By Aiyeku Timothy
A Scottish court has dismissed a case brought by a political campaigner on whether Holyrood could unilaterally hold an independence referendum.
The judge dismissed the case, calling it “hypothetical, academic and premature”.
Martin Keatings, on behalf of the Forward As One group wanted the court to declare that the Scottish Parliament had the power to legislate for another vote.
But lawyers acting for the UK government argued that he didn’t have the “standing” to bring the matter to court.
They told Lady Carmichael that Keatings wasn’t a member of the Scottish Parliament and wasn’t “directly affected” by the policy or to the answer to the question.
In a judgment issued by the court on Friday, Lady Carmichael agreed with the submissions made by the UK government with regard to Mr Keating’s standing.
However, Lady Carmichael did not make a ruling on the competency of the action.
She said the action was “hypothetical, academic, and premature, and the pursuer lacks standing to bring it”.
Lady Carmichael continued: “For the reasons given above, I would have reached the same conclusion even if a draft bill were available for consideration.
“I express no separate conclusion in relation to the proposition that the declarators sought are too vague. It is unnecessary to do so in order to dispose of the action.”
According to the view of several constitutional law experts, Holyrood can only hold an independence referendum if it obtains permission from Westminster. They say the legal mechanism for this lies in section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998.
The previous vote in 2014 was underpinned by a section 30 order – an agreement between the UK and Scottish governments, before the legislation was passed by MSPs. In it, Scotland voted to remain part of the UK by 55.3% to 44.7%.
This action proceeded to court as the UK government maintains that there should not be another independence vote for “a generation”.
Keatings is standing as an independent candidate for Mid-Scotland and Fife in May’s election.
David Johnston QC, acting on behalf of the Advocate General – the law officer who advises the UK government on Scots law – said that a pursuer in the Court of Session has to be directly affected in the action.
