Supreme Court rule Nicola Sturgeon cannot hold Scottish Independence referendum

Nicola Sturgeon ruled out a ‘wildcat’ referendum today after a huge setback in her fight to split the UK.

The SNP leader admitted any path to independence must be “legal” after the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that she cannot legislate without Westminster’s approval.

But when she issued a statement following the decision, Ms Sturgeon complained that the UK is not a ‘voluntary partnership’ and that it is ‘unsustainable’.

She appealed to Rishi Sunak to stop “denying” democracy and “reach an agreement” on holding a vote.

“The SNP is not abandoning the referendum route, Westminster is blocking it,” she said.

Ms Sturgeon promised that the SNP will now fight in the next general election over the issue of holding a new referendum.

Tories accused the SNP of using the legal blockade as a ‘complaint’ to bolster their political position. They urged Ms Sturgeon to “let go of the referendum obsession” and to stop wasting huge sums of public money.

“Today’s ruling blocks one way for Scotland’s voice to be heard on independence – but in a democracy our voice cannot and will not be silenced,” said Ms Sturgeon.

President Lord Reed said the court had the power to decide the matter, and that the sovereignty issue was “reserved” for the British government rather than Holyrood.

Before their arguments were rejected, the Scottish government wanted to vote on October 19 next year.

Polls show that the Scottish public is divided on the issue of independence. The latest referendum – billed by both sides as once in a generation – produced a 55-45 percent victory for union members.

Lord Reed rejected comparisons to Quebec’s efforts to secure self-determination.

“The court unanimously concludes that the bill does concern reserved matters,” he said. “The Scottish Parliament has no power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence.”

He explained the decision, saying: ‘A lawfully conducted referendum would have important political implications for the Union and the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Its outcome would, in a democracy-based constitution and political culture, possess the authority of a democratic expression of the opinion of the Scottish electorate.

It would strengthen or weaken the democratic legitimacy of the Union and of the British Parliament’s sovereignty over Scotland, depending on the prevailing view, and it would support or undermine the democratic credentials of the independence movement.

“It is therefore clear that the Bill has more than a loose or consistent connection with the reserved affairs of the Union of Scotland and England, and the sovereignty of the British Parliament.”

It means that the Scottish Government’s Chief Public Prosecutor, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC, will not be able to pass the bill for approval by the Scottish Parliament.

Ms Sturgeon said she was ‘disappointed’ by the ruling but would ‘respect’ it.

She swiped that the Supreme Court ‘doesn’t make law, only interprets’, adding: ‘A law that doesn’t allow Scotland to choose our own future without Westminster’s consent exposes any UK idea as a voluntary partnership & advocates for Indy. ‘

But Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross said: ‘This was a clear and unequivocal judgment from the country’s highest court – and the SNP government and its supporters must respect it.

‘Nicola Sturgeon insisted on taking this case to the High Court at the cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds to the Scottish taxpayer – and this ruling confirms that it was a waste of time and money.

“After this verdict, the SNP must now get back to work, drop their obsession with referenda and focus on what really matters to the people of Scotland.”

Former Scottish Conservative leader Baroness Davidson warned the SNP would try to ‘use this ruling for further complaints’ against Westminster.

Scottish Labor leader Anas Sarwar said: ‘We must now focus on the problems facing our country, from rising bills to the crisis in our NHS’.

Arguing that this could only be ensured by Labor in power, he said: ‘There is no majority in Scotland for a referendum or independence, nor is there a majority for the status quo.

“One thing is clear, there is a majority in Scotland and across the UK for change.”

Lord Reed said the judges of the panel did not accept arguments made on behalf of the SNP based on the ‘right to self-determination’ in international law.

The Nationalists had argued that the limitations of the powers of the Scottish Parliament in the Scotland Act should be ‘restrictively interpreted in a manner consistent with that law under international law’ and cited rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada and the International Court of Justice.

Lord Reed said the court in the Canadian case, which involved Quebec, ruled that the right to self-determination exists under international law only in situations “of former colonies, or where a people is oppressed … or where a definable group is given meaningful access denied to the government.

He said, “The court held that Quebec did not meet the threshold of being a colonial people or an oppressed people, nor could it be suggested that Quebecers were being denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development.”

“The same goes for Scotland and the people of Scotland.”

At a two-day hearing in October, Ms Bain asked the court to decide whether Holyrood has the authority to legislate for the vote.

She said resolving the legality of the proposed Scottish independence referendum bill is a “critically important question”.

Ms Bain said the issue had been ‘festering’ since the early days of devolution.

UK Government representative Sir James Eadie KC argued that the bill ‘plainly and directly’ concerns a matter reserved for Westminster – the union between Scotland and England.

He also argued that the bill is at too early a stage for the court to rule on it, and said the issue of the bill’s jurisdiction should not be “outsourced” to the Supreme Court.

The court first considered whether it could obtain the Lord Advocate’s ‘reference’, before turning to whether the bill relates to a reserved matter – and concluded that it does.

In October, Lord Reed warned it would be “several months” before the verdict would be handed down.

However, he said today that the trial had moved faster than expected because the judges were unanimous and prioritized the importance of the case.