Home News Scotland cannot hold an independence referendum without the London Agreement, according to the Supreme Court

Scotland cannot hold an independence referendum without the London Agreement, according to the Supreme Court

by admin

Britain’s High Court unsurprisingly ruled on Wednesday 23 November that Scotland could not organize a new independence referendum without the London Agreement, dampening the hopes of the Scottish government, which wanted such consultations next year. The Scottish Prime Minister replied that the next British general election would be a “de facto referendum”.

“We must and will find other democratic, legal and constitutional means for the people of Scotland to express their will. In my view, this could only be an election.”Independence Secretary Nicola Sturgeon said at a news conference in Edinburgh.

sequel after announcement

A few minutes earlier, the British Supreme Court had ruled that a referendum on independence could not be held without London’s approval. The court unanimously concluded that the proposed law [pour un référendum, NDLR] fall under reserved questions » To the central authority in London, Chief Justice Robert Reid said. In fact, The Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate for an independence referendum..

Nicola Sturgeon said to himself “Disappointed” By court ruling, that A.A “The law that does not allow Scotland to choose its future without an agreement from Westminster shows that any idea of ​​voluntary partnership with the United Kingdom is a myth.”.

Separatists say Brexit was a game-changer

And Scots had already refused, 55%, in 2014 to leave the UK. But in the eyes of the separatists in the SNP in power in Edinburgh, the Brexit that has taken place since then, which was opposed by 62% of voters in the province, is a game-changer. They want Scotland to join the European Union as an independent country.

But the central government in London is fiercely opposed to any further independence referendums and believes the 2014 vote will close the debate for a generation.

sequel after announcement

Anticipating a legal dispute with London, Nicola Sturgeon had taken the lead in seizing the High Court to take a stand on the question that divided the Scots. The Court considered that such a referendum – even an advisory one – would have direct consequences for the Union of the United Kingdom, a region ” Spare “ to the central government in London, which must give its consent before such a vote can take place.

Nicola Sturgeon, by Alex Taylor: “Look Scots Eyes”

After the decision, British Minister for Scotland Alistair Jack said Edinburgh should now “focus […] on the most important issues For Scots in the midst of the UK cost of living crisis.

For his part, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak considered that the Supreme Court had issued a decision “clear and final judgment”. Politicians called out “work together”.

“a fundamental and inalienable right”

Nicola Sturgeon had already warned that if she failed in court, she would hold the next general election in the UK, due by January 2025, a de facto referendum on the question of independence.

sequel after announcement

The leader of the Scottish Labor Party, Anas Sarwar, who opposes independence, called for this ” get rid of “ This conservative government “corrupt”. ‘Let’s show we can get the UK to work across the country’released it on the BBC.

During the 2021 local elections, Nicola Sturgeon promised to legally organize a referendum once the page on the Covid-19 pandemic is turned. I have already revealed the question, Should Scotland be an independent country? »and to the date, October 19, 2023, on which you intend to organize this new consultation.

At the hearing last month, lawyers representing the London government said the Scottish government could not decide on its own whether to hold a referendum: Edinburgh would have to ask permission, as it is a case reserved for the central government.

In contrast, Dorothy Payne, the highest Scottish justice, argued that The right to self-determination is a fundamental and inalienable right.. But the Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected such arguments, with Robert Reid arguing that international law on self-determination only applies to former colonies or populations oppressed by military occupation, or when a group does not have certain rights.

“I would have preferred another decision but it gives a clear answer and I think it is welcome”She told AFP at the end of the ruling, Philippa Whitford, an independent MP. “I think that while many supporters of the union may rejoice, they also need to recognize that it raises questions about the nature of the United Kingdom. We are constantly told that this is a voluntary union and so they need to think about the democratic right of Scots to choose their own future.”

Related News

Leave a Comment