[ad_1]
Last week, the UK Supreme Court called for a make-or-break ruling on the constitutional future of the United Kingdom, and its decision was unanimous and emphatic: Scotland’s semi-autonomous parliament in Holyrood has no legal authority. Independence referendum without Parliament’s consent at Westminster.
The verdict sparked an immediate political backlash. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak told the House of Commons that the judges’ position was “fixed” and that Scots should put aside their obsession with secession and focus on other concerns. Their pleas went unheeded in Scotland, where doomsday protesters gathered in numerous cities and towns. His message was clear: Scottish democracy is under attack, and the union between Scotland and England—a supposedly consensual partnership between equals—has become a political trap.
Scottish voters held a referendum on independence just eight years ago, which resulted in a 45 percent to 55 percent margin—but the UK’s vote to leave the European Union two years later has sparked renewed debate on the issue in pro-EU Scotland. The November 23 ruling was not unexpected: few legal commentators thought the UK Supreme Court would hand Scottish nationalists a constitutional mechanism to end the British state. But it nevertheless raises far-reaching questions for the Scottish National Party (SNP), which may be forced to rapidly reshape both its electoral strategy and the Scottish independence movement.
Last week, the UK Supreme Court called for a make-or-break ruling on the constitutional future of the United Kingdom, and its decision was unanimous and emphatic: Scotland’s semi-autonomous parliament in Holyrood has no legal authority. Independence referendum without Parliament’s consent at Westminster.
The verdict sparked an immediate political backlash. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak told the House of Commons that the judges’ position was “fixed” and that Scots should put aside their obsession with secession and focus on other concerns. Their pleas went unheeded in Scotland, where doomsday protesters gathered in numerous cities and towns. His message was clear: Scottish democracy is under attack, and the union between Scotland and England—a supposedly consensual partnership between equals—has become a political trap.
Scottish voters held a referendum on independence just eight years ago, which resulted in a 45 percent to 55 percent margin—but the UK’s vote to leave the European Union two years later has sparked renewed debate on the issue in pro-EU Scotland. The November 23 ruling was not unexpected: few legal commentators thought the UK Supreme Court would hand Scottish nationalists a constitutional mechanism to end the British state. But it nevertheless raises far-reaching questions for the Scottish National Party (SNP), which may be forced to rapidly reshape both its electoral strategy and the Scottish independence movement.
Supreme Court President Robert Reid said his decision had its roots in the Scotland Act 1998, which led to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh the following year. It guarantees that any legislative matter relating to the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom is “reserved” to the British House of Commons. An independence referendum, even if held on a non-binding consultative basis, would have serious consequences for this integrity, Reid concludes. During the 2014 independence referendum, both parties were bound to abide by the outcome of the terms of the 2012 Edinburgh Agreement, which was negotiated between then Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and then British Prime Minister David Cameron. When the Scots voted to remain part of the United Kingdom, Salmond quickly conceded and resigned.
Speaking at a press conference in Edinburgh after the verdict was announced, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who leads the SNP, struck a more conciliatory tone than the opposition. The ruling was “a hard pill to swallow for any supporter of freedom, and indeed for any supporter of democracy,” she said, but her party will accept the decision because it recognizes the court’s legitimacy. If Scotland and England cannot resolve the question of independence through a mutually agreed and binding referendum, the SNP will “find another democratic, legitimate means for the Scottish people to express their will,” she added.
It is hard to see where the Scottish independence movement – the dominant force in Scottish politics for the past decade – goes from here. Through Scotland’s top law officer, Sturgeon herself requested a court ruling on the viability of a fresh independence vote planned by Holyrood. She argued that there was a need for clarity on the constitutional distribution of powers in the United Kingdom because of Westminster’s binding opposition to another vote. Now that clarity has been established, the extent of Scotland’s impotence in the Union has become clear.
On 23 November, the currently established legal channels for Scottish sovereignty pass through Westminster. There would not be another independence referendum without the support of a majority of British members of Parliament, radically narrowing the SNP’s political options. Scotland elects only 59 of Westminster’s 650 MPs; Electors of England, 533. A shift in the balance of parliamentary power is unlikely to change anything. The current Tories are in disarray over opposition to Scottish separatism, and Labor Party leader Keir Starmere – who polls show is likely to become the next British prime minister – has also ruled out a new vote.
Following last week’s ruling, Sturgeon quickly turned to her Plan C strategy to advance the cause of independence. The next British general election, due before January 2025, will be framed as a “de facto referendum” on Scotland’s departure from the union. If the SNP and other smaller pro-independence parties, such as the Scottish Greens, get more than 50 percent of all votes cast in Scotland, they will have a mandate to leave the union, she said. (In the last UK general election, the SNP increased its vote share in Scotland by 8.1 per cent.) But it is unclear how Sturgeon’s official mandate would work without legal recourse. The SNP will hold an emergency party conference next year to iron out the details.
This scenario is still fraught with difficulties. Britain’s unionist parties – Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats – will reject the formation of the SNP, arguing that elections are not fought on a single issue but serve to air voters’ views on a range of domestic policy concerns. Moreover, even if the Provisional Nationalist Coalition succeeds in winning a majority of Scottish votes, the next UK government will not be obliged to hold open discussions with Edinburgh on independence. A positive result for Sturgeon will change nothing: the SNP will demand independence, and Westminster will reject those demands – as did former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his predecessor, Theresa May, as both leaders.
However, the fading prospects of the independence campaign will not lead to the downfall of the SNP, which has held power at Holyrood since 2007 and was re-elected last year. The party was on the losing side of Scotland’s first independence referendum in September 2014, but went on to reap the rewards of the resulting election. During the 2015 UK general election, “Yes” voters flocked to the SNP banner, resulting in it winning 56 of the 59 seats in Scotland. Years later, it is still Scotland’s most popular political party, drawing support not only from traditional nationalists but also from supporters of Scotland’s re-entry into the EU. With independence seemingly off the table, the SNP may gradually moderate its ambitions and begin pushing for a more autonomous Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom rather than a full-blown political divorce.
The SNP is already signaling such a shift. On the evening of 23 November, as temperatures plummeted across Scotland, Sturgeon addressed a rally outside the Holyrood Parliament. She said the United Kingdom was no longer a voluntary partnership, and that the independence movement should consider itself a “democratic movement” dedicated to protecting Edinburgh’s political autonomy from Westminster. Of course, democracy is a vague concept in the same way that freedom is not. The rhetoric of Scottish democracy can be applied to a variety of special constitutional settlements within the United Kingdom, including home rule – the party advocated a policy of hegemony when it was first founded in the 1930s.
Scottish Home Rule means the transfer of additional powers – over taxation, borrowing and social security, for example – from London to Edinburgh and the formal acceptance of Scotland’s semi-federal status within the United Kingdom. The SNP will not abandon its commitment to independence; He will still publicly press the case for Scottish sovereignty from Westminster rule. But there will be an underlying belief among Scottish nationalists that a breakup of Britain is no longer imminent.
There is no hiding the significance of last week’s UK Supreme Court ruling. For now, it is almost impossible to see how the SNP achieves its dream of independence. To underline Scotland’s new subordinate status, Alastair Jack, the Conservative Secretary for Scotland at Westminster, said on the day of the judgment that the Prime Minister’s Office would agree to a new referendum “when there is consensus between governments, between political parties. , and throughout a civil Scotland, as it was in 2014.” The problem for Scottish nationalists is that such a consensus may never come; according to the new ruling, only Westminster can decide when it has.
On one level, Sturgeon is right: this is a treacherous position for any democratic country.
[ad_2]
Source link