Image source, PA Media

If you are just joining us, let's return to the detail of the Supreme Court ruling against the Scottish government.

Lord Reed said the court cannot be asked to express a view on the political question of whether Scotland should become an independent country.

Turning to the question itself, Lord Reed said the issue was whether the Scottish government's bill relates to matters reserved to the UK parliament.

Those reserved matters would include the union of Scotland and England and the parliament of the United Kingdom.

Lord Reed said the purpose of the proposed bill is to hold a referendum on whether Scotland should become an independent country, by ending the union and sovereignty of the United Kingdom parliament.

The effects of the proposed bill are not confined to its legal effects, he said, adding it includes its practical effects.

He told the court the outcome of a referendum would either strengthen or weaken the democratic legitimacy of the union, depending on which view prevailed.

The simple argument has won the daypublished at 10:12 Greenwich Mean Time 23 November 2022

10:12 GMT 23 November 2022

Philip Sim
BBC Scotland political correspondent, at the Supreme Court

After hearing some complex arguments, this is a remarkably straightforward judgement.

The court was unanimous in ruling that a referendum bill can only be brought forward with Westminster’s backing.

The UK government side were confident of such a ruling; they spent very little time on the actual substance of the issue, instead arguing at length for the case to be thrown out.

Their tactic in court was to effectively slap the Scotland Act on the table and say “it’s here in black and white”.

It was a simple argument, and ultimately it has won out in quite simple fashion.

The Supreme Court has delivered its judgment that the Scottish government cannot hold an independence referendum without the UK government's support.

The full judgment is available here, external

Independence campaigners will have to be in for the long haulpublished at 10:04 Greenwich Mean Time 23 November 2022

10:04 GMT 23 November 2022

Glenn Campbell
BBC Scotland Political Editor

Clarity was what Nicola Sturgeon asked for and clarity is what she now has from the UK Supreme Court.

The judges have made clear that the law does not allow Holyrood to legislate for an independence referendum without Westminster’s agreement.

That means there will not be an indyref2 on 19 October 2023, as the Scottish government had planned.

SNP ministers will accept the judgement and respect the law. A wildcat ballot in the Catalan-style is not an option.

A legal referendum can only happen if the first minister somehow persuades the prime minister to abandon his opposition.

There’s little prospect of that happening in the short term, so the renewed campaign for independence just became a longer haul.

Read more from Glenn Campbell here

This doesn't mean the question of independence will go awaypublished at 10:01 Greenwich Mean Time 23 November 2022

10:01 GMT 23 November 2022

Nick Eardley
Chief political correspondent

The UK government will be pleased with this result.

It doesn’t mean the question of independence will go away.

But it does mean ministers in London aren’t faced with an imminent crisis over what to do next.

Expect the UK government to try and move on from this quite quickly. Ministers will say they want to focus on issues like the cost of living.

But there is still a unanswered political question: If the Scottish Parliament continues to have a majority of politicians that back a referendum, can the UK government avoid one in the longer term?

Philip Sim
BBC Scotland political correspondent, at the Supreme Court

Lord Reed says the proposed bill DOES relate to reserved matters, and in the absence of a Section 30 order the Scottish Parliament does NOT have the power to legislate for an independence referendum.

The Scottish government cannot hold an independence referendum without UK government’s consent, Supreme Court rules

Lord Reed says the full reasons for the decision are set out in the judgement itself.

He tells the court: "The Scotland Act gives the Scottish Parliament limited powers."

The Scottish Parliament has no powers to legislate where matters are reserved to the UK parliament, including the union between Scotland and England.

Lord Reed explains if legislation relates to the union or to the Westminster parliament then the Scottish parliament has no power to enact it.

Lord Reed gets proceedings under way by saying he is pleased the court is ready to give its judgement.

The president of the Supreme Court explains that the court's judges are unanimous in their ruling and their judgement has been prioritised.

Image source, Supreme Court

Image source, Getty Images

The Supreme Court will shortly deliver its judgement on whether the Scottish Parliament can hold a second independence referendum without Westminster's approval.

The Scottish government says a referendum would fall within devolved powers, but the UK government says it is a reserved matter.

The crucial decision will be delivered by court president Lord Reed at about 09:45.

• Read more here
• Lack of indyref2 powers is 'obvious', court told
• Indyref2 judges asked to resolve 'festering issue'
• The indyref2 questions facing the Supreme Court

Philip Sim
BBC Scotland political correspondent, at the Supreme Court

Image source, Supreme Court

The judges' seats are still empty, but Court One at the Supreme Court is filling up ahead of the big judgement.

Several SNP MPs are in the public gallery, along with journalists and members of the public.

Everyone has a theory on what they think Lord Reed, the President of the Supreme Court, will announce. And there’s plenty of discussion of the merits of the case.

But only the judges know the outcome - nobody has been given advance notice - and both sides will learn the ruling with the rest of us, when the judges read it aloud.

Will the indyref deadlock be broken?published at 09:29 Greenwich Mean Time 23 November 2022

09:29 GMT 23 November 2022

Glenn Campbell
BBC Scotland Political Editor

The independence campaign is stuck.

Yes-supporting parties have a majority at Holyrood for another referendum but they do not have the explicit power to hold one.

Westminster is not willing to lend that authority, as they did in 2014.

That’s why the Scottish government has gone to court - to try to break this deadlock.

If they win, that does not automatically mean there’ll be a referendum on 19 October 2023, because it would still be possible for the UK government to block that.

If they lose or the court refuses to rule at this stage, the independence campaign will remain stuck but it will seek to draw political energy from this moment by arguing that Scottish democracy is being denied.

Image source, PA Media

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon set out her economic vision for Scottish independence in a series of papers titled 'Building a New Scotland, external' which listed a range of of policies to "forge a different path to the Brexit based UK economic model".

Here's a look at some of the Scottish government's plans outlined in the paper:

• Rejoining the European Union to benefit from, and contribute to, the European Single Market, helping to forge a different path to the UK system
• A redesigned energy market that aims to provide secure and reliable low-cost energy
• Retaining free movement of people, without a passport, across the UK and Ireland, with trade borders implemented smoothly
• Using the pound sterling, until the time is right to move to a Scottish pound
• Up to £20bn in major infrastructure investment, including investment in more energy-efficient homes, greener transport, better digital and mobile connectivity, and more affordable housing
• Using full powers over employment law to help improve pay and working conditions for people across Scotland, including introducing a minimum wage with a single rate for all age groups and stronger access to flexible working
• A plan for better industrial relations through a social partnership approach involving business and unions
• A migration policy tailored to Scotland’s needs and designed to boost the working population

Read more: What's the plan for an independent Scotland?

Image source, Getty Images

Sir John Curtice, Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University, has been explaining the three possible outcomes on the Good Morning Scotland programme.

The first is that the court decides not to tell us whether or not this proposed bill is within a constitutional position or not.

Alternatively, it could say this bill is contrary to the provisions of the Scotland Act and it should not be proceeded with.

Finally, the court could say the bill is within the provisions of the Scotland Act and that the Scottish government can therefore proceed with the bill.

Sir John summarises: "It could be 'we're not telling you, no or yes."

The 'Made in Scotland' alternative to a UK-backed referendumpublished at 09:08 Greenwich Mean Time 23 November 2022

09:08 GMT 23 November 2022

James Cook
Scotland Editor, BBC News

The first vote on independence was held in 2014 after Westminster recognised there was a majority in favour of a referendum in the Scottish Parliament and lent Holyrood the power to hold it.

Scots said no to leaving the union by 55% to 45%, but two years later they rejected Brexit by an even bigger margin: 62% to 38%.

Having voted to stay in the UK, Scotland had to leave the EU anyway and that painful and protracted process fired up the constitutional debate again.

After last year’s Scottish Parliament election there is now a majority at Holyrood in favour of a second referendum but this time Downing Street is refusing to do a deal. That is why the Scottish government is, reluctantly, exploring this “Made in Scotland” alternative, which the UK government says would be illegal.

The Supreme Court could approve or block such a vote or it might say it can’t rule until a bill to stage a poll has actually been passed at Holyrood.

Even then there could be a twist — the five judges have the option of revealing their thinking on the matter in a comment which, while not legally binding, would surely be politically influential.

As we have been saying, this is a quick turnaround from the Supreme Court after it was initially suggested a decision could take months.

So, can we read anything into that?

Stephen Tierney, a professor of constitutional theory at the University of Edinburgh law school, tells the Good Morning Scotland programme the weight of opinion is that the court is most likely to conclude that a referendum on independence relates to the union.

Professor Tierney says this would mean the Scottish Parliament simply does not have the authority to pass a bill to hold such a referendum.

He says he has learnt not to predict what the Supreme Court would do, however it's relatively quick return with a judgement could mean they felt it was so important that they must act quickly.

Image source, Getty Images

Supreme Court judges will rule this morning on whether the Scottish government has the power to hold another independence referendum. But how did we get to this point?

• In 2014, Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond led an independence referendum giving Scottish voters the choice of staying in the UK or becoming an independent country - they backed staying the UK by 55% to 45%
• Following that result, Salmond was replaced by Nicola Sturgeon, who called for another referendum - "indyref2" - immediately after the UK voted to leave the EU in the 2016 Brexit referendum, in which Scottish voters backed remain by 62% by 38%

• The UK government has accused the SNP of failing to give clear answers to key questions on issues such as currency and pensions in an independent Scotland, and warned any attempt by Scotland to rejoin the EU would lead to a hard border between the two countries
• The Scottish National Party (SNP), which has a pro-independence majority in the devolved parliament alongside the Scottish Greens, argued that its electoral success - coupled with the Brexit vote - mean it has a "cast-iron mandate" to hold another referendum
• The Supreme Court heard two days of legal arguments from both the UK and Scottish governments in October, with a decision due at 09:45 today on whether the Scottish Parliament can legislate for a referendum without the UK government giving formal consent for the vote to go ahead

Image source, JANE BARLOW

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has described an independence referendum as a “quite frankly barmy idea” which he could not see himself backing under any circumstances.

During a leadership hustings in Perth, the former Chancellor acknowledged that the union is a voluntary one which is “there by consent”, but said his government would “do anything and everything to protect, sustain and strengthen it”.

Meanwhile, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack said he was confident there would not be a referendum in 2023, saying he wanted to “put the whole matter to bed”.

He told the Conservative Party conference: “I want to see us win the case in the Supreme Court. I want to see us win it well because I believe the 1998 Scotland Act is very clear what was reserved and what was devolved. I want to see us win that case strongly.”

Here’s what the first minister had to say in her SNP conference speech, the day before the court hearing began in October:

“If Westminster had any respect at all for Scottish democracy, this court hearing wouldn’t be necessary. But Westminster has no such respect.

“That means this issue was always destined to end up in court, sooner or later. Better, in my view, that it is sooner.

“If the Court decides in the way we hope it does, on 19 October next year there will be an independence referendum."

But what if the court doesn’t decide that way?

Three possible outcomes before the politics takes offpublished at 08:05 Greenwich Mean Time 23 November 2022

08:05 GMT 23 November 2022

Philip Sim
BBC Scotland political correspondent, at the Supreme Court

This is a comparatively quick turnaround from the court, just six weeks on from the hearing - although we shouldn't read anything into what that means for the judgement.

There are three possible outcomes: the judges let MSPs pass a referendum bill; they block them from doing so; or they refuse to make a ruling either way.

Obviously the Scottish government has fingers and toes crossed for a green light.

But the UK government side spent much of the hearing last month arguing for no ruling at all, hoping to leave Scottish ministers in an awkward limbo.

That underlines that this case won't necessarily settle the vexed question of indyref2 once and for all.

Even if judges do make a ruling, that still only tells us whether there can be a referendum, in strict legal terms. There would still need to be a political settlement over whether there should be a vote next October.

So regardless of the result, the case is sure to tee up an almighty political clash between ministers in Edinburgh and London.