Supreme Court independence referendum ruling: Another weary step on our 'neverendum' journey? – Scotsman comment

Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain argued that the Scottish Government could legally hold a referendum on independence (Picture: Jane Barlow/PA)

After Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain set out the case that the Scottish Government can legally hold an “entirely advisory” referendum, the UK Government will today argue that the court should not issue a ruling until a Bill is passed and also that any such legislation would be outside the Scottish Parliament’s powers.

Those grumbling about the length of time the Justices plan to take should know that they have more than just two days of hearings to consider, with over 8,000 pages of written evidence.

For those stifling a yawn, it may be surreal to consider that Scotland could be going to the polls in a year’s time to vote in a contested referendum with no legal force that may be hit by a unionist boycott – with all the political complications that could entail.

However, most legal experts appear to agree that the Supreme Court will rule against the Scottish Government.

And so this hearing may well become just the latest act of many in the ongoing ‘neverendum’ period of Scottish history.

It is a time in which politics continues to be dominated, for years on end, by one over-arching and unanswered question to the detriment of focus on many pressing and vital ‘real world’ issues – like the state of the NHS and education, the economy and more.