NICOLA Sturgeon has told Boris Johnson she feels “deep regret” over taking legal action to try to hold a second independence referendum.
The First Minister said it was “unacceptable” that the UK Government had refused to cooperate on Indyref2 and forced her to go to court.
In a letter to the Prime Minister seeking a transfer of referendum powers to Holyrood under a so-called Section 30 order, Ms Sturgeon said Mr Johnson’s blocking of Indyref2 had called “into question the whole idea of the UK as a voluntary partnership”.
Ms Sturgeon released the letter after updating MSPs on her route map to independence in the absence of Westminster consent.
She announced the Lord Advocate, her most senior law officer, has asked the UK Supreme Court to rule on whether Holyrood could hold Indyref2 using its own powers.
She also published a draft Bill that would be introduced to parliament if the Supreme Court gave its approval, with Indyref2 pencilled in for 19 October 2023.
She said that if the Court ruled against her it would be the “fault of Westminster legislation” and she would turn the next general election into a single-issue “de facto” referendum on independence, the independence “Plan B” option she has previously rejected.
The Court could also decline to consider the case, as a draft Bill can be amended.
Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain QC is understood to be preparing to present the Scottish Government’s case personally to the Court’s justices.
In her letter to the PM, Ms Sturgeon said she had a mandate to hold Indyref2 in the first half of the current Scottish parliament.
However Mr Johnson’s government had made its reluctance to respect that mandate “abundantly clear” or respond positively with a Section 30 order.
She said: “Against that background, the Lord Advocate has, following a request from me, decided to refer to the Supreme Court the question of whether Scottish Parliament legislation for such a referendum relates to reserved matters.
“The reference is being served on the Advocate General today.
“It is a matter of deep regret to me that this action is necessary.
“In a voluntary union of nations where the people of one nation have voted in elections to give a mandate for a referendum, it is, in my view, unacceptable democratically that the route to a referendum has to be via the courts rather than by co-operation between the UK and Scottish Governments.
“Indeed your actions to date call into question the whole idea of the UK as a voluntary partnership.
“You and I will never agree on the merits of independence for Scotland. But I would expect any democrat to agree that it is unacceptable for the people of Scotland to be blocked from making that choice given the clear majority for a referendum in the Scottish Parliament.”
Downing Street said Mr Johnson continued to believe it is “not the time to be talking about” Indyref2 but the UK Government would “carefully study” the Scottish Government’s proposal.
A No 10 spokesman said: “Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government’s priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
“That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government’s Lord Advocate referral.”
Asked if the Prime Minister would open negotiations for independence in Scotland if Scots vote for it in a referendum in October 2023, the official said: “We’re obviously not going to get into hypotheticals”.
The spokesman was not sure whether Mr Johnson had received a letter from Nicola Sturgeon, but said the Prime Minister “continues to think it’s not the time to be talking about a referendum, but as I say, it’s important that we carefully study the details of the proposal and it’s for the Supreme Court now to look at the Lord Advocate referral”.
Full text of Nicola Sturgeon’s letter to Boris Johnson
Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP
Prime Minister
28 June 2022
Dear Boris,
In May last year the Scottish Government was re-elected on a clear promise to give the people of Scotland the choice of independence. The election also returned a Scottish Parliament with a decisive majority in favour of independence and with a mandate for an independence referendum.
In line with that mandate, we committed last year to work to ensure that a legitimate and constitutional referendum could be held, if the Covid crisis is over, within the first half of this term of the Scottish Parliament.
Your government has made abundantly clear your reluctance to respect that mandate or to respond positively to my previous request for constructive engagement to agree the terms of an Order in Council under Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 to put the legal basis of a referendum beyond any doubt.
Against that background, the Lord Advocate has, following a request from me, decided to refer to the Supreme Court the question of whether Scottish Parliament legislation for such a referendum relates to reserved matters. The reference is being served on the Advocate General today.
It is a matter of deep regret to me that this action is necessary. In a voluntary union of nations where the people of one nation have voted in elections to give a mandate for a referendum, it is, in my view, unacceptable democratically that the route to a referendum has to be via the courts rather than by co-operation between the UK and Scottish Governments.
Indeed your actions to date call into question the whole idea of the UK as a voluntary partnership.
You and I will never agree on the merits of independence for Scotland. But I would expect any democrat to agree that it is unacceptable for the people of Scotland to be blocked from making that choice given the clear majority for a referendum in the Scottish Parliament.
Although the Court action is in progress, I continue to stand ready to negotiate the terms of a section 30 order with you, as we did with the UK Government in 2012, to respect the mandate given by the people of Scotland.
Yours sincerely,
Nicola Sturgeon
First Minister of Scotland
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