UK Government: Supreme Court does not have power to rule on legality of Indyref2

The Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Stewart QC, has said the decision does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
The UK Government has now submitted its written argument in the Supreme Court referendum case (David Cheskin/PA).
PA Archive
Rebecca McCurdy10 August 2022

The Supreme Court does not have the “jurisdiction” to determine the legality of a second Scottish independence referendum, the UK Government has said in a written submission to the court.

Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Stewart QC, published his written submission on behalf of UK ministers on Wednesday.

It argues the case on whether a prospective bill, which would legislate for another referendum, would be within the powers of Holyrood.

But the case, brought forward by Scotland’s Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain, “does not fall within the jurisdiction” of the Supreme Court, according to UK law officers.

The UK Government’s clear view remains that a Bill legislating for a referendum on independence would be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament

UK Government spokesperson

Lord Stewart went on to advise the court to “decline to determine the reference as a matter of its inherent discretion”.

However, he also argues that even if the court does decide it has jurisdiction over the matter, Holyrood would be unable to hold a lawful referendum.

Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has stated she intends to hold a referendum on October 19 2023, depending on the court’s ruling.

Lord Stewart QC said: “A referendum on Scottish independence plainly (at least) relates to the reserved matters of the United Kingdom of Scotland and England and of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Lord Advoctate Dorothy Bain QC referred the matter to the Supreme Court (PA)
PA Archive

“That conclusion is unaffected by whether the referendum is, in its outcome, advisory or legally binding.”

A UK Government spokesperson said: “People across Scotland want both their Governments to be working together on the issues that matter to them and their families, not talking about another independence referendum.”

The spokesperson added: “On the question of legislative competence, the UK Government’s clear view remains that a Bill legislating for a referendum on independence would be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.”

The UK Government’s submission also states that there are “surprising consequences” which could arise by the Lord Advocate’s referral to the court.

Were the outcome to favour independence, it would be used to seek to build momentum towards achieving that end: the termination of the Union and the secession of Scotland

Lord Stewart, Lord Advocate of Scotland

It said it could allow UK law officers to make “pre-emptive” references to any Scottish legislative proposal deemed to be “outside of legislative competence”.

In its submission to the court, submitted last month, the Scottish Government leaned heavily on any future referendum not being “self-executing”, meaning it would be purely advisory and only meant as a way to ascertain the views of the Scottish people.

But Lord Stewart QC said it was wrong to consider the referendum as “advisory”.

If the decision favoured independence, he said it would be used to “build momentum” towards the “termination of the Union”.

His submission said: “It is, of course, right that the outcome of the referendum provided for by the draft Bill has no legal effect: it is not self-executing.

“But nor can it credibly be suggested that the outcome of the referendum will be advisory in the sense of being treated as a matter of academic interest only.”

It continued: “Were the outcome to favour independence, it would be used (and no doubt used by the SNP as the central plank) to seek to build momentum towards achieving that end: the termination of the Union and the secession of Scotland.

“It is precisely in that hope that the draft Bill is being proposed.”

The SNP have also made an attempt to intervene in the case, arguing that – as a public body – it would be “fair, just and reasonable” for the party to make arguments to the Court.

The hearings will be heard on October 11 and 12.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in