John Ferry John Ferry

The key flaw in the SNP’s indyref ruse

Sturgeon's party is playing games with the Supreme Court

(Credit: Getty images)

This week we’ve had the bizarre occurrence of the SNP formally submitting a request to intervene in the Indyref2 Supreme Court case, even though Scotland’s top law officer, the Lord Advocate, has already put forward the Scottish Government’s written case.

To recap, the Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain has referred a prospective bill on a referendum to the UK Supreme Court so that judges can rule on whether Holyrood has the power to unilaterally hold a vote. In a 51-page written submission to the court, Bain argues a referendum, which Nicola Sturgeon wants to see take place in October 2023, would merely demonstrate the views of the Scottish people regarding secession from the UK and would not have the legal outcome of ending the union. Being purely advisory, and having no legal effect, legislation unilaterally enabling a referendum is, therefore, not of a kind that it ‘relates to’ the reserved matter of the union, goes the argument.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in