A decision could be made as early as today on whether a court ruling which threw out a case asking if Scotland can hold a second independence referendum without Westminster’s consent can be overturned.
Martin Keatings initially brought the case before the Court of Session on behalf of the Forward As One group, asking the court to declare the Scottish Parliament has the power to legislate for another vote.
But after a two-day hearing in January, Lady Carmichael dismissed the case – ruling it was “plainly raised prematurely”, with the question of another referendum “also hypothetical, and may never come to pass”.
But Mr Keetings is now appealing that ruling - and could hear by the end of the day if his bid to have a further hearing is successful. An appeal would be held in April.
The court of session
Aidan O’Neill QC, for Mr Keatings, stressed the importance of an urgent disposal at a hearing today.
He brought up a statement made by Scottish Constitution Secretary Mike Russell coincidentally made on the evening the first case was put before Lady Carmichael.
Mr Russell said there would be a draft Bill published regarding a second independence referendum and the intention of the SNP, if re-elected in May, was to introduce put it before the Scottish Parliament.
READ MORE: John Curtice says poll comes with warning signs
Mr O’Neill said on Friday it this brought the question of timing into play as it was “clearly not just an election issue, but an issue of dispute between the UK and Scottish Government being seen as central to the basis of which voters are being asked to cast their votes”.
Andrew Webster QC, for the Advocate General of Scotland, disagreed with Mr O’Neill’s notion of a need for “urgency” and said the question would still be irrelevant.
He told the hearing it appears the proposed early disposal would be justified by Mr O’Neill either ahead of the May 6 vote or the proposed publication of a draft Bill.
But he said: “If the draft Bill is indeed relevant… then I beg the question where is the rationale to have this matter disposed of before that Bill is available?
“And if it’s not relevant, I ask the same question – where is the rationale to have the matter disposed of before the Bill is available if it is not relevant?”
Support for Scottish independence remains strong
Another issue raised was a protective expenses order, after Mr O’Neill told the court last month the members of Forward As One would seek expenses on the basis that the case was not pursued for Mr Keatings’s personal gain but to vindicate their “public rights as ordinary voters”.
On Friday, Mr O’Neill told Lord Malcolm it is “entirely clear the pursuer himself is not wealthy in any sense”, and without the order there would be a “real and substantial barrier to justice”.
READ MORE: Scottish Independence - Support falls for the first time since December
Crowdfunding for the action on a Crowd Justice page currently sits at more than £214,000, but Mr Webster quoted a figure of “£258,234 when last counted” which was “referred to in an unsigned affidavit”.
Both he and James Mure, for the Lord Advocate, suggested such an order be refused.
Lord Malcolm said he could issue a ruling on Friday and if an urgent disposal is granted, a timetable for the appeal hearing would be issued to both parties next week.
Mr Keatings is standing as an independent candidate for Mid-Scotland and Fife in the vote on May 6.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel