READ MORE: Scottish leader seeks independence referendum in 2023 Here`s the story of the push for Scottish independence and how another vote could take place: “What we need is a constitutional convention where we put aside our differences and put Scotland first. We need to find a way to come together as we did in 2014 and agree on a strategy focused solely on independence,” he said. Acknowledging the “frustration and disappointment” felt by the SNP and wider independence supporters after the decision, Sturgeon said it had to be short-lived. “The fact is that we have work ahead of us. The case for Scottish independence is more compelling and urgent than ever. Sturgeon has already said she will only try to secede from the UK through a legally agreed referendum. In the United States, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that a referendum on whether Alaska could seek a legal path to independence was ultra vires – and could not be held.[11] In making this decision, the judges cited the earlier – and very famous – White v. Texas[12] of 1869, in which the Supreme Court ruled that unilateral secession would be illegal under U.S. constitutional law.[13] As a rule, these referendums have led to the rejection of the decision to hold referendums on self-determination. For example, in Spain, the Tribunal Constitucional de España ruled in its Judgment No.

103/2008 that the Basque Parliament had exceeded its powers and declared “the unconstitutionality and subsequent invalidity of Law 9/2008 of 27 June 2008 of the Basque Parliament” (Law on a referendum on de facto independence). The situation is similar in the United States and Canada. It could also be argued that the Scotland Act 1998 does not explicitly prohibit a referendum on independence, as Imperial Tobacco states, according to which “what is not explicitly designated as competence is decentralised”[41]. But there remains the question of the purpose of the referendum. Although it may not have legal effect, section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998 also specifies that it is necessary to determine whether a provision “relates” to a reserved matter. referring to the purpose of the provision” (emphasis added). On Wednesday night, a series of pro-independence rallies took place in cities across Scotland, with Ms Sturgeon addressing a crowd gathered outside the Scottish Parliament. This is unlikely to happen in the short term, so the renewed campaign for independence has become only a longer period.

He said: “Now we have to unite as a movement. So we have to stop the electoral charade of `one more mandate, vote for the SNP again`, because the reality is that there are people in the Conservative Party who support independence, there are people in the Lib Dems who support independence, there are many members in the Labour Party who support independence, and of course there is the Alba party. The Scottish Parliament cannot hold a second independence referendum without Westminster`s approval, the UK`s Supreme Court has ruled in a unanimous decision likely to anger Scottish nationalists who say the country`s future is decided by Scottish voters. In Canada, the Royal Supreme Court of Canada (CQRC) ruled in the Re Québec case in 1998 that “any attempt to secede a province from Canada must be made in accordance with the Canadian Constitution or contrary to Canadian law”[14]. From the perspective of Canadian constitutional law, a referendum on independence would not be permitted because of the absence of a constitutional amendment.[15] [22] For example, in Anderson, Reid and Doherty v. Scottish Ministers, [2001], patients unsuccessfully challenged the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999. In order to understand the point of law, it is necessary to examine the more general principles and relevant case law that can be used to decide the question of the legality of a referendum. Given the wording of the Scotland Act 1998 (see below), there is some confusion as to how it might relate to Scotland`s right to hold a referendum to gauge public opinion on independence. The judges clarified that the law does not allow Holyrood to legislate for a referendum on independence without Westminster`s consent. But Reed said the impact of legislation “is not limited to the legal consequences, but can include its practical consequences.” The result of a referendum “would have authority. and strengthen or weaken the democratic legitimacy of the Union.

The rationale for this argument is that neither the adoption of the law, nor the holding of the referendum, nor even a vote for independence, would end or change the Union regime. In terms of legal implications, independence would therefore be a conditional rather than automatic effect of a referendum law, even if we assume that the vote will be for independence. Calls for the Scottish independence movement to set aside their bitter differences and unite after the verdict was handed down in the Supreme Court by an MP from a party that has become home to former SNP members. But this argument may have a flaw, namely that it mixes the intention of the Scottish Government with the intention of the Scottish Parliament. While the Scottish National Party currently has a majority in the Scottish Parliament, it is entirely possible that members of other parties will support a referendum for tactical reasons (perhaps because they expect the vote to be lost and believe it will take the issue of independence off the political agenda for a generation). Indeed, this was the explicit position of former Labour leader Wendy Alexander, and this view was also supported by former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsyth[36]. Since this is a possibility, it would simply not be possible to claim that the majority had a single unified objective, which is to end the Union. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the “purpose” of the Act relates to a reserved matter.[37] Sir James Eadie KC, the UK government`s lead lawyer, said Bain had refused earlier this year to certify the bill`s legal competence because she did not have “the necessary level of confidence” that it was legal.