A SENIOR judge has rejected an action brought by a West Fife political campaigner which sought an order that Holyrood could unilaterally hold an Independence referendum.

Martin Keatings, from Cairneyhill, wanted the Court of Session to rule that the Scottish Parliament has the power to legislate for another Indy vote.

Lawyers for the activist told Lady Carmichael last month that they believe the Holyrood Parliament possesses the powers for it to call a referendum. They stated that the Scottish Government does not need the permission of its Westminster counterpart.

But lawyers acting for the UK government argued that Mr Keatings didn’t have the “standing” to bring the matter to court.

They told Lady Carmichael that Mr 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 judgement issued by the court on Friday, Lady Carmichael agreed with the submissions made by the UK government with regard to Mr Keatings’ standing.

However, Lady Carmichael did not make a ruling on the competency of the action.

She wrote: “The action is for these reasons, hypothetical, academic, and premature, and the pursuer lacks standing to bring it.

“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.”

Mr Keatings is a member of the Forward As One group. The organisation obtained a legal opinion in December 2019 from top advocate Aidan O’Neill QC. Mr O’Neill’s opinion concluded that it would be lawful for the Scottish Parliament to call for an Independence referendum without the UK government’s permission.

This prompted Mr Keatings to launch a fundraising initiative on the Crowd Justice website and this resulted in him raising more than £200,000 to pay for legal fees.

However, many constitutional law experts believe that 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 a piece of legislation called the Scotland Act 1998.

The action proceeded to court after Prime Minister Boris Johnson refused to grant the order.

The last time Scotland held an Independence referendum was in 2014 when 55 per cent of Scots voted to remain in the UK.

Mr Keatings is standing as an Independent candidate for Mid-Scotland and Fife in the Scottish Parliament elections on May 6.

At proceedings in the Court of Session last month, Mr O’Neill said Mr Keatings was representing the public interest in the action. He also expressed dismay at the defenders who "insultingly call him a mere busybody".

Mr O'Neill added an answer on the issue "is absolutely required in order to inform votes of ordinary citizens in forthcoming Scottish elections”.

However, the advocate general’s lawyer, David Johnston QC, said that a pursuer in the Court of Session had to be affected directly in the action.

He said Mr Keatings didn’t meet this requirement and that “the rule of law does not require that he should".

Mr Johnston also said there was "nothing anti-democratic" in denying Mr Keatings' standing, saying society can "take the form of representative democracy”.

The advocate representing the office of the Lord Advocate, James Mure QC, said the Scottish Government was "not party to the proceedings" having earlier withdrawn from the case.

He said the Scotland Act leaves it to the Scottish Parliament to determine its own policy goals.

However, on Friday, Lady Carmichael did not make a ruling on the competence of the action brought by Mr Keatings.

She said political matters and campaigning could continue to take place and courts can intervene to rule on the lawfulness of policies at the appropriate moment.

She added: “It is, however, important, that matters which may properly be the subject of political debate and campaigning in the democratic process are permitted to unfold and be worked out in the political process, and that the courts intervene only when they need to do so to fulfil their function as guardians of the rule of law.

“The courts will clearly intervene to determine allegations of unlawfulness. Where, however, there is no allegation of unlawfulness, and the court is asked for a determination as to the state of the law in an area which is the subject of current political debate and controversy, it will be important to ensure that the question of whether an answer is required in order to protect the rule of law is addressed with rigour.”

Following the ruling, Mr Keatings said he felt upbeat and he’d appeal Lady Carmichael’s decision to the Inner House to the Court of Session.