the constitution of the Turks and Caicos Islands to allow a law enacted by the legislature to make provision for holding a referendum on a matter of national importance. The second part of that order says:

“The question of whether the Turks and Caicos Islands should seek any amendment to this Constitution that may result in their independence shall be deemed to be a matter of national importance.”

So, the law gives the power to the Turks and Caicos Islands to hold a referendum and for it to have the effect of achieving independence.

On the other examples that we have just heard, I think that I am right in saying that, in Northern Ireland, the criteria for whether a referendum should be held seems to be whether there is likely to be support for a united Ireland. One of the things to be taken into account is whether the Secretary of State thinks that it is likely to be supported. The exact reverse seems to be the case in Scotland, because it was felt by the UK Government in 2014 that there would be no prospect of Scotland voting yes. Yesterday, we saw a poll again show majority support for independence. That seems to be the motivating factor for the UK deciding whether to support a referendum.

I would like to draw out how unusual and asymmetrical the UK is in the way that it decides these things, because that will eventually tell us whether the position is sustainable. I know that these things do not show a consistent pattern across the world, but the UK seems to be way out there in terms of the inconsistency of how it deals with such issues. Do witnesses have any comments on that?

Do other members of the panel want to come in on that? I suppose that my question is: if all the parties agree that Scotland has a right to self-determination, and yet there is no route beyond one party being able to say, “No, it’s not going to happen,” how sustainable is that?

Thanks for that. You also mentioned the importance of scrutiny of the board in particular. The committee has had concerns in the past when it has tried to scrutinise the work of boards and there has sometimes been an evasiveness or a willingness to use their two different funders to obscure proper scrutiny, and almost a resentment at being held to account. That will not apply to all members of the board but to those who attend the committee.

Could you say anything about that? Is it just that there needs to be greater scrutiny by the board or does your review tell you that the organisation as a whole needs to better understand that it is being held to account and not shrink from that?

Have you seen Creative Scotland’s response to your review?

Thanks. My last question.

You were taken down the road of being asked about the cabinet secretary’s involvement earlier, to the surprise of nobody on the committee. However, your review was not a review of the cabinet secretary but a review of Creative Scotland. The answers that you gave referred to the two meetings that you had with the board, the recommendation that there should be greater working with the sponsorship team in the Scottish Government, and the fact that you had meetings with the cabinet secretary. Do you agree that that kind of engagement is pretty much the norm for such reviews?