NICOLA Sturgeon has expressed incredulity over plans to have Brexit legislation done and dusted in three days.

It comes as she and her Welsh counterpart made their own appeal to the European Union to delay Brexit to allow time for a new referendum.

The First Minister reacted after the government revealed it wants the conclusion of Boris Johnson's Brexit deal legislation proceedings in the Commons on Thursday.

She said: "We've seen today that even the Westminister Brexit Secretary hasn't yet grasped the details of this deal.

"Trying to ram through legislation of this complexity, significance and long-lasting consequences in just three days is an abomination of scrutiny and democracy."


In a letter to the president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, Nicola Sturgeon and her Welsh counterpart Mark Drakeford said there was concern that Parliament "could not in any way" adequately undertake the scrutiny of Boris Johnson's new agreement in a ten-day period, as required with the absence of a delay.

But both said that the matter should be delayed to allow for the new Withdrawal Agreement Bill to be put to the people in a confirmatory referendum.

The letter says that they want to make sure that there is no risk of UK exit before the agreement is ratified by both the EU and UK.

READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon: New Brexit deal treats Scotland unfairly

It says: " Our joint view is that the ultimate result of the Westminister Parliamentary process should be a referendum on EU membership. "This bill will be among the most important pieces of legislation ever considered by the UK Parliament, with far-reaching implications for the whole of the United Kingdom and indeed the European Union.

"A critical part of the legislative process on any Bill which affects devolved competences is hat the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales are invited to provide legislative consent. This is clearly the case with the Withdrawal Agreement Bill. This obviously requires detailed analysis and scrutiny of what we understand will be a lengthy and complex piece of legislation which has only been sent to us in the last 24 hours.

"The concern that Parliament could not in any way adequately undertake the scrutiny of the Bill in a 10 day period, as required in the absence of an extension, lay behind the decision of the House of Commons to withhold its approval of the Withdrawal Agreement ‘unless and until the implementing legislation is passed’.

"This is a concern we fully share. It is simply impossible for us to fulfil our constitutional responsibilities in this timescale, which is dictated by the way in which the Prime Minister delayed tabling formal proposals.

"An extension would allow us to adequately scrutinise the agreement and the draft legislation in accordance with our constitutional responsibilities. While clearly it is a matter for the Council to consider how long such an extension should be, we would favour one which is long enough to enable a referendum with remain on the ballot paper to be held in the UK.

"Both of our Governments and legislatures are in favour of such a referendum and of the UK remaining in the EU."


Both First Ministers have also told the Prime Minister in a separate letter, that the time between now and 31 October provides "insufficient opportunity to undertake..essential scrutiny".

Scotland's highest court delayed a decision on whether the prime minister has fully complied with a law requiring him to ask for a Brexit extension beyond October 31.

READ MORE: Scottish and Welsh First Ministers press EU for Brexit delay

Campaigners said the move would ensure that Boris Johnson followed the law.

Mr Johnson sent an unsigned letter to Brussels asking for a delay, along with a signed letter saying he believed that doing so would be a mistake.

The UK government argued at the Court of Session that this fulfilled its legal obligations under the Benn Act.

But Lord Carloway said the case should be continued until it was clear that the obligations under the legislation had been "complied with in full".


The Court of Session was originally asked earlier this month to consider using "nobile officium" powers to request a Brexit extension on the prime minister's behalf - but the judges delayed making a ruling until the political situation become clearer.

On Monday, those behind the petition - SNP MP Joanna Cherry, businessman Dale Vince and QC Jolyon Maugham - asked for a further extension.

Their lawyer, Aidan O'Neill QC, described the manner in which the second letter was sent by Mr Johnson as "unusual".