THE Lord Advocate did not “have the necessary degree of confidence” that Holyrood could legislate for a second independence referendum to clear a bill for introduction to the Scottish Parliament.
The revelation comes from a reference to the UK’s Supreme Court published by the Scottish Government on Tuesday.
Last week, Nicola Sturgeon announced that her referendum bill, which aims to legislate for a vote to be held on October 19, 2023, had been directly referred to the Supreme Court.
Legal commentators are split on whether Holyrood can hold a second independence vote without Westminster’s consent because, while referendums are devolved, the Union is reserved.
The Government said that the Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain (below), decided to make the Supreme Court reference "following consideration of a number of factors including the constitutional significance of the matter and the fact that issues of law remain unresolved".
Bain's submission includes a complete copy of the referendum bill which the SNP-Green government aims to pass through the Scottish Parliament.
It goes on to say: "The Lord Advocate considers:
"(1) There is a genuine issue of law that is unresolved;
"(2) That issue of law is of exceptional public importance to the people of Scotland and the United Kingdom; and
"(3) It is directly relevant to a central manifesto pledge that the Scottish electorate has endorsed."
The submission adds: "In the circumstances, the Lord Advocate has determined that it is appropriate for her to exercise her powers ... to obtain a ruling from the Supreme Court on whether the holding of an advisory referendum on independence would relate to reserved matters.
"The answer to the question referred will determine whether the Scottish Parliament can debate and vote upon the bill which is the subject of a manifesto commitment."
Bain has asked the Supreme Court to answer the question: "Does the provision of the proposed Scottish Independence Referendum Bill that provides that the question to be asked in a referendum would be 'Should Scotland be an independent country?' relate to reserved matters?
"In particular, does it relate to: (i) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England (Para. I (b) of Schedule S); and/or (ii) the Parliament of the United Kingdom (Para. I (c) of Schedule 5)?"
The submission says "the Lord Advocate does not have the necessary degree of confidence" to have answered the question herself.
Tory MSP Murdo Fraser said this line was "devastating", writing on Twitter: "Now we know why @scotgov couldn’t introduce their referendum bill – the Lord Advocate couldn’t certify it as within devolved competence."
Donald Cameron, the Tories' constitution spokesperson, said the Scottish Government had its priorities "all wrong".
He added: "Scotland’s top law officer is not confident that the First Minister’s plan to hold a divisive and unwanted referendum has any legal basis.
“Yet again we can see exactly what the SNP are up to – playing political games by going to court in order to stir up grievance."
READ MORE: How would a ‘de facto indyref2’ deliver independence for Scotland?
SNP Minister Neil Gray said: “There is a substantial majority in the Scottish Parliament in favour of an independence referendum and therefore a clear democratic mandate. However, as the First Minister set out last week, there remains debate over whether the Scottish Parliament has the powers to legislate to hold a referendum.
“A Supreme Court decision on the matter seeks to accelerate us to the point that we have legal clarity. We hope that it will be deemed to be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. If that outcome is secured we will then introduce the bill.
“While that decision now rests in the hands of the Supreme Court, we will not comment on the arguments in the case. Our focus remains clear – we will continue to set out the strong and compelling case for Scotland to become an independent country.”
The Government added that the Lord Advocate’s "full written case will be filed in due course".
If the Supreme Court rules that Scotland cannot legally hold indyref2 without Westminster's consent, the First Minister has said the SNP will fight the next General Election as a "de facto" referendum.
The SNP will aim to win more than 50% of the votes cast in Scotland in order to secure a mandate.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel