header-logo header-logo

08 July 2022
Issue: 7986 / Categories: Legal News , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Scottish independence: task assigned

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

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

Senior appointments in insurance services and commercial services announced

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Aviation disputes practice strengthened by London partner hire

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Residential property lawyer promoted to partnership

NEWS
he abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC
Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll