Afternoon summary
- Nicola Sturgeon has asked the supreme court to rule on whether the Scottish government can hold a non-binding referendum on independence, without having Boris Johnson’s permission to stage one. The supreme court has indicated that it will hear the case. Jonathan Sumption, a former supreme court justice, told the PM programme that it looked as if it would be “very difficult” for Sturgeon to obtain a referendum this way. He explained:
The problem is that the constitutional relationship between England and Scotland is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act, which means that the Scottish parliament has no power to legislate for anything that affects the constitutional relationship between two parts of the United Kingdom,
The supreme court would have to consider whether it is lawful to pass legislation designed to put pressure on Westminster on a reserved matter.
Commenting on Sturgeon’s announcement, Boris Johnson told reporters travelling with him to the Nato summit in Madrid.
I haven’t seen exactly what she’s said yet. We will study it very carefully and we will respond properly.
The focus of the country should be on building a stronger economy, that’s what we’re doing with our plan for a stronger economy and I certainly think that we’ll be able to have a stronger economy and a stronger country together.
In her statement Nicola Sturgeon announced what was in effect a fast-track procedure to refer her referendum bill to the supreme court. (I used the word emergency earlier, to refer to the fact this is a rare procedure, intended to speed things up, but fast-track is probably a better term.) She proposed this as an alternative to just getting Holyrood to pass the legislation and then wait for it to be challenged in court.
In a Twitter thread starting here, the lawyer Andrew Nickell explains more about this process.
Short version: people assumed the Indyref Bill would be introduced and then challenged if passed either (a) by way of a referral from the UK government law officers (or potentially the Lord Advocate) or if not (b) by private litigants in judicial review. https://t.co/Eslttpy00g
— PeatWorrier (@PeatWorrier) June 28, 2022