Nats submit Indyref legal case

HOLYROOD can hold an independence referendum because the result would have no effect on the Union, the SNP claims in papers submitted to the Supreme Court.

The party yesterday published its application to intervene in the case that was referred by the Lord Advocate asking for clarification on whether a referendum can legally happen without UK Government consent.

The SNP’s legal representatives, Claire Mitchell, QC, and David Welsh, argue that ‘holding a non-self-executing referendum on Scottish independence is within the competence of the Scottish parliament’ and claims the result would have no automatic impact on the Union.

The party intervention is presented as being separate from that of the Scottish Government. But Scottish Conservative constitution spokesman Donald Cameron said last night: ‘It smacks of desperation – and an entirely skewed sense of priorities – that the SNP, as a party, are now lobbying the Supreme Court, on top of their referral to the same court as the Scottish Government.

‘We know that the Lord Advocate – as Scotland’s top law officer – has grave doubts over the legal case for the Scottish Government holding another divisive independence referendum that the majority of Scots simply don’t want.’ Constitutional issues are reserved to Westminster but Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain agreed to ask the Supreme Court on behalf of the Scottish Government to make a judgment on whether holding a referendum ‘relates to reserved matters’.

The SNP argues that a vote for independence will not by itself shatter the Union. It argues that this would only happen following ‘secondary discussions’ between the Governments.

It said: ‘Whatever the outcome of any such referendum, Scotland would not – and could not as a matter of law – become an independent country by default the day after “referendum day”. The referendum itself is not an act of secession; it is not a unilateral declaration of independence.’

The court has said it will hear from both sides in October.