The British government has urged judges to reject the Scottish government’s request for a decision on whether it has the authority to organize the second independence referendum.
The Scottish government has requested that the Supreme Court review whether a referendum may be held without Westminster’s explicit assent.
Now, the British government questions whether the court should accept the case.
And it was stated that it was evident that Holyrood lacks the required authorities.
The case was submitted to the Supreme Court by Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain, the chief legal officer of the Scottish government, last month.
It came after First Minister Nicola Sturgeon outlined her strategy for obtaining another independence referendum, which she plans to conduct on October 19, 2023.
The first minister expressed hope that the Supreme Court will “provide clarification and legal certainty in a rapid manner” regarding her ability to organize a referendum even if the British government continues to refuse permission.
If the court determines that Holyrood lacks authority, the next general election will become a “de facto referendum” with the SNP campaigning solely on the topic of independence, she added.
It was then revealed that the Lord Advocate was unwilling to approve the Scottish government’s independence referendum bill without a Supreme Court justice.
She stated that she “lacks the required degree of confidence” that the Scottish Parliament would have the authority to convene indyref2 at this time.
In its initial answer to the Supreme Court, the United Kingdom government stated its “clear view” that a bill calling for an independence referendum would be beyond the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, saying that constitutional concerns are reserved for Westminster.
It further stated that because the referendum legislation has not been ratified by MSPs or even introduced to the Scottish Parliament, it would be premature for courts to pronounce it.
In addition, it confirmed that its chief legal advisor in Scotland, the Advocate General, will be involved in the case.
A spokesman for the UK government stated that “now is not the time to debate another independence referendum, as the people of Scotland want their respective governments to collaborate on the problems that matter to them and their families.
He added: “However, in response to the Lord Advocate’s referral of the draught Scottish Independence Referendum Bill by the Scottish government, the UK government has today filed its initial response with the Supreme Court.
“The documents reveal that the Advocate General for Scotland will join the action as a formal party and ask the court to examine whether it should accept the Lord Advocate’s referral.”
The Supreme Court is the highest in the United Kingdom, and its judges, known as justices, have the final say on the most significant legal matters. They are the ultimate check on the laws and constitution of the United Kingdom.
Lord Reed, a former Scottish Court of Session judge, is currently handling the case as the president of the court. He will determine when the case will be heard and whether preliminary issues need to be addressed beforehand.
Ms. Sturgeon stated that if the Scottish government prevails in court, the measure will be submitted at Holyrood and promptly enacted to enable a vote in October 2023.
It demonstrates how far apart the Scottish and British administrations are on this topic that they are debating whether or not to have a debate.
The UK government had a deadline to answer to the court, and it seemed highly doubtful that it would not contest the case.
They would almost certainly attempt to have the case dismissed. The general approach in court is to throw the kitchen sink or to present any argument that has a chance of victory.
Nonetheless, this provides an intriguing look into the British government’s position.
They expect that if the court decides not to consider the case until a bill has been approved, leaving the Lord Advocate in a Catch-22 situation, the matter will be eliminated.
She does not wish to approve the measure’s tabling until a ruling has been made, but judges may wait to rule until a bill has been passed.
This viewpoint could change in the future, given that she claims resolving this issue is of “extraordinary public importance.”
And the Scottish government will undoubtedly respond, both in the courts and through political statements.
