THE UK Government kept up efforts to have the Supreme Court independence referendum case thrown out altogether as its top law officer gave evidence the Lord Advocate described as "belittling".
On the second and final day of the constitutional showdown in London, Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Advocate General for Scotland, spent most of his time arguing that the reference should be tossed rather than engaging with any of the substantive arguments.
Eadie refused to address the SNP’s written submission which set out the argument for Scotland’s right to self-determination, instead claiming that the Lord Advocate had brought a “strange” case to the UK’s highest court with arguments that go against “common sense”.
On Tuesday Dorothy Bain KC, on behalf of the Scottish Government, argued that the political implications of an independence referendum should be separated and the court only decide on a point of law - whether or not the Scottish Parliament has the legislative competence to pass a Referendum Bill.
Lord Stephens, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Reed, Lord Sales and Lady Rose were told by Eadie that as the bill is in draft form it is at too early a stage for the court to offer a ruling.
The judges are being asked to make a decision on two points, first whether they should rule on the issue at all, and secondly whether it is within Holyrood’s competence.
Eadie continues his arguments
Eadie spent around two hours and 40 minutes of his morning session arguing that the court should throw out the reference as it is not in the court’s jurisdiction. He also claimed that the Scottish Government “do not like” the initial answer they received from the Lord Advocate around the competence of the draft bill.
READ MORE: Supreme Court: Douglas Ross slinks out as Alex Cole-Hamilton doubts Yes chances
Continuing his arguments from Tuesday afternoon, Eadie told the court that the question of whether or not a bill is within Holyrood’s competence should not be “farmed out” to the Supreme Court.
Eadie argued that the MSP in charge of a bill must make a “positive” statement of competence was part of “pre-legislative safeguards” that exist in law.
“It is for the person in charge of the bill to form that view,” Eadie said, adding that it was not “simply to be farmed out to the Supreme Court”.
He added that this would involve inviting justices “to in effect provide advice to the person in charge of the bill and or the law officer”.
The UK Government lawyer also claimed that it is “obvious” the Scottish Parliament doesn’t have competence to legislate for indyref2, and that the proposed bill is “self-evidently, directly and squarely” about a matter reserved to Westminster – the Union between Scotland and England.
Lord Advocate's rebuttal
In her rebuttal, the Lord Advocate told the Supreme Court that she did not raise the issue of a Scottish independence referendum on a “whim or willy-nilly”
She told justices in reply to arguments earlier made by Eadie: “The reference has been brought responsibly and after careful consideration as to whether it would be appropriate to do so.”
READ MORE: Summary: The key arguments in the Supreme Court on day one of the indyref case
Bain continued: “The reference has been brought not because the issue is trivial.
“It is a matter of the utmost constitutional importance.”
In response to a suggestion that the Supreme Court accepting jurisdiction over the issue would risk “opening the floodgates”, she told the court: “The power to make a reference… is conferred on law officers who can be assumed to exercise the function responsibly.
“The court may have regard to the reality of the situation.
“The reality here is that I have used the power to make this reference as Lord Advocate and it’s the first reference since the beginning of devolution.”
Bain described Eadie’s arguments over the nature of the case as “so unfair” and set out that the matter had been a “real issue, a festering issue from the early days of devolution”.
She said Eadie’s characterisation was “just not right” and that he was trying to make a “crystalised” argument academic, adding that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon had asked her to make the reference to the court.
The conclusion
Closing her arguments, Bain said that the UK Government’s points were “belittling”, and warned that some lawyers lose cases they think they will win, while others win cases they think they will lose.
The court’s president Lord Reed brought proceedings to a close after lawyers had finished making their oral arguments.
He reiterated the panel of five justices “will require time to consider what we’ve heard” adding that they “appreciate the importance of this and we will let you have our judgment as soon as we can”.
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