The decision by the United Kingdom’s highest justices to prevent Nicola Sturgeon from proceeding with a new vote next year was unanimous.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish Parliament lacks the authority to hold a second independence referendum in the country.
The highest justices of the United Kingdom ruled unanimously that, notwithstanding the SNP’s demands for a new vote, the country’s government would require authorization from the government in Westminster before proceeding.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon proposed a second referendum on 19 October 2023, dubbed Indyref2.
Sturgeon replies to the Supreme Court’s decision with “disappointment”
She had also threatened that if the court decided against her, she would use the next general election as an informal referendum.
After the verdict was rendered, the prime minister tweeted that she was “disappointed” but respected it, adding that the Supreme Court “does not write the law, only interpret it.”
Ms. Sturgeon continued: “A rule that prevents Scotland from deciding its destiny without Westminster’s approval debunks the lie that the United Kingdom is a consensual partnership and strengthens the case for independence.
“Scotland’s democracy cannot be denied. The judgment of today shuts one path for Scotland’s voice to be heard on the issue of independence, but in a democracy, our voice cannot and will not be silenced.”
However, the head of the Scottish Labour Party, Anas Sarwar, stated that now that the judgment has been made, “we must focus on the problems facing our country, from rising costs to the NHS crisis.”
“In Scotland, there is neither a majority for a referendum or independence nor a majority for the status quo.
“Change is supported by a majority in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. A Labour administration will bring about this change.”
Douglas Ross, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, added: “The SNP must now return to work, abandon their infatuation with the referendum, and focus on what truly matters to the people of Scotland.”
In 2014, Scotland had a referendum on its independence, and slightly over 55% chose to remain a part of the United Kingdom.
However, the pro-independence SNP, which has run the country since 2007, thinks it has the authority to organize a new referendum due to its continuous electoral success – the majority of Scottish Parliament members support independence – and the change in circumstances since Brexit.
Ms. Sturgeon began her efforts to obtain approval for a new referendum in 2017 by requesting a Section 30 order from the then-prime minister, Theresa May. This order is used to increase or restrict, permanently or temporarily, the Scottish Parliament’s legislative authority; it was used to temporarily legislate for the first referendum.
But she and subsequent UK prime ministers have refused, leading to today’s court challenge over whether the Scottish Parliament may adopt a referendum bill without Westminster’s approval.
‘Political ramifications’
Lord Reed, the president of the court, stated that legislation enabling a second vote would pertain to “reserved topics,” rendering it beyond the jurisdiction of Holyrood.
“A legitimately conducted referendum would have significant political ramifications for the Union and the British Parliament,” he said.
“Depending on which position prevailed, it would either increase or damage the democratic legitimacy of the Union and the power of the United Kingdom Parliament over Scotland, and it would either bolster or undermine the democratic credentials of the independence movement.
“Therefore, it is evident that the proposed measure has a connection with the reserved matters of the Union of Scotland and England and the authority of the United Kingdom Parliament that is more than tenuous or incidental.”
Lord Reed added that the panel of justices did not accept the SNP’s claim regarding the international law’s “right to self-determination.”
The party has referenced decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada and the International Court of Justice, namely regarding Quebec’s independence referenda in 1980 and 1995.
However, the chief justice stated that such an international law only exists in instances involving “previous colonies, oppression of a people, or denial of meaningful access to government”
“The court determined that Quebec did not fit the criteria for a colonial or oppressed people, nor could it be shown that Quebecers were denied significant access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural, and social development,” he explained.
The same holds for Scotland and the Scottish people.
Scotland will be autonomous.
MPs from the SNP vented their displeasure with the decision via social media, with Dave Doogan tweeting: “In the eyes of the people of Scotland, the current constitutional arrangement is NOT established.
The will of the people will determine Scotland’s independence.
However, former Scottish Tory leader Baroness Davidson praised the court’s “unanimity and clarity.”
She stated, “Without a doubt, the SNP will attempt to utilize this verdict for other grievances.” If only the enormous effort, capacity, and resources spent on a bid to rerun the initial election had been invested in health, education, and the economy instead.
