The lord advocate says the bill is complete in all respects material to this reference, although there are minor technical matters that would have to be resolved before the bill was introduced.

Bain explains no more need be said about the draft bill at this stage as it is addressed in the submissions about whether or not the bill is within the Scottish Parliament's legislative competence.

She says: "I seek authoritative guidance from this court and have presented both sides of the argument."

Bain says she does take a positive position on jurisdiction.

This court does properly have jurisdiction and should answer the question referred, she says.

Image source, EPA

The lord advocate has been addressing the first of the main issues - is she even allowed to ask the Supreme Court to give a ruling on a referendum bill?

This is because the Scotland Act (the law they are looking at) gives a list of the questions that the lord advocate can send on to the Supreme Court. But, crucially, that list doesn't specifically include whether a referendum bill would be within her role.

The law does include the phrase that she can ask "any other question arising by virtue of [the Scotland Act] about reserved matters".

Dorothy Bain is arguing that the case today falls within that "any other question" category.

Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain gives the court a potted history of the use of referendums in the UK.

She says there is no consistent practice over the use and legal effect of referendums.

Bain says some referendums are "self-executing", meaning that bills authorising them say what will be done in response to their outcome.

The lord advocate says it more common, however, for there to be no provision made as to the consequence of any particular outcome of the vote.

That was the case with the previous Scottish independence referendum, she says.

The lord advocate points out the outcome clearly has political consequences but in law it has no effect. It is entirely advisory.

The lord advocate says the first independence referendum in 2014 went ahead after the UK government granted a Section 30 which allowed the Scottish Parliament to pass a bill.

She says the terms of that order are "ambivalent" about whether the referendum bill could have been passed without it.

Image source, Getty Images

Image source, Getty Images

Ms Bain adds that Mr Dewar said: "A referendum that purported to pave the way for something that was ultra vires, is in itself ultra vires."

Ultra vires means acting or done beyond one's legal power or authority.

Ms Bain points out there was a contribution in this debate from then-SNP leader Alex Salmond, who was told by Mr Dewar he should try to get candidates elected who supported his point of view on the need for a referendum.

She turns to the House of Lord's debate on 21 July 1998 and quotes Lord Mackay of Drumadoon as saying it was "perfectly possible" to construct a respectable legal argument that it was within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum on the issue of whether those who voted in Scotland, wished Scotland to be separate from the UK.

Lord Sewel argued that to legislate for a referendum would be beyond the Scottish Parliament's competence.

Throughout her opening remarks, the lord advocate has been highlighting a series of documents and papers that she says are important for the court to look at when making their decision.

Here are some of the documents she mentioned:

• Scotland’s Right to Choose, external- the Scottish government's case that Brexit has changed the debate on Scottish independence
• SNP’s 2021 manifesto, external- which the Scottish government stood on
• Debates in the UK parliament , externalbetween politicians such as Donald Dewar, Michael Ancram and Alex Salmond
• Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and Lord Sewell debating in the House of Lords, external

Image source, Getty Images

Dorothy Bain explains the Scottish government believes there has been a material change of circumstances since 2014 and refers to the commitment to a referendum in the SNP's 2021 manifesto.

Ms Bain turns to the debates on the Scotland Bill in 1998.

She points to an exchange between then-Scottish Secretary Donald Dewar and Conservative Michael Ancram in the Commons, when Mr Dewar said "constitutional change is reserved".

Mr Ancram was not satisfied with that and he asked the question again, with Mr Dewar's response focusing on the effect of a referendum.

Mr Dewar, who went on to become Scotland's first ever first minister, said: "If one assumes that this is a way of changing the constitution, no, it is not in the power of the Scottish Parliament to change the constitutional arrangements."

He said Scotland could enter into any debate on these matters in the UK parliament.

The lord advocate says the question of law raised by the proposed bill is one which is genuine and unresolved.

Bain says that she does not think that, on an issue of this magnitude, she should be the arbiter.

"It is not constitutionally appropriate that a law officer perform such a function," she says.

Only the Supreme Court can provide the certainty and clarity needed, she says.

The lord advocate says the Scottish Parliament can only pass laws which are "competent" under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998.

Ministers cannot introduce bills unless Scottish law officers have cleared it first.

Dorothy Bain says she would not be able to clear the referendum bill .

"That is because I do not have the necessary degree of confidence that the bill would be within competence for me to do so," she says.

Image source, supreme court

Dorothy Bain KC has been the Scottish government’s top law officer since 2021.

Born in Edinburgh, she studied law at the University of Aberdeen before becoming an advocate.

She worked in the prosecution service for nine years, including two as the Principal Advocate Depute, before returning to private practice in 2011.

She led the first prosecution of the serial killer Peter Tobin as well as cases against a major paedophile ring and a drug gang, and represented the family of one of the victims of the 2014 Glasgow bin lorry crash.

She replaced James Wolffe KC as the Lord Advocate following the 2021 election.

Dorothy Bain says she considered it was necessary and in the public interest that she should exercise her powers as Lord Advocate to refer the matter to the Supreme Court.

She says the Scottish government has been elected on a manifesto commitment to hold a further independence referendum.

The issue of Scottish independence is a live and significant one in Scottish politics, the lord advocate adds.

But whether a bill for a referendum can be passed by the Scottish Parliament is contested, Bain says.

She quotes former lord advocate Lord Mackay of Drumadoon who predicted it would become a "festering issue" and says he has been proved correct.

She then invites the Supreme Court to finally resolve it.

Image source, supreme court

Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain, the Scottish government's principal law officer, says her reference wants the court to decide if the proposed Bill on a Scottish independence referendum "relates to" matters which are reserved to Westminster.

In particular, she says the question is whether the proposed referendum Bill relates to the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England.

She says she will go on to discuss the arguments for and against the case.

Image source, Supreme Court

Lord Reed explains the question is, in essence, whether the powers of the Scottish Parliament enable it to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence.

He points out the question the court must decide on is limited to technical questions of law, with the court deciding them via legal principles.

Finally for now, Lord Reed says the hearing is the "tip of the iceberg".

There are more than 8,000 pages of written material and it is likely to be some months before the judgement is delivered.

Image source, Supreme Court

Lord Reed explains the Supreme Court is the highest court for civil matters for the whole of the UK, including Scotland.

It applies the law from which every part of the UK the case comes from, including Scots Law if the case is from Scotland.

He says the Supreme Court is based in London but has also sat in Scotland.

The court has a special function under devolution to deal with legal questions about devolution.

Lord Reed says the court will have to decide whether the question that the lord advocate has referred is one which the court can and should properly answer.

Robert John Reed – or Baron Reed of Allermuir – is the most senior judge in the court.

He was educated at George Watson’s College in Edinburgh, and worked in the Scottish Office in the 1980s and 1990s before entering the prosecution service.

He became a judge in 1998, sitting chiefly in the Court of Session.

He also oversaw cases at the European Court of Human Rights.

In 2012 he was sworn in as a Justice of the Supreme Court, and after a spell as deputy president of the court succeeded Baroness Hale as president in 2020.

He has overseen significant cases including the dispute over Boris Johnson’s prorogation of parliament, and one likely to be cited in the current case – AXA General Insurance vs Lord Advocate, which focused on the limits of the Scottish Parliament’s powers.

Image source, Supreme Court

Lord Reed begins proceedings by acknowledging many people won't be familiar with this court or proceedings of this kind.

He says it may be helpful if he explains a few points.

Philip Sim
BBC Scotland political correspondent, at the Supreme Court

The case will be heard in the august surroundings of court one of the Supreme Court.

The vast building is in the heart of London, right across the road from the Palace of Westminster.

The wood-panelled courtroom features gold-framed paintings of figures including the Duke of Wellington.

One of the most striking features is the carpet, which features a pattern incorporating symbols for each of the four nations of the UK, including a Scottish thistle and an English rose.

That same motif is replicated en large in the middle of the floor between the tables for the judges and the lawyers - which are laid out in the shape of a giant eye.

The Conservatives could have a very big call to makepublished at 10:20 British Summer Time 11 October 2022

10:20 BST 11 October 2022

Glenn Campbell
BBC Scotland Political Editor, at the Supreme Court

There’s a lot resting on the judgement in this case.

If the court agrees that Holyrood has sufficient legal authority to organise an advisory referendum, Nicola Sturgeon told the SNP conference the vote would go ahead on 19 October 2023.

There have been threats of a boycott by pro-union parties. In reality, I doubt Labour or the Liberal Democrats would refuse to participate — putting huge pressure on the Conservatives to take part.

That would leave the Tories with a very big call. To go for it or to use their power as the UK government to block a referendum by changing the law, at the risk of boosting support for independence in Scotland.

They will be hoping that dilemma does not arise - that the court decides Westminster consent for a referendum is already required.

In those circumstances, the Scottish government has promised to accept the ruling, reflect on it and take the case for independence into the next UK general election campaign.

Image source, PA Media

The SNP has also made a separate submission in the case as a political party, which supports the Scottish government’s arguments while adding some of its own.

The party’s written argument focuses chiefly on the right of all peoples to self-determination under a UN charter – something it says is “one of the most fundamental rights of all”.

It claims that any reading or interpretation of the Scotland Act should take this into account.

The SNP will not be allowed to present its case in court, but the judges will consider it as part of their deliberations - and may use it to inform some questions to the lawyers present.

You can read the SNP's written case here., external

Image source, Getty Images

The UK government actually wants the Supreme Court judges to refuse to rule on the case altogether.

Its 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