header-logo header-logo

Scottish independence: task assigned

08 July 2022
Issue: 7986 / Categories: Legal News , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail
The Supreme Court has been assigned the task of deciding whether the Scottish Parliament has authority to legislate for a consultative referendum on independence without the approval of Westminster

Under the provisions of the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill, Scots would be asked on 19 October 2023 whether or not they wish to remain in the UK. Authority to hold the 2014 independence referendum was temporarily devolved to the Scottish Parliament by then prime minister, David Cameron under s 30 of the Scotland Act 1998. 

However, Boris Johnson has stated he will refuse to grant s 30 authority for the referendum, pitting Westminster in a head-to-head conflict with Holyrood.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said she was therefore referring the issue to the Supreme Court to decide. Sturgeon said, if the court should decide the Scottish Parliament does not have that power, ‘what it will clarify is this: any notion of the UK as a voluntary union of nations is a fiction.

‘Any suggestion that the UK is a partnership of equals is false. There would be few stronger or more powerful arguments for independence than that.’

The Scottish National Party (SNP) would then fight the next General Election as a de facto referendum by campaigning on the sole issue of independence.

If the court hold the Bill is within Holyrood’s powers, then Sturgeon said her government would ‘immediately introduce’ the Bill.

The court acknowledged receipt last week of a reference by the Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain QC, under para 34, Sched 6 to the Scotland Act 1998. The reference does not need to be granted permission for the case to proceed. Lord Reed, President of the Supreme Court, will now decide whether any preliminary matters need to be addressed, when the case will be heard and which Justices will sit on the bench. For more, see Marc Weller at p8.
Issue: 7986 / Categories: Legal News , Constitutional law
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll