ANSWERING the question of whether Holyrood can hold an independence referendum without Westminster consent is of “exceptional importance”, the Supreme Court has been told.
Five justices, including the Court president, the Scottish judge Lord Reed, began hearing arguments today about whether a draft Referendum Bill can proceed.
Nicola Sturgeon has said that if it can go ahead legally, she will hold Indyref2 on 19 October 2023.
If not, she will fight the next general election as a "de facto" referendum on the single question of independent.
The Scottish Government’s most senior law officer, the Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC, began making her arguments after a short introductory statement from Lord Reed.
He set out the function of the court and said it would likely be “some months” before a decision was delivered.
Two days have been set aside for the hearing at the Supreme Court in London, with the UK Government expected to respond on Wednesday.
The justices have been asked to decide whether the Bill relates to “reserved matters” – meaning it is outwith Holyrood’s competence.
Ms Bain said it was “necessary” and “in the public interest” that the question of legislative competence was answered by the court.
She said a majority of Scottish MPs were elected in 2019, and MSPs in 2021, on manifesto commitments to hold a further referendum.
“The issue of Scottish independence is a live and significant one in Scottish electoral politics and the Scottish Government wish to introduce a Bill in the Scottish Parliament to provide for the holding of a referendum,” she said.
Ms Bain later discussed arguments around the legality of an independence referendum.
She referred to comments made in Westminster regarding the Scotland Act of 1998, as well as the views of legal academics.
The referendum proposed by the Scottish Government was “non self-executing”, she said.
She told the court: “That was the case in the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013, which provided for a referendum on independence.
“It was a position adopted by the Westminster Parliament in the European Union Referendum Act 2015. And it is the position in respect of the draft Bill.
“A non self-executing referendum invariably has political consequences, but in law, it has no effect. They are entirely advisory.”
The Lord Advocate later said that without a ruling from the Supreme Court to resolve the issue of whether Holyrood has the legal power to bring forward a referendum Bill, she would not be able to “clear” the introduction of such a Bill herself.
She said there was a “genuine issue” that was unresolved, adding: “The issue is one of exceptional importance to the people of Scotland and the UK.”
The Lord Advocate also said there was a “risk” that a referendum bill could be introduced by an individual member of the Scottish Parliament, and said this underlined the need for a ruling from the court on the legal issues.
She also said the circumstances which led to the case were “highly exceptional”.
She rejected arguments by the Advocate General for Scotland, who represents the UK Government, that the Supreme Court should refuse to determine the referendum case because it was “advisory, abstract, hypothetical” and “premature”.
She told the justices: “It’s simply not the correct characterisation of the reference”.
She said a Lord Advocate should not be the “ultimate arbiter” on the issue.
The Lord Advocate went on to argue that the Scottish Government’s draft Bill for an independence referendum is within Holyrood’s legislative competence.
She said: “Holding a referendum is not a reserved matter.”
Nobody disputed that the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020, which set out provisions for the conduct and regulation of referendums, was within Holyrood’s legislative competence, she said.
Earlier, Lord Reed told those following the hearing that it was likely to be “some months” before justices gave their ruling.
He said that “despite the political context” of the case, the issues the court had to consider were “limited to technical questions of law”.
The first is whether the court should have jurisdiction over the case and, if it does, how it should answer the question over whether or not the proposed referendum Bill relates to “reserved matters” and is outside the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence.
“The court will decide them by applying legal principle,” Lord Reed said.
He said justices had “more than 8,000 pages of written material to consider”.
Lord Reed added: “It is likely to be some months before we give our judgment.”
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