On talk over this weekend about wildcat or illegal referendums - the SG’s position is to hold a *legal* referendum, either on the basis of a s30 order or on the basis of a Supreme Court judgment affirming that a unilateral referendum is already within legislative competence. https://twitter.com/chrismccork/status/1353149191720226816

This is for sound reasons. The choice to establish a new state will be all the more successful if the decision garners losers’ consent, is recognised by state and other inter-/supra-national actors and compels the UK Gov to enter good faith negotiations.

The preparedness to legislate unilaterally and test the limits of the Scottish Parliament’s powers might do one of three things. 1. It might focus minds on both sides after the election to negotiate a mutually agreeable referendum process. 2. It might lead the Supreme Court to...

...affirm that a referendum is within the Holyrood’s leg comp and open up new options to legislate for a referendum on the Scottish Parliament’a terms (which might lead us back to point 1). 3. It might produce a successful challenge by the UKG which closes off the legal options.

What happens *if* a s30 order is refused and *if* the Supreme Court blocked a unilateral referendum remains to be seen. But claims that the law already is certain on the point (either way) are overplayed. There are respectable arguments on both sides.

Finally, there are risks to both sides in *winning* a legal challenge. For SG, ramping up pressure to hold a ref before the time and conditions are right to win. For the UKG, providing ammunition to those who argue U.K. institutions are impediments to Scotland’s democratic will.

Finally, finally. There is a lot of talk about a unionist boycott if a ref is held absent a section 30 order. Whilst any boycott would be potentially damaging, the legitimacy of a boycott if (!!)) the Supreme Court rules ref legislation to be within leg comp is questionable.