UK parliament approval needed for Scottish independence poll, court told

Read More

Judges sitting in the UK’s highest court have been told Westminster is the ultimate authority on Scotland’s future because Scottish independence is of “critical importance” to the future of the UK.

Sir James Eadie KC, a senior lawyer acting for the UK government, said the union between Scotland and England was “the constitutional foundation of the modern British state”, and mattered to everyone in the UK.

“The impacts and effects of Scottish independence would be felt throughout the UK; all parts of the UK have an interest in that issue, not just Scotland. It is obvious why this is reserved to the UK parliament,” Eadie told the court.

He added: “It’s of critical importance to the UK as a whole; the union is the constitutional foundation of the modern British state and it would be fundamentally at odds with the purpose of devolution to grant powers to the Scottish parliament within the union.”

Eadie’s submission came on the second day of an unprecedented hearing at the supreme court into whether Holyrood has the legal authority to run a referendum next October on Scottish independence without Westminster’s approval.

His remarks are likely to infuriate Scottish government ministers and independence campaigners who insist that Scotland’s future is solely a matter for Scottish voters, and is fundamental to the notion of self-determination. It may also fuel demands from radical independence campaigners for a wildcat referendum.

Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister and the Scottish National party leader, has made the democratic right to self-determination central to her case for staging a second referendum, nine years after losing the 2014 independence referendum.

Dorothy Bain KC, Scotland’s top law officer and the lord advocate, told the court on Tuesday the SNP had repeatedly won Scottish and UK elections on manifesto pledges to pursue independence. The current Scottish parliament has a majority of pro-independence MSPs.

Bain told the court the independence question was of “exceptional public importance to the people of Scotland and to the people of the UK. It is central to a manifesto commitment endorsed by the people of Scotland.”

The judges are looking at two questions: can a draft bill that has not yet been scrutinised, amended and passed by MSPs be ruled on by the supreme court; and is this bill a breach of Holyrood’s limited powers?

Bain argues that a proposed referendum bill should be allowed to proceed at Holyrood because it is neutral on the question of independence, and is only concerned with organisation of a referendum; it is also non-binding, so has no legal effect.

She also argues the Scotland Act 1998 allows the lord advocate to get the UK supreme court’s opinions on “devolution matters”, on what the limits of the Scottish parliament’s powers are.

Eadie said Bain was wrong on the provisions of the 1998 act, on case law, including recent decisions by the supreme court, and on common sense. The case law was absolutely clear that the court could only offer its view on the legality of legislation once it had been passed by a parliament.

He said Bain’s refusal to grant the draft bill a certificate of legal competence earlier this year, because she was unsure it was constitutionally safe under that act, made it clear her case was dubious legally.

Eadie dismissed Bain’s claim the bill was constitutionally neutral; he said Sturgeon had repeatedly made clear she wanted the court to “pave the way” for a referendum intended to deliver independence. The proposed legislation was “solely and squarely about the union”; that was clearly in breach of the act.

“It’s entirely clear that they consider and intend [that] the referendum will further the cause of independence,” he said. “There is no secret to any of this.”

The hearing continues.