Sir James submits that there is no "unacceptable or democratic lacuna" in this case.

He says there is no reason to suppose that the UK Parliament would have intended Section 6 of the Scotland Act would be used in this way, or that the person in charge of the bill would not be able to offer a positive statement on competence.

It is not a case that the lord advocate can't answer the question, he says. The difficulty is that "she can answer it, and has done so, and the problem is the Scottish government do not like the answer she has given".

Ms Bain is not able to form a view with a sufficient degree of confidence that the bill proposed would be within competence, Sir James adds.

Image source, PA Media

The lawyer putting the UK government’s case in the Supreme court today is James Eadie KC - one of the best-known lawyers in the UK.

His role is First Treasury Counsel – also known as the “Treasury Devil” – which makes him the go-to lawyer the UK government uses for major complex cases.

He represented the UK government in its Brexit court battles – the Miller cases. He also represented the home secretary when the Supreme Court ruled on whether runaway schoolgirl Shamima Begum should be allowed back into the UK from Syria.

Sir James's own chambers describes him as "the best Supreme Court advocate with more experience before the court than anyone else".

Image source, Getty Images

Sir James Eadie KC says the logic of the lord advocate's position is "uncontrolled and surprising".

He asks: "Where is the limit of her case?"

The UK government's barrister asks the court to suppose the Scottish government have an early draft of a bill or even no bill at all.

Could there be a way out of a Catch-22 scenario?published at 11:10 British Summer Time 12 October 2022

11:10 BST 12 October 2022

Glenn Campbell
BBC Scotland Political Editor

This case is principally about whether or not Holyrood has the power to hold an independence referendum without Westminster’s consent.

But first, the judges have to consider if it is appropriate for them to rule at all given that Holyrood has not actually passed a referendum bill yet.

If they decide not to, that would create a Catch-22 style scenario for the Scottish government.

Without legal certainty from the UK Supreme Court, their own legal adviser - the lord advocate - has made clear she would not be comfortable to clear a bill to go before the Scottish Parliament.

So, unless she changed her mind or alternative advice was secured, what other options might be available?

In theory, a minister could bring forward the bill anyway, but they would have to certify that it was within Holyrood’s powers without a firm basis for doing so.

That could put them in breach of the code of conduct for ministers, which requires them to act within the law.

Another possible way forward would be for a backbench MSP to introduce the bill because they are not bound by the same code.

In any event, the bill would almost certainly be referred back to the UK Supreme Court once passed by MSPs for the question about Holyrood’s powers to be resolved at that point.

Sir James Eadie KC says courts don't normally rule on legislation, or a piece of it, that is not finished.

He says a bill must be brought to a state of finality before coming before the Supreme Court.

The UK government law officer explains this is just part of the safeguards put in place.

The UK Parliament was concerned to ensure that the "responsible people" (the people introducing the bill) "consider and pin their colours to the public mast on competence".

Lord Sales responds, saying that for the democratic authority of the Scottish parliament to be engaged, in principle there may be "competence" and one might expect not just a principle of legality, but "a principle of democracy".

Sir James says that the parliament has decided that a true interpretation of the Act is a matter for the cour. Therefore, if the person in charge of bill is not able to say the bill is within competence, then it can’t be introduced,

If that hurdle cannot be surmounted, the court should not be troubled with it, the first treasury consul argues.

Sir James says the Scotland Act is set up in such a way that it doesn’t allow for a bill to be introduced if a law officer is not allowed to make a positive statement.

The UK government officer says the question is whether the Act allows for that possibility - and that hinges fundamentally on interpretation.

His submission is "you can’t get there because it does too much damage to the structure of Act".

Philip Sim
BBC Scotland political correspondent, at the Supreme Court

Lots of early focus on the lord advocate’s role in signing off a bill.

The lord advocate brought the case because she wasn’t sure if the bill was legal.

Mr Eadie says the Scotland Act sets it up in a binary way; she either has confidence in it or not. If she isn’t confident, “so be it” - the bill can’t be introduced.

James Eadie opens up with legal argument on Section 31 of the Scotland Act, picking up from where he left off yesterday.

The UK government officer says if Holyrood's presiding officer decides a draft bill is not within competence, it would not prevent the bill being introduced.

The MSP in charge of the bill would have to state that in their view the provisions of the bill would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

If they can't do that, they can't comply with the statutory duty, explains the KC.

He says the MSP is required to say a positive, that this is a binary question and that is how this is approached by the law officers in Scotland.

The standard that is applied is a balance of probability standard, he says.

Mr Eadie says the Scotland Act sets it up in a binary way, the lord advocate either has confidence in a bill or not. If she isn’t confident, “so be it” - the bill can’t be introduced.

Lord Reed opens proceedings and first up we'll hear the continuation of the UK government's argument from Sir James Eadie KC.

The UK government law officer began presenting his submission yesterday afternoon.

Two legal big-hitters with very different stylespublished at 10:28 British Summer Time 12 October 2022

10:28 BST 12 October 2022

Philip Sim
BBC Scotland political correspondent, at the Supreme Court

Day two at the court will see Sir James Eadie KC continue his submission.

Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain - also a KC - will then have the chance to respond to any extra points.

The two lawyers have very different styles; Sir James is the very archetype of a Supreme Court orator with a booming delivery, while the Lord Advocate makes a more subtle presentation, one hand in her pocket as she glides smoothly through her case.

But of course it is the substance of their arguments which will carry the day.

As Lord Reed noted yesterday, the exchanges in the courtroom are only “the tip of the iceberg” - in a way the case may already have been won or lost by the big ideas carried in the written cases.

Image source, Getty Images

Sir James Eadie KC will continue to put the UK government's case to the Supreme Court Judges this morning.

The UK government's senior counsel is asking the judges to throw out the case altogether.

The UK government's written case noted that the court does not normally give “advisory opinions on abstract legal questions”, arguing that it should not consider a bill until it has passed through parliament.

On the substance of the case, it stated that a referendum “plainly relates to reserved matters”, regardless of the result.

It rejects the idea of a “consultative” vote.

It said there was “no secret” about the Scottish government’s intention – to “achieve independence for Scotland” – meaning the bill would have “significant” effect.

Here's the UK government's written case., external

Image source, Reuters

On the first day of the case we heard arguments from the Scottish government, presented by its principal law officer, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain.

The Scottish government’s case rests on the idea that a vote would only seek the views of Scots about the union, rather than directly breaking it up.

Ms Bain wrote that Scottish ministers might have the “subjective intention” of independence, but that the bill itself was objectively neutral.

She said that even if a majority backed independence it could only happen if Westminster passed a law to bring it about.

In other words, it should be possible for Holyrood to consult the public without Westminster support.

Here's the Lord Advocate's written case., external

This could have big political consequences for indyref2published at 10:09 British Summer Time 12 October 2022

10:09 BST 12 October 2022

Philip Sim
BBC Scotland political correspondent at the Supreme Court

This is the second and final day of arguments at the Supreme Court in London.

The Scottish government hopes the case will settle once and for all whether Holyrood can legislate for an independence referendum, and that it will come down on their side.

But the UK government wants the case thrown out, without a ruling either way, claiming that it’s premature.

Lawyers will be debating points of law and specific interpretations of the Scotland Act.

But the case could have big political consequences for whether Nicola Sturgeon can deliver a referendum as planned next October.

Image source, Getty Images

The key question remains, is there going to be another referendum on Scottish independence on 19 October 2023?

The answer may well depend on the decision of the Supreme Court.

The panel of five judges are being asked if the Scottish Parliament has sufficient legal clout to hold another referendum.

That was not in doubt in 2014 because Westminster lent Holyrood the explicit legal authority to go ahead with a referendum - which the No side won by 55% to 45%.

This time the Conservative government does not agree with holding a second referendum.

But SNP ministers at Holyrood argue the public should be consulted regardless of what Westminster says.

It is the Supreme Court who are being asked to decide.

Image source, SUPREME COURT

If you are just joining us, here is a catch-up on what happened on the first day of this two-day case on Tuesday.

The UK Supreme Court was urged to resolve the "festering" issue of whether Holyrood could set up a Scottish independence referendum without the agreement of Westminster.

The Scottish government's top law officer, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain, argued it was in the "public interest" to settle the question.

But the Westminster government wants the UK's highest court to refuse to rule on the case and its law officer James Eadie will continue to make that argument this morning.

It argues that the question is beyond the court's jurisdiction – and that it can only give a judgement if the bill has been passed by MSPs.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon wants to hold an independence referendum on 19 October 2023, but this is opposed by the UK government.

Read more here.

Good morning. Welcome to our coverage of the second day of the Supreme Court's consideration of whether the Scottish Parliament can legislate for a second referendum on independence.

From about 10:30 BST, a panel of five judges will continue to hear the case put by the UK government's law officer James Eadie. Scotland's lord advocate, Dorothy Bain, will then make a final response for the Scottish government side.

It is not known when the judges will deliver a judgement but it could take several months.

That's it for our live coverage of day one of the Supreme Court hearing.

We'll be back tomorrow, ahead of court proceedings resuming at 10:30.

A measured start - but the impact could be explosivepublished at 16:42 British Summer Time 11 October 2022

16:42 BST 11 October 2022

Philip Sim
BBC Scotland political correspondent, at the Supreme Court

Dorothy Bain set out her case very much as it was stated in her written argument – but it was quite different to hear it presented aloud in the Supreme Court.

The central thrust is that a referendum bill would simply seek the views of Scots, and that it would be speculative for the judges to consider any other potential effects.

The justices actually pored over the wording of the draft bill itself at one point, with Ms Bain arguing that it was in itself neutral on the question of independence – even if ministers are clearly not.

We have heard the very beginning of the UK government case too.

Sir James Eadie presented his opening points with the flourish of an experienced player in this courtroom, urging the court not to break from “judicial abstinence”.

What he was arguing for today wasn’t even a ruling in his favour – it was for the court to throw the case out entirely. We’ll hear more of that tomorrow.

If this was your first time listening to a Supreme Court case, it might have seemed like the exchanges were pretty dry, measured stuff, steeped in case law and dissection of legislative language.

But of course how the judges rule on these points of law could have an explosive political impact, whether they pave the way for a referendum or not.

How did we get here?published at 16:33 British Summer Time 11 October 2022

16:33 BST 11 October 2022

Glenn Campbell
BBC Scotland Political Editor, at the Supreme Court

Image source, PA Media

Nicola Sturgeon does not want the Scottish government to be in court trying to secure the right to hold another referendum.

Her plan A was to win last year’s Holyrood election with a manifesto commitment to another referendum and for that to be accepted as a mandate by the UK government.

That hasn’t happened. So, her plan B was to legislate for a referendum in the Scottish Parliament anyway and prepare to defend it in court.

What’s actually happening is a variation on that plan - to go to court pre-emptively to establish whether or not Holyrood has the power to hold an advisory referendum.

That is necessary because the Scottish government’s top law officer made clear that she was not prepared to certify the legality of a referendum bill without the UK Supreme Court’s say so.

If their authority is not granted, Nicola Sturgeon’s plan C is to seek to win majority support for independence in the next UK general election - a high stakes gamble in a contest where many other issues will be at play.