Supreme Court told Scotland must get say on Article 50.

Lord Advocate tells court country’s consent is of constitutional significance

Scotland is entitled to “a voice” on Brexit, the country’s most senior law officer has argued at the Supreme Court.

Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC said he is not asking for a veto, but the Scottish Parliament is entitled to a vote before the triggering of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to start the two-year process of negotiating the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

Whether Scotland consented is “a matter of constitutional significance”.

EU law provisions would become redundant following withdrawal from the EU with a whole series of effects on Scotland’s devolved legislative powers, said Mr Wolffe in submissions to 11 justices in the highest court in the land.

He argued that giving notice under Article 50 would require an Act of Parliament at Westminster and a legislative consent motion from Holyrood.

He submitted that the devolved governments of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are encouraged by “constitutional convention” to “have a voice in the decision”.

The Lord Advocate will continue his submissions on Thursday, the last day of the Supreme Court hearing.

The UK’s highest court was earlier told that a motion in Parliament would not have any effect on the legal issue it is having to decide over the Government’s Brexit strategy.

Eleven justices at the Supreme Court in London heard the submission from the top lawyer who is opposing an appeal by the Government against a High Court ruling blocking its EU exit plan.

Lord Pannick QC was speaking on the third day of the Government’s attempt to persuade the justices to overturn the High Court’s decision.

It ruled ministers have no power to use the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty without the prior authority of Parliament.

During his argument on behalf of Gina Miller, the investment fund manager and philanthropist who won the historic ruling on November 3, Lord Pannick referred the justices to the fact that “a motion may be approved in the House of Commons today”.

He told the panel: “Only an Act of Parliament could lawfully confer power on the appellant to notify.

“Why is that? Well, because notification will nullify statutory rights and nullify a statutory scheme.

“The law of the land is not altered by a motion in Parliament. This is a basic constitutional principle.”

Prime Minister Theresa May still intends to give an Article 50 notification by the end of next March to start the leave negotiations.

James Eadie QC, for the Government, has insisted that it does have the legal power to use the prerogative to trigger Britain’s exit from the EU and has rejected the suggestion that its Brexit strategy was an “affront” to parliamentary sovereignty.

But Lord Pannick declared: “Parliament is sovereign. What Parliament created, only Parliament can take away.”

He told the justices: “I invite the court not to accept any suggestion that the legal limits on ministers’ powers are to be left to, or influenced by, political control – or Parliamentary control – short of an Act of Parliament.”