The Edinburgh Reporter December 2022

Cherry offers her opinion on controversial Supreme Court independence ruling

The answer is political

55

By OLIVIA THOMAS

FOLLOWING THE Supreme Court judgement

on the matter of Scotland being allowed to hold

an independence referendum without recourse

to the UK Government, Joanna Cherry, KC,

MP said: “I note the UK Supreme Court’s

judgment on the interpretation of the Scotland

Act which settles the disputed issue of the

devolved parliament’s competency to hold an

independence referendum, although not in the

way I would have liked.

“Most of us assumed that the UK was, like

the EU, a consensual union. I am puzzled by

the court's suggestion that the principle of

self-determination is “not in play here” and will

need to study the judgment on this issue

carefully. Scotland, unlike Quebec, is an

ancient nation, which was a state in its own

right before it entered into a consensual union

with England in 1707. Are the UKSC saying

Scotland is perpetually trapped by force of law

in what was a union of consent?

“If the UK Government had any respect at

all for Scottish democracy, this court hearing

would not have been necessary. At the 2021

Scottish election voters elected a government

with a manifesto commitment to hold a second

independence referendum. The last time that

happened, after the 2011 Scottish election, the

UK Government respected that mandate and,

after a period of negotiation, Alex Salmond

and David Cameron entered into an

agreement to put beyond doubt the legality

of the independence referendum the Scottish

parliament went on to hold. They also

agreed that both governments would

respect the result.

“So, there is an established constitutional

precedent of the right thing to do in these

circumstances. The unwritten British

constitution proceeds by way of custom and

practice. If the UK Government respected their

own constitution and democracy, they would

replicate what happened a decade ago, come to

the negotiating table and enter into a second

Edinburgh Agreement. That they will not do

that this time round is unconstitutional as well

as a denial of democracy.

“Just think how English voters would have

felt if, after they elected a Tory Government in

2015 with a manifesto commitment to

hold a referendum on leaving the European

Union, the EU Commission had tried to

block that referendum. You don’t need much

imagination to envisage the outrage that

would have prompted.

“I would also point out that the idea that

voters in Scotland should have to wait

indefinitely for another poll does not sit easy

with the terms of the Northern Ireland Act

1998 which envisaged that a cross border poll

on reunification of Ireland may be repeated

after a period of 7 years. Why should Scottish

democracy be curtailed in a way that Northern

Irish democracy is not?

“The solution is of course political. The

reality now is that if the UK Government will

not come to the negotiating table, then the only

route to forcing them there is by the ballot box

in an election.

“The people who live in Scotland will

determine our future and it's time for the

promised Constitutional Convention to be

convened to take matters forward.”

What now for

the rejects?

Elsie Inglis statue - artists still angry

Joanna

Cherry, KC, MP

By PHYLLIS STEPHEN

THE CHARITY A Statue for

Elsie Inglis raised around

£60,000 to create the first

statue of a woman on the

Royal Mile. Some donors

have now asked for their

money to be refunded

following what they regard

as unfair behaviour on the

part of the trustees.

A Call to Artists was

brought to a halt before the

appointed date and the

King’s Sculptor in Ordinary

announced as the artist.

Anna Caro is one of the

artists who would have

liked the chance to enter

the competition. She

explained why she felt a

connection to Dr Elsie Inglis

Ms Caro said: “I remember

visiting friends with new

babies at the Elsie Inglis

maternity hospital and the

indignation when no new

hospital bore her name.

“I knew of her as a

pioneer for women’s rights

,a feminist and suffragist.

My own grandmother

graduated as a doctor in the

year of Elsie Inglis death,

thanks to the early female

medical pioneers like Elsie.

“When I heard about the

competition I was thrilled,

as the public sculpture and

monument fraternity

seemed to be just that, a

fraternity, and the

competition seemed an

innovative idea in keeping

with Elsie Inglis

achievements.

“I think the trustees

misunderstood three

things: firstly the hard work

that goes into the

preparation for an

application, secondl, the

unfairness of calling for

open applications then

making a decision behind

closed doors without seeing

the applicants work, and

thirdly why Elsie Inglis is a

heroic figure.

Her beliefs in women’s

suffrage are bound up in

her heroism in the First

World War. She stood up

against the suffocating

status quo and for women,

both women seeking

equality in the workplace

and poor women suffering

inequality in healthcare.

“The trustees, by

appointing an already well

known male sculptor

without considering other

applicants have gone

against everything she

stood for.

“I feel strongly the

onlooker is made aware

that Elsie was a woman like

any other woman, but more

motivated, more selfless,

and more courageous. Her

humanity emphasised her

courage. She is not a remote

heroine of the past. Her

achievements we can aspire

to in the present day with

her example.

“I aimed to depict her

hurrying to an emergency

in her surgical gown with

her torch and her medical

case. She was a short ,stocky

woman apparently ordinary

in appearance but with

(from photos and

contemporary descriptions)

a very determined gaze and

sweet expression.

“I think it would be fair to

have a ‘Salon des Refusées’

like French Impressionists

who were locked out of

exhibiting at the official

Salon in 1863. Then the

public can see work rejected

unseen by the trustees.”

Artist Anna Caro with her

maquette of Elsie