THE UK Supreme Court is not Nicola Sturgeon's Plan A.
For years she resisted the idea of asking for a definitive ruling on whether Holyrood could hold a legally watertight independence referendum without Westminster consent.
It was a "Unionist trap" that could set back the cause by closing down a useful ambiguity and neuter threats of Holyrood holding its own vote if Westminster refused to cooperate on Indyref2.
But with the UK Government refusing to lend Holyrood extra powers for a referendum, as happened in 2014, and pressure from her own party for tangible progress, she had few options.
The Scottish Government's most senior law officer, the Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC, had also refused to sign off a draft Referendum Bill in case it exceeded Holyrood's powers.
Stymied, the First Minister asked Ms Bain if she would refer the question to the Court under a never-used power given to the Lord Advocate by the 1998 Scotland Act.
Mr Bain agreed, the application was made in June, and the two-day hearing this week is the result.
If it goes Ms Sturgeon's way, she has said Indyref2 will be held on October 19 2023.
If not, she has said she will fight the next general election as a de facto referendum.
The first day's arguments were highly technical in parts, but in essence Ms Bain asked the Court to rule on whether
Holyrood can use its existing powers to legislate for a referendum asking people, 'Should Scotland be an independent country?'
It is agreed by the Scottish and UK Governments that if a Bill "relates to" the reserved, Westminster-only areas of the Union and the UK Parliament it is null and void, or "not law".
There was therefore a lot of debate about whether the draft Bill really does "relate to" these areas, or has only a "loose or consequential" connection.
At first glance, it might seem obvious that the subject of the Bill means it relates to those areas very directly.
But Ms Bain argued yesterday - as the SNP have in a written submission - that the Bill does not relate to the Union, as its sole legal purpose would be to ascertain people's views on independence, not automatically secure it.
It would be purely advisory, the result would not change other laws directly, and so its legal effect would be "nil".
Whatever the motives of Scottish ministers in holding Indyref2 might be, the Court should restrict its consideration to the letter of the law, not speculate about the political aftermath, Ms Bain said.
The UK Government's reply is basically "Come off it" . It will today argue the Court must take into account the wider context, including the SNP saying a Yes vote to Indyref2 means independence.
As the intent of such a referendum would clearly be to bring about the end of the UK, a Holyrood Bill for Indyref2 would clearly "relate to" the Union, and so be ultra vires.
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