First Minister John Swinney has published a draft Bill for a second Scottish independence referendum, setting up a fresh constitutional confrontation with Prime Minister Andy Burnham over whether Holyrood should be given the legal power to hold another vote.
The Scottish Government published the six-page draft Independence Referendum Bill on 28 August, fulfilling a commitment in Swinney's first 100 days programme.
The draft proposes asking voters the same question used in 2014: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”, with Yes and No options.
But the legislation cannot currently be introduced and used to hold a referendum without Westminster transferring the necessary powers. The Scottish Government explicitly says the Bill will only be introduced once those powers are secured.
Draft Bill sets out question and franchise
The draft legislation states that a referendum is to be held in Scotland on the question of independence and sets out the proposed ballot wording.
It also defines who would be entitled to vote and includes the form of the ballot paper.
The date of the referendum is deliberately left open in the published draft and would be inserted when the legislation was formally introduced to the Scottish Parliament.
The Scottish Government says the Bill is intended to provide certainty about how another referendum would operate if Holyrood secures the legal competence to hold one.
Swinney demands transfer of referendum powers
Swinney used publication of the draft Bill to renew his demand for the UK Government to transfer the powers required to hold another independence referendum.
He argued that Scotland, the wider United Kingdom and the international political environment had all changed substantially since the 2014 referendum.
The First Minister also pointed to the outcome of the May 2026 Scottish Parliament election and the subsequent Holyrood vote calling on Westminster to make a Section 30 order under the Scotland Act 1998.
Swinney said the Scottish Parliament had returned what he described as the largest pro-independence majority in its history and argued that Westminster should respect that political mandate.
Those arguments represent the Scottish Government's political case for another vote. They do not themselves create the legal power required to hold one.
Holyrood cannot currently legislate unilaterally
The principal obstacle remains constitutional rather than procedural.
In November 2022, the UK Supreme Court ruled that a proposed Scottish independence referendum Bill related to reserved matters under the Scotland Act 1998 and therefore fell outside the Scottish Parliament's legislative competence without Westminster's consent.
The Court's ruling means Holyrood cannot simply pass a referendum law unilaterally and proceed with a legally authorised independence vote.
That is why the new draft is conditional on the UK Government agreeing to transfer the necessary powers, most likely through a Section 30 order.
Scottish Parliament has already called for Section 30 order
The constitutional pressure increased in May when the Scottish Parliament backed a motion calling on the UK Government to make a Section 30 order devolving the power to hold an independence referendum.
The amended motion recognised what it described as the largest pro-independence majority elected to Holyrood while also noting that no single party holds an overall majority in the current Parliament.
The vote does not legally compel Westminster to act, but it gives Swinney a parliamentary basis for arguing that the request for another referendum reflects the position of the devolved legislature rather than the SNP alone.
Same question as 2014
The Scottish Government has chosen to retain the 2014 referendum question rather than devise a new formulation.
The draft asks: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”
The ballot would offer voters a straightforward choice between Yes and No.
The accompanying schedule also prescribes technical details for the ballot paper, including font, minimum size and the formatting of the voting boxes.
No referendum date has been set
Despite publication of the Bill, there is currently no date for another independence referendum.
The draft itself leaves the date blank and states that it will be added only when the legislation is formally introduced.
That distinction is important. Swinney has published the legal framework he wants to use, but he has not acquired the authority to activate it.
Any headline suggesting Scotland has formally scheduled a second independence referendum would therefore go beyond what has actually happened.
Fresh clash with Burnham government
Publication of the draft puts renewed pressure on Burnham's Government to state whether it is prepared to grant the transfer of powers sought by Holyrood.
The dispute is likely to centre on two competing democratic arguments.
The Scottish Government says the result of the 2026 Holyrood election and the parliamentary vote for a Section 30 order demonstrate that Scotland should be allowed to revisit the constitutional question.
The UK Government can argue that the 2014 referendum was presented as a decisive vote and that constitutional stability remains a legitimate consideration for Westminster.
Until the Burnham Government agrees to a transfer of powers, however, the draft Bill cannot by itself deliver another legally authorised referendum.
Swinney says Westminster must ‘respect the voice’ of Scotland
Swinney said the draft legislation was simple and direct and argued that the next step was for the UK Government to respect the voice of the Scottish people and Parliament by transferring the required powers.
He said Scotland's constitutional future should ultimately be decided by people living in Scotland.
That position will now form the basis of the Scottish Government's pressure campaign on Westminster in the coming weeks.
Draft Bill raises stakes without resolving legal deadlock
The publication is more significant than another rhetorical call for independence because the Scottish Government has now put forward the actual legislative framework it intends to use.
But it does not resolve the central constitutional problem created by the 2022 Supreme Court judgment.
The legal route still runs through Westminster.
That leaves Burnham facing a political choice: agree to transfer the power and open the way to a second referendum, or refuse and risk a prolonged constitutional confrontation with a Scottish Government claiming a renewed democratic mandate.