The British Supreme Court ruled unsurprisingly on Wednesday that Scotland could not organize a new independence referendum without the London agreement, dampening the hopes of the Scottish government which wanted to hold such a consultation next year.
“The Court has unanimously concluded that the bill (for a referendum, editor’s note) falls under matters reserved” for central power in London, explained the president of the Supreme Court, Robert Reed. In fact, “the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate for an independence referendum”.
Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said she was “disappointed” by the Court’s ruling, saying that “a law which does not allow Scotland to choose its own future without Westminster’s agreement shows that any notion of voluntary partnership with the UK is a myth”.
The Scots have already refused to 55% in 2014 to leave the United Kingdom. But in the eyes of the SNP separatists in power in Edinburgh, the Brexit that has since taken place, which 62% of voters in the province have opposed, is a game-changer. They want Scotland to rejoin the European Union as an independent state.
But the central government in London strongly opposes any further independence referendums and sees the 2014 vote as closing the debate for a generation.
Anticipating a legal showdown with the government in London, Nicola Sturgeon had taken the lead in seizing the Supreme Court to position itself on the question which divides the Scots according to the polls.
The Court considered that such a referendum – even consultative – would have direct consequences on the union of the United Kingdom, an area “reserved” to the central government in London, which must therefore give its agreement before such a referendum is held. vote.
“Fundamental and inalienable right”
Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, Ms Sturgeon had warned that if she failed in court, she would make the UK’s next general election, due to be held by January 2025, a de facto referendum on the question of independence.
In the 2021 local elections, she promised to hold a legally valid referendum once the COVID-19 pandemic is over.
She had already unveiled the question, “Should Scotland be an independent country?” “, and even the date, October 19, 2023, on which it intended to organize this new consultation.
At last month’s hearing at the Supreme Court, lawyers representing the London government argued that the Scottish government could not decide on its own whether to hold a referendum: Edinburgh must seek permission because it is a a matter reserved for the central government.
Opposite, the highest Scottish magistrate, Dorothy Bain, had argued that “the right to self-determination is a fundamental and inalienable right” while the independence party relied on the cases of Quebec or Kosovo.
But the Supreme Court rejected such arguments on Wednesday, with Robert Reed saying that international law on self-determination only applied to former colonies or populations oppressed by military occupation, or when a group did not access to certain rights.
“I would have preferred another decision, but it gives a clear answer and I think it is welcome,” Philippa Whitford, MP for the Scottish National Party, told AFP after the judgment.
“I think while many supporters of the union may be rejoicing, they also need to understand that it raises questions about the nature of the UK. We are constantly told that this is a voluntary union and so they need to think about the democratic right that Scots have to choose their own future.”