Sturgeon says she wants to hold second independence referendum on 19 October 2023 Sturgeon says she will set out what the Scottish government will do if the UK government does not grant a section 30 order. She says the referendum must be lawful. And that must be a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion, she says. She says the Scottish government is publishing today its Scottish independence refernedum bill. She says there are three key provisions in the bill. First, its purpose is “to ascertain the views of the people of Scotland on whether or not Scotland should be an independent country”. Second, the question should be the same as in 2014, “Should Scotland be an independent country?” And, third, she says the referendum should be in the second half of this parliament. She says the Scottish goverment wants it to be held on 19 October 2023. Afternoon summary Nicola Sturgeon has asked the supreme court to rule on whether the Scottish government can hold a non-binding referendum on independence, without having Boris Johnson’s permission to stage one. The supreme court has indicated that it will hear the case. Jonathan Sumption, a former supreme court justice, told the PM programme that it looked as if it would be “very difficult” for Sturgeon to obtain a referendum this way. He explained: The problem is that the constitutional relationship between England and Scotland is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act, which means that the Scottish parliament has no power to legislate for anything that affects the constitutional relationship between two parts of the United Kingdom, The supreme court would have to consider whether it is lawful to pass legislation designed to put pressure on Westminster on a reserved matter. Commenting on Sturgeon’s announcement, Boris Johnson told reporters travelling with him to the Nato summit in Madrid. I haven’t seen exactly what she’s said yet. We will study it very carefully and we will respond properly. The focus of the country should be on building a stronger economy, that’s what we’re doing with our plan for a stronger economy and I certainly think that we’ll be able to have a stronger economy and a stronger country together. Boris Johnson has sought to defuse anger over a No 10 briefing that he would ditch a manifesto commitment on defence spending but faced criticism from Labour for breaking a pledge made even more crucial by the Ukraine war. Keir Starmer has backed away from sacking Labour frontbenchers who defied his instructions and stood alongside striking rail workers last week. The Labour MP Stella Creasy has said she will table an amendment to the forthcoming British bill of rights to give women the fundamental right to an abortion. Conservative MPs are privately warning that a swathe of cabinet ministers and other high-profile Tories are on course to lose their seats at the next general election under Boris Johnson. Steve Bray, the activist known as “Stop Brexit Man”, has had equipment seized by police officers attempting to shut down his regular protest near parliament, as a new protest law came into force. In her statement Nicola Sturgeon announced what was in effect a fast-track procedure to refer her referendum bill to the supreme court. (I used the word emergency earlier, to refer to the fact this is a rare procedure, intended to speed things up, but fast-track is probably a better term.) She proposed this as an alternative to just getting Holyrood to pass the legislation and then wait for it to be challenged in court. In a Twitter thread starting here, the lawyer Andrew Nickell explains more about this process. Cabinet secretary says it would be wrong for Johnson to call snap general election without proper reason Earlier I covered the opening of the public accounts and constitututional affairs committee with Simon Case, the cabinet secretary. I broke away to cover the Nicola Sturgeon statement, but here is a round-up of the highlights. Case admitted that there was a tension between serving the government of the day and upholding traditional civil service values. He said there was a juxtaposition in the civil service code between “the duty to support the government of the day” and upholding the civil service values. This could create “challenges”, he said. And this was an issue in “the current circumstances”, he said. He went on: The government of the day is one which is not remotely afraid of controversial policies. It believes it has a mandate to test established boundaries. It takes a robust view of the national interest and how the government should protect it and focuses very much on accountability to people and parliament, not on the unelected advisory structures. He said it would be “quite wrong’ for Boris Johnson to call a snap election without justification. These are from the i’s Paul Waugh. There has been some speculation amongst Tory MPs that Johnson could call a snap election to avert a leadership challenge. Case said it was “very difficult” for civil servants to investigate the prime ministers. See 2.23pm. He said that Lord Geidt, the PM’s independent adviser on ministerial standards, was not asked to advise on the Northern Ireland protocol bill (which is widely seen as against international law, but not by the government) but was asked to advise on a steel tariff issue (where the government’s plan could be in breach of WTO obligations). Geidt resigned over the issue. Case declined to speculate on whether Geidt was using the issue as “an excuse” to quit. Case said a decision on the recruitment process for the replacement for Lord Geidt has not yet been made. Case said there is an onging disciplinary process for civil servants involved in Partygate. He also said some civil servants had resigned over the scandal. But he did not say who or how many, and it was not clear if he was just referring to people who are already known to have left. Case confirmed that no investigation has taken place into claims that Johnson tried to appoint Carrie Johnson - now his wife, but at the time his mistress - to a £100,000-a-year job in the Foreign Office when he was foreign secretary. Case said that it was for the PM to authorise such an investigation. William Wragg (Con), the committee chairman, suggested Johnson was “not keen” on the idea, prompting laughter. Case just said that was a question for the PM. Darren Tierney, director general for propriety and ethics at the Cabinet Office, who was giving evidence alongside Case, said he was once asked to advise on whether loans between ministers had to be declared. That was “not recently”, he said. He went on: My general advice is it is probably not a good idea, as a minimum.” Councils face "formidable pressures" in months ahead, says Gove Local government is facing “formidable pressures” in coming months, Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, told the Local Government Association (LGA) annual conference. But he said the government would do all it could to help. Speaking at the confernece in Harrogate, Gove said: I appreciate that in the immediate months ahead local government faces formidable pressures. The accumulating demands on adult social care, the challenges facing children’s social care, the pressure to support children with special educational needs, the economies which inevitably affect non-statutory services, and additional expectations that we have in planning and housing. We will do everything that we can to support you through these challenging times. Gove said he wanted to encourage more devolution, saying: “You can’t have a Northern Powerhouse without more power being exercised in the North.” As PA Media reports, he also told the council leaders he would introduce a two-year funding settlement to help with budget planning and would look to reduce the bewildering range of funding streams to local government to simplify the process. Police swoop on Stop Brexit Man under new anti-protest law Steve Bray, the activist known as “Stop Brexit Man”, has had equipment seized by police officers attempting to shut down his regular protest near parliament, as a new protest law came into force. My colleague Jamie Grierson has the story here. And this is from Adam Tomkins, a law professor and a former Scottish Conservative MSP. From Michael Russell, the SNP president BBC Scotland’s political editor Glen Campbell says that, if Nicola Sturgeon does end up turning the next general election into a de facto independence referendum, she will be looking to win a majority of votes, not just seats. Murdo Fraser, a Scottish Conservative MSP, seems confident, partly on the basis of an answer Nicola Sturgeon gave in the Scottish parliament earlier (see 3.41pm), that the Scottish government will lose when the supreme court considers the legality of the referendum bill. No 10 says it wants to see what supreme court decides in relation to Holyrood"s referendum bill In response to Nicola Sturgeon’s announcement, Downing Street has said said that Boris Johnson remains opposed to a second independence referendum now, but that it will wait to see what the supreme court decides about the legality of the Scottish government’s bill. A spokesperson for No 10 said: Our position remains unchanged, that both ours and the Scottish Government’s priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that really matter to people. But a decision has been taken by the first minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal and the supreme court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish government’s lord advocate’s referral. Sturgeon says general election will serve as vote on independence if supreme court blocks referendum bill Here is a lengthy extract from Nicola Sturgeon’s statement to MSPs on a second independence referendum. And here are the key paragraphs. On referring the referendum bill to the supreme court We must seek now to accelerate to the point when we have legal clarity; legal fact. And crucially, in doing so establish and safeguard the ability of this parliament to deliver a referendum on the date proposed. The lord advocate has agreed to make a reference of the provisions in the bill to the supreme court. I can confirm that the reference will be filed with the supreme court this afternoon. On what happens if the Scottish government wins Obviously, it is this government’s hope that the question in this bill, proposing a referendum that is consultative, not self-executing, and which would seek to ascertain the views of the Scottish people for or against independence, will be deemed to be within the legislative competence of this parliament. If that outcome is secured, there will be no doubt whatsoever that the referendum is lawful. And I can confirm that the government will then immediately introduce the bill and ask parliament to pass the it on a timescale that allows the referendum to proceed on 19 October 2023 On what happens if the Scottish government loses It is, of course, possible that the supreme court will decide that the Scottish parliament does not have power to legislate for even a consultative referendum. Obviously, that would not be the clarity we hope for. But if that is what the law establishing this parliament really means, it is better to have that clarity sooner rather than later. Because 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. And it would not be the end of the matter. Far from it. Democracy demands that people must have their say. I want the process set in train today to lead to a lawful, constitutional referendum and for that to take place on 19 October 2023. But if the law says that is not possible, the general election will be a ‘de facto’ referendum. Either way, the people of Scotland will have their say. Back in the Scottish parliament, asked if she has asked the lord advocate to refer this matter to the supreme court because the lord advocate advised that the referendum bill was not legally competent, Nicola Sturgeon refused to answer. She said she could not comment on legal advice. But she said she wanted a referral to the court because she did not want MSPs just to hear advice about whether the referendum bill was legal. She wanted its legality to be established as fact, she said. This is from Ian Murray, the shadow Scottish secretary, on Sturgeon’s announcment.