Nicola Sturgeon under scrutiny for using public money and civil servants on independence plans

Nicola Sturgeon’s use of public money and officials on her independence plans is being examined by the head of the British civil service after her Supreme Court defeat, the Scottish Secretary has disclosed.

Alister Jack said that Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, and John-Paul Marks, the SNP government’s permanent secretary, were considering the implications of the unanimous ruling that she does not have the power to stage another referendum.

Even after the No vote in the 2014 referendum, Scottish Government civil servants were permitted to work on independence plans on the basis they were duty bound to help SNP ministers advance their political objectives.

But Mr Jack told the Commons Scottish affairs committee that Mr Case, the Prime Minister’s most senior civil servant, and Mr Marks were looking at “what this judgment means for the future role of the civil service of Scotland.”

He told MPs it was a “very serious issue that needs to be seriously looked at” amid an outcry that Ms Sturgeon is continuing to use public money and civil servants on her separation campaign.

Ms Sturgeon has refused to reallocate her £20 million referendum fund in the wake of the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision that the Union is reserved to Westminster, saying she hoped the UK Government would perform an about-turn and allow a vote.

She also said that public funds and civil service time would be spent preparing a series of papers that together will form a new independence prospectus. Three had been published before this week’s court result.

But The Telegraph disclosed that Whitehall advice has been sought by UK ministers and the Scottish Tories were writing to Mr Marks demanding “urgent clarification” on whether the spending is lawful.

In his letter, Donald Cameron, the Tories’ Shadow Constitution Secretary, said the Scottish Government appeared “to be intent on spending money on an area outwith its competence”.

He told Mr Marks he had a legal duty to seek a “ministerial direction” - a formal objection to SNP ministers spending public money on an area over which they have no responsibility.

Permanent secretaries of Whitehall departments and the devolved administrations must seek a ministerial direction if they believe any spending proposal is beyond the powers of their respective ministers.

Mr Jack told MPs that Mr Marks was in close contact with Mr Case and Sue Gray, the second permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office, who leads on the Union and the constitution.

The Scottish Secretary said there had been a previous review of the civil service in Scotland following the 2014 referendum.

“Following this judgment, they’re working again on what that means for the role of the civil service in Scotland so we’ll have to see where that takes us,” Mr Jack said.

He pointed out the First Minister was forced to hold a press conference on the ruling last week at an Edinburgh hotel on an SNP-branded podium rather than at her official Bute House residence.

Mr Jack said it would have been wrong for Ms Sturgeon to have outlined her plan to use the next general election as a ‘de facto’ referendum from Holyrood or her Bute House official residence “because it is very much moving the argument going forward onto a political basis.”

The Scottish Secretary said it “would be no different” if Ms Sturgeon was using her civil service to try and remove the Trident nuclear deterrent from its Faslane base on the Clyde, as defence is another policy area entirely reserved to Westminster.

Pressed by Douglas Ross, the Scottish Tory leader, he disclosed the UK Government had spent around £71,800 of public money on the Supreme Court action brought by Ms Sturgeon.

Election as a ‘de facto’ referendum

Mr Jack told MPs that Scots could have another referendum if there was “sustained support” for one, citing Ms Sturgeon’s previous definition of this as 60 per cent backing for a year.

But he said polling clearly indicated they do not want one in the near future, with their priorities instead being the cost of living crisis and rebuilding the economy after Covid.

The Scottish Secretary also rejected her plan to use the general election as a ‘de facto’ referendum, giving her a mandate to open independence negotiations with the UK Government if nationalist parties win more than half the popular vote.

He said an election cannot be used to measure support or opposition on one question because people do not “vote on one specific issue in a manifesto”.

In a damning conclusion, he said “you can’t have a mandate for something that we now know you legally do not have any power over.”

Mr Cameron said there was no legal justification “to continue to lavish £20 million on planning for a referendum that they don’t have the authority to hold” and that was “why I have written to the permanent secretary for clarification”.

He said Ms Sturgeon’s de facto referendum plan was party political and not Scottish Government policy, adding: “There is no excuse for impartial civil servants to be deployed on party propaganda in this way, and no reason for taxpayers’ money to be wasted on it.”

The Cabinet Office declined to comment other than referring to Mr Jack’s comments. It is understood Mr Case is not conducting a formal review. The Scottish Government was approached for comment.

The Scottish Government said Mr Marks would respond to Mr Cameron “in due course” but it would “continue to set out” the series of papers Ms Sturgeon has ordered to form her new independence prospectus.

A spokesman said: “It is the role of the civil service to support the elected government of the day in developing and implementing its policies.”