THE SNP’s application to intervene in the Scottish Government’s indyref2 legal battle has been granted by the Supreme Court, but only “by way of written submissions."

The party had asked for the right to “make short oral submissions” during the case to “set out its arguments."

However, that has been knocked back by the justices. 

Instead, Nicola Sturgeon’s party can only involve themselves in the battle through a written submission “limited to 20 pages and avoiding repetition of the Lord Advocate’s arguments.” 

They have until 21 September 2022 to file their arguments. The other parties in the case, the Scottish and UK government, will then have two weeks to respond to the SNP’s arguments. 

That will mean the SNP's input is over by the time the Supreme Court holds the hearing on 11 and 12 October.

In July, in a surprise move, the party’s ruling national executive committee unanimously agreed to ask for permission to take part in the case. 

The intervention led to speculation that the SNP were unhappy with the even-handed approach of Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain. 

Roddy Dunlop QC, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, suggested there was a risk the party's case could “cut across” the arguments made by the law officer

However, in their submission to the court asking to intervene, drawn up by Claire Mitchell QC and advocate David Welsh, the SNP insist their argument is “additional and complementary to those set out by the Lord Advocate” and is not intended to “detract from” her position.

Although the 1998 Scotland Act explicitly states that the Union is reserved to Westminster, legal academics have, for years, suggested there is some uncertainty around whether or not it is lawful for the Scottish Parliament to hold a vote.

The issue has never been settled definitively by a court.

In her written case, Ms Bain suggested Holyrood staging its own independence referendum would have no legal effect because it would only be "advisory."

She told the court a vote was possible if the justices ignored the wider political implications. 

In their application to join the case, the SNP said that they have long believed that it is unnecessary for Holyrood to require the consent of Westminster to hold an independence referendum.

But for the 2014 vote, it was “politically expedient” to agree to a Section 30 order devolving the necessary powers as “it removed the threat of legal challenge from the process.”

The application goes on to say that “there have been a series of material changes in circumstances since the 2014 independence referendum which collectively justify the Scottish people being asked for their views in relation to Scottish independence again”.

These include Brexit and the “dramatic growth in support” for the SNP and other pro-independence parties.

The SNP also argued that there should be weight attached to their 2021 manifesto which contained an explicit commitment to give the people of Scotland “the right to decide our own future” and “a referendum when the Covid crisis is over to decide whether Scotland should be an independent country.” 

The SNP said the holding of a referendum would have no more “than a loose or consequential connection with any reserved matter in the 1998 Act.” 

“Seeking to test the views of the Scottish people by way of a referendum is perfectly competent and, standing the continued electoral mandate given to the applicant as set out above, it is democratically unthinkable that the people of Scotland would be denied such a right to express their view.”

They argue that “the holding of a consultative referendum does not result in a reduction in the scope of the powers of the UK Parliament and nor does it, of itself, have any effect on the Union.”

They add: “Legislation to enable such a referendum does not, therefore, in the respectful submission of the applicant, relate to the reservation of the Union nor to the Parliament of the United Kingdom.”

Responding to the court's decision to restrict the SNP's intervention to written arguments, the Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton said: "At a time when the Scottish Government is bemoaning the lack of funding and flexibility it has to tackle the cost-of-living crisis, the first thing on the chopping block should be spending money on this court case and all their other plans to break up the UK.

"There can be no excuse for wasting money in this fashion when families and businesses are worrying how they will make it through the winter.

"The only people who will profit from this court case are the lawyers."