Holyrood's lack of indyref2 powers is 'obvious', says UK government

UK authorities lawyers person told the Supreme Court it is "obvious" that the Scottish Parliament does not person the powerfulness to signifier an independency ballot without Westminster's consent.

Judges are considering whether the Scottish authorities is capable to legislate for a referendum.

Holyrood ministers reason this would autumn wrong devolved powers, but the UK authorities accidental it is simply a reserved matter.

The UK's highest tribunal is proceeding the lawsuit astatine a two-day league successful London.

A ruling is not expected for immoderate months.

Scotland's lord advocator referred the lawsuit to the Supreme Court owed to uncertainty implicit whether Holyrood could legislate for a 2nd independency referendum portion this was opposed astatine Westminster.

Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC, the Scottish government's apical instrumentality officer, argued connected Tuesday that a projected Scottish Independence Referendum Bill would beryllium politically neutral and that the motivations of authorities ministers should not beryllium considered.

The Scottish authorities says a referendum would beryllium "advisory" and would person nary ineligible effect connected the Union.

But connected Wednesday, Sir James Eadie KC, the UK government's autarkic barrister connected ineligible issues of nationalist importance, said it was "obvious" that the measure relates to reserved matters and the Union.

He said that meant it would autumn extracurricular of the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

Sir James said: "The impacts and effects of Scottish independency would beryllium felt passim the United Kingdom.

"All parts of the United Kingdom person an involvement successful that issue, not conscionable Scotland.

"It's evident wherefore it's reserved to the United Kingdom parliament. It's of captious value to the United Kingdom arsenic a whole."

He besides rejected Ms Bain's assertion that the ineligible effects of the measure would beryllium "relevantly nil".

"The lord advocate's presumption has to beryllium that authorities which would straight modulate a referendum connected the precise taxable substance that is reserved does not adjacent subordinate to that taxable matter," said Sir James.

"That, we respectfully submit, is untenable arsenic a submission. The Union is the precise and the sole entity of the referendum that the measure purports to acceptable up."

Sir James went connected to accidental that a written submission from the SNP stressing Scotland's close to self-determination "fails astatine astir each analytical stage".

On Tuesday, Ms Bain told the sheet of 5 justices that it was "necessary" and "in the nationalist interest" that the question of legislative competence was answered by the court.

Sir James branded the logic of Ms Bain's presumption "uncontrolled and surprising".

He maintains the tribunal cannot regularisation connected a measure which has not been passed by the parliament.

Sir James besides said that the Supreme Court should not regularisation connected the lawsuit due to the fact that the Scotland Act was created successful a "binary" way, meaning that the instrumentality serviceman either has assurance successful projected authorities oregon does not.

He argued that if the instrumentality serviceman does not person confidence, past the measure cannot beryllium introduced.

Sir James said the lord advocator was capable to reply the question of whether the projected authorities falls wrong the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

"The trouble is that she tin reply it and has done so," helium said.

"And the occupation for her is that the Scottish authorities bash not similar the reply that she has fixed connected competence."

He said Ms Bain "is not capable to signifier a presumption with a capable grade of assurance that the measure that is projected would beryllium wrong competence.

"There is not trouble with answering the question, the trouble is with the answer."

Sir James had besides argued that Supreme Court should not see the Lord Advocate's lawsuit because, successful the lack of a bill, nary due trigger constituent for a notation has been reached and that references cannot beryllium made "willy-nilly".

In her closing remarks, Ms Bain took contented with a coment from Sir James astir cases being brought to the Supreme Court "willy-nilly".

She said specified comments "belittle" a substance of the "upmost law importance".

The lord advocator continued: "It's conscionable not close that helium should accidental what helium said astir wherefore we're here.

"It's truthful unfair and it's reflected successful everything we've enactment guardant successful our case."

She besides dismissed the proposition this lawsuit would unfastened the "floodgates" to submissions to the Supreme Court erstwhile instrumentality officers were unsure of their parliament's jurisdiction.

Ms Bain pointed retired that this was the archetypal specified notation successful the past of devolution.

The Supreme Court's elder judge, Lord Reed, warned it could beryllium "some months" earlier a ruling is reached successful the case.

He said the two-day proceeding was conscionable the "tip of the iceberg", with much than 8,000 pages of written worldly to consider.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon aims to clasp an independency referendum connected 19 October 2023.

But if the ruling does not spell successful her favour, she says the authorities volition see the adjacent wide predetermination a "de facto referendum".

Former archetypal curate Alex Salmond, who is present person of the Alba Party, said the Scottish authorities was incorrect to instrumentality the contented to the Supreme Court – and warned the lawsuit could effect successful a referendum with nary ineligible basis.

He told BBC Scotland: "If the Scottish authorities were to triumph this case, past they would triumph it connected the ground that the authorities they passed would person nary ineligible effect due to the fact that that's the constrictive constituent the lord advocator is arguing."

The erstwhile SNP person insisted it should beryllium the Scottish radical who resoluteness the issue, not the UK court.

"If you're going to instrumentality a hazard successful presumption of determining the aboriginal of the Scottish federation past you should bash it successful the champion imaginable condition successful the champion imaginable place," helium said.

He argued that this spot was not successful the Supreme Court.