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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll