The UK government has asked Supreme Court judges to throw out the Scottish government’s request for a ruling on whether or not it has the power to legally hold a second referendum on Scottish independence without Westminster’s consent.
Scottish first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, recently set out her plans for staging a second referendum on October 19, 2023.
As part of her campaign, she has asked Scotland’s Lord Advocate to lodge a case with the Supreme Court to determine whether Holyrood could hold a legal referendum without Westminster granting its consent with a Section 30 order.
However, the UK government has argued that Holyrood clearly lacks the powers to hold a referendum, and that the Scottish government’s case should be thrown out.
Sturgeon has previously said that if the Court upheld Holyrood’s right to hold a referendum, then the Scottish government’s independence referendum bill would be fast-tracked through the Scottish parliament to pave the way for a second vote next October.
However, if the Supreme Court were to rule against the Scottish government, then Sturgeon suggested she would fight the next general election with the SNP campaigning solely on independence, rendering the election a “de facto referendum”.
Scotland’s Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain, has said that she “does not have the necessary degree of confidence” that Holyrood will be able to stage a second independence referendum and has refused to sign off the Scottish government’s independence referendum bill without the Supreme Court ruling in its favour.
Prior to the Scottish government lodging its case, the UK government has repeatedly insisted that it is not the appropriate time for a second referendum and has urged the Scottish and UK governments to work together on more pressing issues.
The UK government has now informed the Supreme Court of its perspective that any issues centred around the UK constitution are under Westminster’s jurisdiction and argued that it would be “premature” for judges to rule on an independence bill that has not yet been presented at Holyrood nor passed by MSPs.
Should the case still be heard at the Supreme Court, Westminster has confirmed that it will summon its leading legal advisor for Scotland, the Advocate General, to the courtroom.
A UK government spokesperson said: “Following the Lord Advocate's referral of the Scottish government's draft Scottish Independence Referendum Bill, the UK government has today lodged its initial response with the Supreme Court.
“The papers confirm that the Advocate General for Scotland will become a formal party to the case and ask the court to consider whether it should accept the Lord Advocate's referral.”
A spokesperson for Sturgeon has said that the UK government’s response to the Scottish government’s move is indicative of “how little confidence it has in its case for the union”, given its “unwillingness to even make a substantive argument before the Supreme Court.”
Lord Reed, the president of the Supreme Court, is currently overseeing the handling of the Scottish government’s case and is to decide on the timescales within which it will be heard, if it is allowed to come before judges.
