Has Indyref schism opened between SNP and Lord Advocate?
By Party wants its own say in Supreme Court case
THE SNP will instruct lawyers to represent the party in the Supreme Court at a hearing to decide the legality of a second independence referendum.
The move has sparked speculation of a schism between the SNP and the Lord Advocate, because her response to their plans has been ‘too neutral’ and they want something ‘a bit more rabble rousing’.
Releasing her written arguments on Friday ahead of the hearing in October, Dorothy Bain, QC, said a rerun of the 2014 vote without Westminster’s consent would only be ‘advisory’ with no legal effect.
The SNP then announced yesterday it will make an application to intervene in the legal debate. Lord
‘They want something more rabble rousing’
Sumption, a former Supreme Court judge from 2012 to 2018, said: ‘It tends to suggest a difference between the Lord Advocate and the SNP, although the Lord Advocate is the independent legal adviser of the SNP government in Scotland.
‘I suspect the SNP is concerned that the Lord Advocate may be a bit too neutral for their tastes and they want something a bit more rabble rousing.
‘The intervention suggests that the SNP are not satisfied with the approach of the Lord Advocate.’
If the SNP is successful in its application, party lawyers will only be allowed to make legal points to the court. Any attempt to politicise proceedings would be rejected.
Lord Sumption added: ‘The
Supreme Court likes to be addressed by advocates with a certain objectivity. This looks like an attempt to turn it into a political debate. They will hate that.’
Lord Sumption was backed by Roddy Dunlop, QC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates. He argued that if the intervention is granted, it could work against the SNP and undermine the Lord Advocate’s argument.
Mr Dunlop said: ‘Given the apolitical nature of the Lord Advocate’s reference, which is completely balanced and seeking to divorce the legal consequences from political consequences, it is very interesting to hear that the SNP are going to make an application to intervene.
‘They feel perhaps that she is being straight down the line and completely independent, saying, “I am an honest broker coming to the court for an answer here”, and the SNP have decided that is all very interesting but that doesn’t fully meet our objectives, so we want our own say.’
In her submission, Ms Bain suggested a referendum may not affect reserved powers because it would merely gauge public opinion, and ‘would have no prescribed legal consequences arising from its result’.
She added: ‘The wider motivations and aspirations of the Scottish Government and other political parties are not legally relevant.
‘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.’
A spokesman for the SNP said: ‘The SNP has full confidence in the case being put forward by the Lord Advocate.’