header-logo header-logo

08 July 2022
Issue: 7986 / Categories: Legal News , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Scottish independence: task assigned

The Supreme Court has been assigned the task of deciding whether the Scottish Parliament has authority to legislate for a consultative referendum on independence without the approval of Westminster

Under the provisions of the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill, Scots would be asked on 19 October 2023 whether or not they wish to remain in the UK. Authority to hold the 2014 independence referendum was temporarily devolved to the Scottish Parliament by then prime minister, David Cameron under s 30 of the Scotland Act 1998. 

However, Boris Johnson has stated he will refuse to grant s 30 authority for the referendum, pitting Westminster in a head-to-head conflict with Holyrood.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said she was therefore referring the issue to the Supreme Court to decide. Sturgeon said, if the court should decide the Scottish Parliament does not have that power, ‘what it will clarify is this: any notion of the UK as a voluntary union of nations is a fiction.

‘Any suggestion that the UK is a partnership of equals is false. There would be few stronger or more powerful arguments for independence than that.’

The Scottish National Party (SNP) would then fight the next General Election as a de facto referendum by campaigning on the sole issue of independence.

If the court hold the Bill is within Holyrood’s powers, then Sturgeon said her government would ‘immediately introduce’ the Bill.

The court acknowledged receipt last week of a reference by the Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain QC, under para 34, Sched 6 to the Scotland Act 1998. The reference does not need to be granted permission for the case to proceed. Lord Reed, President of the Supreme Court, will now decide whether any preliminary matters need to be addressed, when the case will be heard and which Justices will sit on the bench. For more, see Marc Weller at p8.
Issue: 7986 / Categories: Legal News , Constitutional law
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll