Unilaterally, Westminster can prohibit the Scottish people from voting in a referendum on the independence of their nation. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has just decided that the Scottish Parliament cannot hold this popular consultation, even if it is only consultative, without the agreement of London.
The Scottish National Party (SNP) government planned to hold a second independence referendum in autumn 2023. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon wanted to proceed as in 2014, securing an agreement between London and Edinburgh. At the time, the two parliaments had agreed on the wording of the question — it was simple: should Scotland be an independent country? — and on the 50% plus one rule to determine the outcome of the referendum. The supporters of Yes had bitten the dust, collecting 44.7% of the vote, but their option had progressed by 15 points during the campaign.
Today, support for independence has climbed to tie or even surpass the status quo option in the polls. Brexit is certainly the issue that has brought the most water to the mill of the separatists, the Scots having voted by more than 60% to remain in the European Union.
Faced with the absolute refusal of successive Prime Ministers in London to accept the holding of this second referendum, the Sturgeon government, without having any illusions, asked the Supreme Court to decide. Things are now clear, underlined the Prime Minister.
In its judgment, the Court considers that a referendum, held legally, would be “undoubtedly an important political event, even if its result would have no immediate consequences” (the translation is ours), given its consultative nature, as is the case elsewhere in Quebec with the People’s Consultations Act. But there would inevitably be political consequences. “A clear result […] would possess authority, in a democratic constitution and political culture, derived from a democratic expression of the views of the Scottish electorate. Depending on the result obtained, this expression “would strengthen or weaken the democratic legitimacy of the Union”. If we understand correctly, the Scottish people cannot be allowed to express themselves democratically because that would undermine the democracy of the Unionist majority.
Reacting to the judgment at a press conference, Nicola Sturgeon said that “the notion that the UK is a voluntary partnership of nations, if ever it was a reality, is no longer a reality”. Britain’s next election, due in two years, will be a referendum, she said, banking on Scottish outrage at the stalemate.
The Supreme Court confirms that the “devolution” granted to Scotland confers only a limited status, depending entirely on British law. In this sense, the United Kingdom is not a true federation: in legal terms, Scotland cannot decide its political future as Quebec can.
By refusing that the Scots can express themselves by way of referendum, the British power behaves a little like Madrid towards the Catalans. A new government in London, a most likely prospect, could lead to change. But the Scots did not come out of the inn.