UK government submits indyref2 argument to Supreme Court

The UK government has submitted its argument in a case that could allow the Scottish Parliament to legislate for another independence referendum.

The submission from the Advocate General comes ahead of a full hearing on the case in October.

UK law officers argue the constitution is reserved to Westminster.

Last month, the Scottish government published its case, arguing the referendum is "advisory" and would have no legal effect on the union.

The hearing will take place in London on 11 and 12 October when oral arguments will be heard.

• SNP formally bid to intervene in indyref2 Supreme Court case

• Lord Advocate publishes indyref2 argument to Supreme Court

• What are the questions facing the Supreme Court?

Scotland's top law officer Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain QC referred a prospective referendum Bill to the Supreme Court last month to ascertain if it was within the powers of the Scottish parliament.

It is understood the UK government has asked for the Court's permission to publish the submission by the Advocate General for Scotland Lord Stewart QC.

A spokeswoman for the UK government said: "People across Scotland want both their governments to be working together on the issues that matter to them and their families, not talking about another independence referendum.

"We have today submitted our written case to the Supreme Court, in accordance with its timetable.

"On the question of legislative competence, the UK government's clear view remains that a Bill legislating for a referendum on independence would be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament."

Advocate General for Scotland Lord Stewart QC has submitted the UK government's argument

In its submission to the court, submitted last month, the Scottish government leaned heavily on any future referendum not being "self-executing", meaning it would be purely advisory and only meant as a way to ascertain the views of the Scottish people.

The SNP have also made an attempt to intervene in the case, arguing that - as a public body - it would be "fair, just and reasonable" for the party to make arguments to the Court.

The party presented its case in a 15-page submission to the court by lawyers Claire Mitchell QC and David Welsh.

The rules of the court, the submission says, allow for "any official body or non-governmental organisation seeking to make submissions in the public interest" to apply to intervene.

On the substance of the case, the SNP submission raises a number of issues, including the party's past manifesto commitments, which were made before elections which it won.

The submission also argues the right to self-determination is one that is "fundamental and inalienable".

Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain QC summarised both sides of the case in her written argument

The Scottish government wants judges to settle whether MSPs could legislate for a vote on Scottish independence without Westminster's backing.

UK law officers argue this is premature, and want the case thrown out without a ruling either way.

Supreme Court judges have said they want to hear the full arguments from both sides before coming to a decision.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon wants to hold an independence vote on 19 October 2023, and is pushing for an agreement with the UK government to allow this.

UK ministers are opposed to this, so Ms Sturgeon wants the Supreme Court to rule on whether Holyrood alone has the power to hold a vote.