THE UK's highest court will rule on a challenge brought over Brexit legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament.
Supreme Court justices will announce their decision on Thursday on the "competence" of the Scottish Bill following a hearing in London in the summer.
The court has been asked to rule on whether the EU exit bill passed by Holyrood in March is constitutional and "properly within devolved legislative powers".
Scottish Government ministers brought forward the legislation over the UK Government's European Withdrawal Act "power grab" – fearing this will mean powers that should come to Holyrood after Brexit will instead go to Westminster.
READ MORE: Scotland's dissent will remain a whisper to Westminster until independence
When the Bill was passed, Scottish Government ministers insisted it was within Holyrood's competence – although the Scottish Parliament's Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh ruled against them on this.
As a result of the UK Government's legal challenge, the Supreme Court has been asked to decide if the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland Bill) is indeed "within the competence of the Scottish Parliament".
At a hearing in July, a panel of seven justices, including the court's president Lady Hale and deputy president Lord Reed, were urged to find that the legislation "cannot stand".
The issue was referred to the court to seek legal certainty "in the public interest" by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland, the UK Government's senior law officers.
Advocate General for Scotland Lord Keen told the justices their case was "the Scottish Bill as a whole cannot stand".
He submitted the Bill "impermissibly modifies" the UK Act on withdrawal from the EU.
The UK Bill was given Royal Assent on June 26 and became the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
The law officers said in their written case before the Supreme Court that the Scottish Bill was passed "without knowledge" of the outcome of negotiations between the UK Government and the EU institutions and "pre-empts them".
They stated: "The effect of what the Scottish Bill does is to make provision for the future relationship with the EU and EU law when that relationship is under negotiation."
They submitted that this "could serve to undermine the credibility of the UK's negotiation and implementation strategy in the eyes of the EU".
As well as hearing the case put forward by the law officers, the justices received submissions in response from Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC.
He argued the justices should rule "in the negative" on the question posed by the law officers relating to whether the Bill "as a whole" is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
He pointed out that although the reference to the court "arises in a politically contentious context, the issues which arise for the court's determination are strictly issues of law".
Wolffe said: "The purpose and effect of the Scottish Bill is to promote legal certainty by making provision for the continuity within the domestic legal system of existing EU-derived law upon and following withdrawal.
"Regardless of any treaty on the future relationship which may be entered into between the UK and the EU, there is a need to provide for legal certainty and continuity when the UK leaves the EU in March 2019, and that is the purpose and effect of the Scottish Bill."
The issue the Supreme Court has been asked to decide is "whether the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland Bill) is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament".
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel