No referendum in Scotland without London agreement, rules the Supreme Court
Before the decision of the Supreme Court, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon had warned that she would make the next general election in the United Kingdom a referendum on the question of independence.
Bots are counted during the first referendum in Edinburgh, Scotland, September 2014.
The British Supreme Court ruled unsurprisingly on Wednesday that Scotland could not hold a new referendum on its independence without London's agreement, dampening the hopes of the Scottish government which wanted to hold such a consultation there. next year.
Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said she was disappointed by the Court's ruling, saying a law that does not allow the Scotland choosing its own future without Westminster's agreement shows that any notion of a willing partnership with the UK is a myth.
Already 55% of Scots in 2014 refused to leave the UK. But in the eyes of the independentists of the Scottish National Party (SNP) 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.
The central government in London strongly opposes any new independence referendum and considers the 2014 vote closed the debate for a generation.
Anticipating a legal standoff with the government in London, Nicola Sturgeon had taken the lead in seizing the Supreme Court to have it 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 for the central government in London which must therefore give its agreement before the holding of such a vote.
First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon
Ahead of the Supreme Court ruling, Ms Sturgeon warned that if unsuccessful in court she would face the next UK general election, due to be held by January 2025 , a de facto referendum on the question of independence.
In the 2021 local elections, she had promised to hold a legally valid referendum once the COVID-19 pandemic page.
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 in 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, as this is a matter reserved for the central government.
Opposite, Scotland's highest magistrate, Dorothy Bain, argued that the right to self-determination is a fundamental and inalienable right. The independence party had relied on the cases of Quebec or Kosovo.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected such arguments, Robert Reed indicating that international law in terms of #x27;self-determination applied only to former colonies or populations oppressed by military occupation, or when a group does not have access to certain rights.
I would have preferred another decision, but it gives a clear answer and I think it's welcome, Philippa Whitford told AFP after the judgment. MP for the SNP.
I think that while many supporters of the union may be rejoicing, they must also realize that it raises questions about the nature from the United Kingdom. We are constantly told that this is a voluntary union and so they need to think about the democratic right Scots have to choose their own future.