6 ms·

Scottish Parliament does not have power to legislate an independence referendum

27 points by Kaibeezy 4y ago

LatteLazy 4y ago
I get that this is news, but this is a VERY predictable result. The legislation that set up the Scottish parliament specifically addresses this question...
- pmyteh 4y ago
  I think that the case made was arguable, but this was always the likely outcome (assuming that the Supreme Court accepted the case in the first place, which they did). It's extremely clear that the Scottish Parliament can't legislate for independence. It's also clear that they can, in general, legislate to hold referenda. The question is whether a non-binding referendum (that is, one which is advisory and non-self-executing, though obviously with political importance) on independence is in breach of the "don't legislate on independence" reservation. You could make a case that the referendum couldn't change the actual constitutional arrangements (and the Lord Advocate did) but the argument that it's part of a process of change on forbidden matters seems a stronger one to me - as the court found.
  - arethuza 4y ago
    Worth noting that the Brexit referendum was also non-binding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_European_U...
    - dijit 4y ago
      Which is ironic, because if it had been legally binding it would have been declared illegal due to a multitude of factors including campaign spending and foreign interference. Campaign spending: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/17/vote-leave-broke-electoral-law-and-british-democracy-is-shaken https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/17/vote-leave-... Russian interference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
phoe-krk 4y ago
The legal opinion and verdict of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom will matter very little the moment the Scottish Parliament truly decides to legislate independence. It'll end in use of force, as usual in these cases.
- smcl 4y ago
  I think we are really far from Scotland unilaterally declaring independence and England rolling in with tanks.
  - idontwantthis 4y ago
    If only because Scotland has the nukes.
    - smcl 4y ago
      The British military (certainly the Army) are really, really loyal to the crown. That the British nuclear subs are based in Faslane mean anything in this (extremely extremely unlikely, fictional) scenario - the military would without question all side with the union whether they're stationed north or south of the border.
  - OtomotO 4y ago
    Oh boy, I hope you didn't jinx that one. A few years ago I couldn't imagine Brexit becoming a reality or someone invading... well, let's leave it at that.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - mFixman 4y ago
      Brexit became a possibility the second UKIP became a threat to the electoral chances of the Conservative party. It's very likely that Labour would have won in 2015 if Cameron didn't promise that referendum. Scottish Labour already has a committed anti-independence position, so they likely will let the SNP win over doing a similar promise. The only other possibility is a coalition government with Labour, but I don't see any government making the same mistake after 2016.
obayesshelton 4y ago
Haven't they already had one recently and the majority were against it...
- leereeves 4y ago
  Yes, in 2014, but that was before Brexit.
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    And the argument for remaining part of the UK was precisely because Scotland would have to start the EU admission process from scratch.
- newaccount74 4y ago
  That was before Brexit.
- MagnumOpus 4y ago
  Eight years ago, before the English decided to catapult them out of the EU. (A major argument from the English side against Indyref was that an independent Scotland couldn't be part of the EU, but a united Kingdom could - that aged poorly.)
  - cdogl 4y ago
    It was a strange argument in the first place. If Luxembourg and Malta can be in the EU, why not Scotland? Hard to imagine them being refused.
    - tehbeard 4y ago
      It's less an issue of size and more of economics etc. Also the precedent it sets for Catalonia's independence movement and the issues that causes for Spain is another pain point that has been brought up (edit: Though as I understand it, Spain's position is that as long as Scotland does it "legally", and not by secession, they're fine?).
lynx23 4y ago
Why do I think about Brave Heart while reading this?
rich_sasha 4y ago
Amusingly, Theresa May and Boris Johnson, while angrily waving their fist at the horrible EU trying to force them to remain in the union and being awkward about it, insisted that Scotland has no say over whether they want to remain in the United Kingdom, that being together is better and so on... I think probably both Scotland and the rest of the UK are better off together, but this country is really coming apart at the poorly glued seams of English hypocrisy.
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  Please don't lump this on the English, we don't care. Per your own comment this is decided by PMs. Hardly any of them are english (Johnson was American, Cameron and Blair were both Scots, May was English and the others in the last 40 years lasted too little time to matter). It's a common misconception that Westminster Politicians care about England but not (say) Scotland. They don't care about either.
- soco 4y ago
  If we read the court's reasoning, it was rejected because it would show "democratic expression of the Scottish electorate" and while at it, would "either strengthen or weaken the democratic legitimacy of the union". Damn democracy, how annoying it can become when it does not agree with the status quo anymore - we rather gag its voice to not hear any dissensions.
- lucozade 4y ago
  At least from Johnson's pov, his argument for refusing another referendum was exactly in line with his view on brexit. Specifically, if you have a referendum then you should bloody well respect the result. The last thing he wanted was to offer the possibility that a referendum is just for Xmas and you can change your mind if you get cold feet. And tbh, there were only 2 realistic outcomes from the Supreme Court today: either that there's no legislation to review so they can't comment (which they dismissed) or that we have precedent for the exact mechanism for having a Scottish independence referendum. Because we've had one.
  - theironhammer 4y ago
colinb 4y ago
If a future Scotland gains independence and then seeks entry to the EU I presume (hah - big talk!) that the EU would require Scotland to adopt the Euro, free movement, full trade access and so on. Does that mean that England would want a hard border to prevent EU nationals from wandering in and taking their jobs? Does it mean that the EU would require a hard border to prevent the leaking of non-EU certified goods from England to Scotland? I lived in Scotland before Brexit and the last IndyRef. Now I live in Ireland. Watching what Brexit has brought to Ireland (thanks Nigel!) makes me wonder what the thinking is on how an independent Scotland inside the EU would work? I suppose there is the precedent of the several other non-EU countries with EU borders. And indeed the history of civil war in Northern Ireland is much more recent than war between Scotland and England, so perhaps it's NBD.
- smcl 4y ago
  It would mean a protracted set of negotiations with Westminster throwing as many wrenches into the works as possible.
- AndrewDucker 4y ago
  I would assume that the same kinds of borders would exist between Scotland and England as between Northern Ireland and The Republic. And that trade between Scotland and Ireland would suddenly get a lot easier (as they would with the rest of Europe), at the same time as trade got harder with England/Wales.
  - AndrewOMartin 4y ago
    I just want to point out that the border between Northern Ireland and The Republic is in a weird state of legal flux, being sometimes in the sea, sometimes hard, soft, semi-soft, and being a source of violent tension for generations. If you actually go there today you'll often notice nothing at all, but there have been all sorts of plans about what will finally happen once we "get Brexit done".
ploppyploppy 4y ago
Good

27 points by Kaibeezy 4y ago

I get that this is news, but this is a VERY predictable result. The legislation that set up the Scottish parliament specifically addresses this question...

pmyteh 4y ago
I think that the case made was arguable, but this was always the likely outcome (assuming that the Supreme Court accepted the case in the first place, which they did). It's extremely clear that the Scottish Parliament can't legislate for independence. It's also clear that they can, in general, legislate to hold referenda. The question is whether a non-binding referendum (that is, one which is advisory and non-self-executing, though obviously with political importance) on independence is in breach of the "don't legislate on independence" reservation. You could make a case that the referendum couldn't change the actual constitutional arrangements (and the Lord Advocate did) but the argument that it's part of a process of change on forbidden matters seems a stronger one to me - as the court found.
- arethuza 4y ago
  Worth noting that the Brexit referendum was also non-binding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_European_U...
  - dijit 4y ago
    Which is ironic, because if it had been legally binding it would have been declared illegal due to a multitude of factors including campaign spending and foreign interference. Campaign spending: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/17/vote-leave-broke-electoral-law-and-british-democracy-is-shaken https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/17/vote-leave-... Russian interference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...

phoe-krk 4y ago

The legal opinion and verdict of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom will matter very little the moment the Scottish Parliament truly decides to legislate independence. It'll end in use of force, as usual in these cases.

smcl 4y ago
I think we are really far from Scotland unilaterally declaring independence and England rolling in with tanks.
- idontwantthis 4y ago
  If only because Scotland has the nukes.
  - smcl 4y ago
    The British military (certainly the Army) are really, really loyal to the crown. That the British nuclear subs are based in Faslane mean anything in this (extremely extremely unlikely, fictional) scenario - the military would without question all side with the union whether they're stationed north or south of the border.
- OtomotO 4y ago
  Oh boy, I hope you didn't jinx that one. A few years ago I couldn't imagine Brexit becoming a reality or someone invading... well, let's leave it at that.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mFixman 4y ago
    Brexit became a possibility the second UKIP became a threat to the electoral chances of the Conservative party. It's very likely that Labour would have won in 2015 if Cameron didn't promise that referendum. Scottish Labour already has a committed anti-independence position, so they likely will let the SNP win over doing a similar promise. The only other possibility is a coalition government with Labour, but I don't see any government making the same mistake after 2016.

obayesshelton 4y ago

Haven't they already had one recently and the majority were against it...

leereeves 4y ago
Yes, in 2014, but that was before Brexit.
- rbanffy 4y ago
  And the argument for remaining part of the UK was precisely because Scotland would have to start the EU admission process from scratch.
newaccount74 4y ago
That was before Brexit.
MagnumOpus 4y ago
Eight years ago, before the English decided to catapult them out of the EU. (A major argument from the English side against Indyref was that an independent Scotland couldn't be part of the EU, but a united Kingdom could - that aged poorly.)
- cdogl 4y ago
  It was a strange argument in the first place. If Luxembourg and Malta can be in the EU, why not Scotland? Hard to imagine them being refused.
  - tehbeard 4y ago
    It's less an issue of size and more of economics etc. Also the precedent it sets for Catalonia's independence movement and the issues that causes for Spain is another pain point that has been brought up (edit: Though as I understand it, Spain's position is that as long as Scotland does it "legally", and not by secession, they're fine?).

lynx23 4y ago

Why do I think about Brave Heart while reading this?

rich_sasha 4y ago

Amusingly, Theresa May and Boris Johnson, while angrily waving their fist at the horrible EU trying to force them to remain in the union and being awkward about it, insisted that Scotland has no say over whether they want to remain in the United Kingdom, that being together is better and so on... I think probably both Scotland and the rest of the UK are better off together, but this country is really coming apart at the poorly glued seams of English hypocrisy.

LatteLazy 4y ago
Please don't lump this on the English, we don't care. Per your own comment this is decided by PMs. Hardly any of them are english (Johnson was American, Cameron and Blair were both Scots, May was English and the others in the last 40 years lasted too little time to matter). It's a common misconception that Westminster Politicians care about England but not (say) Scotland. They don't care about either.
soco 4y ago
If we read the court's reasoning, it was rejected because it would show "democratic expression of the Scottish electorate" and while at it, would "either strengthen or weaken the democratic legitimacy of the union". Damn democracy, how annoying it can become when it does not agree with the status quo anymore - we rather gag its voice to not hear any dissensions.
lucozade 4y ago
At least from Johnson's pov, his argument for refusing another referendum was exactly in line with his view on brexit. Specifically, if you have a referendum then you should bloody well respect the result. The last thing he wanted was to offer the possibility that a referendum is just for Xmas and you can change your mind if you get cold feet. And tbh, there were only 2 realistic outcomes from the Supreme Court today: either that there's no legislation to review so they can't comment (which they dismissed) or that we have precedent for the exact mechanism for having a Scottish independence referendum. Because we've had one.
- theironhammer 4y ago

colinb 4y ago

If a future Scotland gains independence and then seeks entry to the EU I presume (hah - big talk!) that the EU would require Scotland to adopt the Euro, free movement, full trade access and so on. Does that mean that England would want a hard border to prevent EU nationals from wandering in and taking their jobs? Does it mean that the EU would require a hard border to prevent the leaking of non-EU certified goods from England to Scotland? I lived in Scotland before Brexit and the last IndyRef. Now I live in Ireland. Watching what Brexit has brought to Ireland (thanks Nigel!) makes me wonder what the thinking is on how an independent Scotland inside the EU would work? I suppose there is the precedent of the several other non-EU countries with EU borders. And indeed the history of civil war in Northern Ireland is much more recent than war between Scotland and England, so perhaps it's NBD.

smcl 4y ago
It would mean a protracted set of negotiations with Westminster throwing as many wrenches into the works as possible.
AndrewDucker 4y ago
I would assume that the same kinds of borders would exist between Scotland and England as between Northern Ireland and The Republic. And that trade between Scotland and Ireland would suddenly get a lot easier (as they would with the rest of Europe), at the same time as trade got harder with England/Wales.
- AndrewOMartin 4y ago
  I just want to point out that the border between Northern Ireland and The Republic is in a weird state of legal flux, being sometimes in the sea, sometimes hard, soft, semi-soft, and being a source of violent tension for generations. If you actually go there today you'll often notice nothing at all, but there have been all sorts of plans about what will finally happen once we "get Brexit done".

ploppyploppy 4y ago

Good