Scotland’s top law officer has claimed there would be no legal consequences of a bill to stage a second independence referendum.
In arguments to the Supreme Court - which has been asked to rule on whether Holyrood can organise an IndyRef2 - the Lord Advocate said the “wider aspirations” of the Scottish Government were not “legally relevant”.
She argued that any “practical effects” of asking Scots about independence are “speculative” and should not be taken into account.
Nicola Sturgeon’s Government has called for another referendum to take place in October next year - a demand refused by the UK Government.
The SNP/Green Government may attempt to bypass Whitehall, but this would require legally watertight legislation to be passed at Holyrood.
Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain said recently that she does not have sufficient confidence that a Bill would be within Holyrood's powers and she referred the matter to the Supreme Court.
In her written case to the court, the Lord Advocate attempted to separate the ability of Holyrood to ask Scots about independence in a referendum, from what would happen in the event of a Yes vote.
She argued: “The words and provisions of the Bill indicate that the legally relevant purpose is to ascertain the wishes of the people of Scotland on their future.
“The wider motivations and aspirations of the Scottish Government and other political parties are not legally relevant.”
She continued: “The legal consequences of the Bill are, relevantly, nil.
“Any practical effects beyond ascertaining the views of the people of Scotland are speculative, consequential and indirect and should not properly be taken into account.”
Bain claimed the purpose of this “advisory referendum” would only have an “indirect” connection to the Union, which is reserved to Westminster.
In making her case to the Court, she also summarised the arguments for why a Holyrood referendum would be outwith the Parliament’s powers:
“The subject matter of the proposed Bill relates to the subject matter of the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England.
“The Union is a matter for which the UK Parliament retains constitutional responsibility. That Parliament did not intend, in passing the SA, to confer on the Scottish Parliament the power to legislate for a referendum on independence. 39
“A referendum on Scottish independence would have a close connection – and at least more than a loose or consequential connection – with the reserved matter of the Union.
She added: “The purpose of such a referendum would include that of obtaining support for the creation of a Scottish state and the independence of Scotland from the United Kingdom.
“A referendum on Scottish independence will have significant political effects regardless of its outcome.”
Labour MSP Sarah Boyack said: “It is for the Supreme Court to consider these issues and provide an answer once and for all about where these powers lie.
“The SNP and the Tories have both spent years speculating about a referendum in a bid to stoke division and distract from their failures in government.
“Yet, the fact remains whether or not the government can hold a referendum, it is a complete dereliction of duty to do so while bills are soaring, the NHS is in crisis, and people can’t afford to put food on the table.
“The SNP need to stop trying to tear communities apart, and start using the powers they already have to build a better future for Scotland.”
A UK Government spokesperson said: “People across Scotland want both their governments to be working together on the issues that matter to them and their families, not talking about another independence referendum.”
“We preparing our written case on the preliminary points we have noted, as well as the substantive issue, and will submit them to the Court in accordance with its timetable.
“On the question of legislative competence, the UK Government’s clear view remains that a Bill legislating for a referendum on independence would be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.”
To sign up to the Daily Record Politics newsletter, click here.
