I wrote these tweets yesterday just after watching the Scottish referendum decision. in the UK Supreme Court:
I have reflected since. In essence, the decision made was intensely political.
It was initially said that the decision was prima facie legal because it need not, by itself, change the nature of the UK.
But it was said that it was practically possible that it would and so it was not within the scope of the powers of the Scottish parliament.
And then it was said Scotland could not use international law as a basis for seeking independence because it was a) not oppressed or b) subject to violence. In reality, I am quite sure international law has not ever sought to say the right to democracy and self-determination is dependent on being either of these things: democracy is a positive and not a negative.
Unionist politicians have made the matter worse by confirming that, of course, Scotland is in a voluntary Union, but have then refused to say how it might leave it of its own free will.
I can't help but think this is another indication of the march of fascism: holding the people of what is very obviously a country (its own, unbroken, legal tradition; education system, etc) in Union against their will - and denying them the chance to test that will, is hard to interpret any other way. If that were happening to me in England I know how I would feel. I know how the Irish felt. And that is why I feel so passionately about this for Scotland.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I am not Scottish but even to me this is a rather absurd situation.
The essence of democracy is that people should be able to change their mind. Whilst 2014 might have settled the question “for a generation” a lot has happened since then….. and it is, surely, for Scots to decide if the circumstances have changed sufficiently to ask the question again. The Scottish people have continued to return the SNP to power on a platform of independence so it seems reasonable to assume that sufficient numbers want to be asked again…. now.
As a nation, why would the English choose to thwart this? I really don’t understand.
As a nation, does England thwart this?
Years ago, I posted a comment in the Guardian that got 150 likes: “On behalf of the north of England, if Scotland achieves independence, take us with you.”
I frequently say the same. It is beyond the time when the English regions told their MPs that the current late- Thatcherite economic dispensation has never been acceptable.
I wish Yorkshire could be independent! We already have our own anthem.
I wouldn’t use the phrase “English” Clive in case it could be interpreted as meaning the English people, but certainly successive Tory, ToryLlb-Dems, or Labour Parties in the House of Commons have, and I believe always will, try to thwart a vote on Scottish Independence. I would also suggest, the real reason for this attitude is they, Westminster, would lose forever Scotland’s wealth, and without it, England would be in a very difficult place, much more so than they are at the moment.
B.T.W, it’s going to happen anyway, no matter the opposition, and i hope this time the Yes campaign will triumph.
Clive,
as an active independinista, and office bearer for Scottish CND, the bottom line is that the nuclear submarine base at Faslane and the nuclear weapons store at Coulport, have nowhere else to go.
The grip of Post Imperial Stress Disorder (PISD) on our British Nationalist chums is very powerful. A seat on the Security Council of the UN, and membership of the nuclear genocide club, requires Scotland’s compliance, or at least obedience.
Can I suggest that England would not choose to thwart our independence, but British Nationalists will never let us go.
Simple. Just look at Hunt’s recent budget statement. He says the UK will receive £80billion in revenues from North Sea Oil & Gas over the next few years. And that’s only the starter. The whisky industry accounts for something like 1/4 of all UK food exports, the energy from windfarms in Scotland exported to England then sold back to Scotland at prices higher than in England……
Schroedinger’s Scotland : simultaneously too poor to be independent and too rich to let go.
I was disappointed with First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s response to the Supreme Court’s decision. I would have expected her to worked through the various scenarios of what the SC’s decision might be and responded more decisively. My view, for what it’s worth, is she should have immediately resigned the SNP led Scottish Government and called an election as a de facto referendum. This would have fired up the Yes groups around Scotland and created momentum, while also wrong footing the UK Government. As it is she appears to be simply calling an emergency conference to discuss options, thus losing momentum.
Richard,
I trust you are feeling better. When you body complains? Take its advice. We aren’t smart enough to ignore our unconscious mind’s protests on behalf of the foolish conscious mind’s material partner.
In raising the issue of international law, you have identified what is for me the most interesting issue. In the Supreme Court it is (as elsewhere) a Scottish lawyer reminding us that there is no way out of the tangle. How far Scotland had fallen through every crack of modern legal recognition known to man, only dawned on me when the Scots lawyers appointed by the UK Government to publish their view of the international law position in 2014, were two Scots lawyers who forensically presented the bleak position now being submitted by the Supreme Court.
The point that is missed is that Scots Law has flourished, within its own sense of its priorities effectively to thrive in precisely this environment (following Union, originally and deliberately as a whole legal functioning system, without a Parliament). This has never adequately been understood, even by histoians; whome, I doubt fully embraced what the Scots (elite) were trying to pull off. I think it is because there is a gerneral misunderstanding of what Scotland both expected of, and executed with the Union.
Scotland was always an oligarchy. In a modernised way, it still is. It is now, effectively a close commercial and institutional network of semi-autonomous oligarchies.
I very much agree
And I am still resting because my body is telling me to do so
The Tory press were rightly called out when they tried to undermine the judiciary by calling them “enemies of the people”, and I would suggest it is equally dangerous to make what is in effect the same accusation on this occasion.
Unless there is definite evidence otherwise, I think it is safer to accept that the Supreme Court interpreted the law, and it is the legal framework providing delegation of powers under devolution that frustrates the Scottish independence movement. You would have to look closely at the political discussions around the time of that legislation to decide whether it was actually designed to obstruct Scottish ambitions to extend self-determination, or it was simply something that wasn’t anticipated and powers remained with Westminster as the default. Either way, it is hard to blame current politicians for once.
I think I disagree with just about all that
Sorry, but it has to be said
The whole thing was theatre. Scotland’s Lord Advocate gifted the decision to the SC without making significant argument that the people of Scotland have the right to choose. As I see it, in international law, Scotland meets the definition of a nation (that’s in the voluntary union bit with its separate law etc) and has every right to become totally independent. Even politically the suggestion that the 2014 referendum settled it for a generation is dishonest, there was Brexit and one of the arguments in 2014 for being in the Union was that otherwise an independent Scotland would be out of the EU. Also, Alex Salmond just said once the thing about settled for a generation to encourage people to vote not as a cast in concrete pledge. I used to be for the Union, now I hope to live long enough to see an independent Scotland. Were I younger I would move there.
Excellent piece, Richard.
There are many ways successive UK governments disadvantage Scotland. “Deaths of despair” for example.
Allik et al, (2020) says: “To reduce deaths of despair [from drugs, alcohol, suicide], action should be taken to address social determinants of health and reduce socioeconomic inequalities.” These deaths “are seen to stem from unprecedented economic pressures and a breakdown in social support structures.”
Research (GCPH, 2021) finds that the underlying causes of deaths of despair across the UK are the same but the impact on Scotland, particularly with regard to drug and alcohol deaths, is strikingly higher. The underlying causes are socioeconomic. Many Scots are made much more vulnerable because of “a toxic combination of adverse historical living conditions and waves of detrimental national [UK] and local government policymaking…” The so-called “Glasgow effect”.
PFI, much more widely used in England than Scotland affects the block grant coming to Scotland. Debt has priority. To meet PFI debt, hospitals are merged, wards and beds closed and assets such as land are sold. This reduces NHS spend and is likely to lower the block grant. The same might be said about Foundation Hospital Trusts – found in England, not in Scotland. These enable hospitals to employ doctors and nurses at rates lower than those that are NHS negotiated.
The block grant is not based on need but on population size. If it was based on need, Scotland’s NHS would get £44 more per person and the education element would also be higher.
In 2013, the leader of the Educational Institute in Scotland said this about Thatcher: “It was an era that destroyed many communities in Scotland, and sent many families into an impossible to escape spiral of unemployment, underemployment, poverty and social deprivation.”
“Today, right across the country and in all sectors of education, we continue to witness the devastating long-term impact this has had for many young people.”
Coal towns in Scotland have not recovered from Scotland’s devastation under Thatcher.
“Despite the passage of time since the pit closures, and some recent signs of econ-omic recovery in coalfield communities, the economic base in these areas remainsnarrow, fragile, and susceptible to the worst effects of the current recession.Deprivation in Scotland is still disproportionately concentrated in coalfield com-munities, with particular inequalities evident in relation to income, employment,and skills … The evidence strongly suggests that the demise of the coal industrystills casts a long shadow over many communities . ”
(See “Broken Men and Thatcher’s Children…”)
Thanks
Actually, for those that support the Union this is the worst decision possible, because it looks like Unionists putting the jackboot in to put those pesky independence seekers in their place. It smacks of a colonial attitude. It’s not like the major English parties have any serious support for the Union in Scotland anymore. The SNP rule the roost. The undemocratic Tories love FPTP elections because it gives them total power on about 30% of the total vote, mostly English. They hate it that about 50% of Scots now want to be rid of their Tory overlords. The die has been cast regardless of what a court says. If I was living in Scotland I’d be more determined than ever to be rid of the Tory overlords. The Tories can’t stop the tide of history.
But they will try
Scottish Independence is a question of ‘when’ not ‘if’. The demographics were clear in 2014.
Like many things now there’s a generational divide – support for the union is strongest among older voters; the young (who have grown up with a Parliament in Edinburgh) are overwhelmingly in favour of independence, so support for indy is only going in one direction.
Despite the media framing, yesterday was not the result the UK govt wanted – they are now under pressure to say what exactly is the mechanism for the Scottish people to achieve self-determination, if that’s what they want. You only had to listen to the ridiculous double-speak coming from Sunak and Starmer to see the bind the UK state is now in.
For better or for worse, I think the Supreme Court was correct to rule that a referendum on the independence of Scotland would “relate to” a reserved matter listed in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, and so falls outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. (I am fortified in that view that an amendment to the Scotland Act was thought necessary before the 2014 referendum.)
As to the politics, I think it is ultimately counter-productive for English MPs to stand in the way of self-determination for the peoples of Scotland, if that is their will. I support the union, as I support membership of the EU, but Scotland has elected a majority of MSPs and MPs that favour a referendum, nearly a decade has passed since 2014 and much has happened (not least, Brexit, and the passing of the late Queen), and I don’t see any problem with asking the question again. It is the nature of democracy that electoral positions change when facts and circumstances change.
I have to say I disagree here
I think the SC was right when it reached stage 2 of its three stage judgement
The third stage was politics, IMO, and beyond the reach of the court
But after that, I agree on the last bit
On the legal bit, as often the case when a case ends up in the Supreme Court, no doubt reasonable people can reasonably disagree 🙂 Here is the court’s unanimous decision, for anyone interested. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2022-0098.html
The Scotland Act 1998 sets out the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament. Section 29(2) says “A provision is outside that competence so far as any of the following paragraphs apply— … (b) it relates to reserved matters,” https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/29
And then Schedule 5 lists the reserved matters, including in paragraph 1, “The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is— … (b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England, (c) the Parliament of the United Kingdom” https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/schedule/5
There was a specific paragraph 5A (repealed in 2017) added to Schedule 5 to permit the 2014 referendum. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/schedule/5/2017-05-17
It seems clear to me that an independence referendum would “relate to” the union of England and Scotland – that would be the point.
On the politics, the UK government should facilitate the democratic process reaching a conclusion, not block it.
Noted
But I am still not sure I agree
Richard, it’s great to see you back in the saddle – there’s nothing like being riled to get one going again – but please listen to your body and not overstretch its resources. Remember the Cat!
I agree 100% with your opinion that the third stage of the SC judgement was a political judgement and not based on the law. As far as I can see there is nothing in Statute that defines how a devolved nation may legally leave the UK, nor, more tellingly, is it stated anywhere in Statute that it is forbidden for a devolved nation to leave the UK. That being so, the judgement is clearly not based on legal grounds but on political views. As such have Lord Reed and his panel of judges acted ultra vires? I’m not a lawyer and would welcome an opinion on that from someone better qualified in law than me, bearing in mind that both English and Scots Law are involved.
What this case exposes yet again is that the so-called “UK Constitution” is utterly unfit for purpose and reveals all the hyperbole that Britain is a champion of democracy upholding world-leading human rights in a highly advanced democratic state when we don’t even make the effort to define in a single coherent document the limits of politicians’ powers or the penalties for breaching them. Instead we rely on the “good chaps” system, which I suspect has never worked and employed a known liar as Prime Minister for 3 years without ever seriously calling him to account. Throw Brexit into the mix and the opaque nature of UK Government accounting and economics and what we see is a chimera: the more you learn and know about it the less you can trust it, so why is this so? The only conclusion I can come to after all the chaos of the last 14 years is that it is entirely intentional in order to preserve a societal and political pecking order that benefits one elitist segment of society at the expense of all the others. That’s precisely why Scotland wants to leave the UK and precisely why the UK Gov is determined to prevent it. If Scotland were to become independent it would magnify these defects to the extent that England is seen by all as the problem and the only people who can sort it are the English electorate. Waken up England and do something about it before it’s too late to protest without being arrested and Serfdom v2 becomes embedded!
There is no sustainable argument for Scotland to be kept in the Union against its peoples’ wishes; it’s now only a matter of time until it gains independence and I suspect Wales and NI will go for it fairly quickly thereafter too. As a way out of the current deadlock why doesn’t the Scottish Parliament rescind the Treaty of Union 1707? If nothing else it would fair put the cat among the pigeons!
I like the idea…
And I do nit feel ‘back in the saddle’. I wish I did, but any blogs are exercises in frustration before returning to bed right now
Thanks for your tweets yesterday Richard. They helped. It does seem like a set-back though I noticed the eyes of many nations outside UK were fixed with acute concentration on the judgement. Only need to look up Euronews, France 24, Al Jazeera to read their reports from a viewpoint not shaped by any return whatever the result. Actually Twitter has given encouraging support to us from, particularly northern European, nations last night. The upside is that the real status of the devolved nations in the UK is now blown wide open for all to see and cannot be hidden or lied about any more.
Clive, it’s all about money. Again lies over 300 years have lulled many here and in England to assume Scotland is a poor relation. It is what we have been told. Take a look at the website of ‘Business for Scotland’ – take the ‘Scotland the Brief’ fun quiz. You will be shaken. I see there’s a new Brexit quiz posted – I’m away to try that one.
To Clive Parry’s question. “As a nation, why would the English choose to thwart this?” the answer is quite simply Scotland’s wealth which funnels into Westminster’s coffers. The oft-repeated lie from British politicians and supporters of the union that Scotland is too poor to go it alone is blown out of the water when you consider that the English chancellor has just earmarked over £90 billion to prop the UK economy. Scotland is the UK’s cash cow and why it is being held prisoner in this so-called voluntary union with England which would be on its financial knees if Scotland gained its freedom.
The economics of huge decisions based on a referendum (Brexit and Scottish & therefore effectively English independence) are too often badly lacking in as sound economic forecasts as can be made at the time. Brexit in particular suffered badly from a focus on soundbites (NHS 350 million a week!). The reality would have been known but largely remained hidden. Independence suffers from the same lack of decent information and the promotion of ‘falsehoods’ (GERS being the biggest as this blog has stated many times before).
So why would the English want to thwart Scotland’s independence? Two big economic factors that should have a much higher profile than they have, are the respective national balance of trade figures and the respective government finances after independence. Had this been done for Brexit, maybe the outcome would have been different. Winning a referendum is one thing, but the important part is what happens afterwards. Brexit is making this clearer by the day.
So what would a post independent Scotland & England look like? Sadly there is a severe lack of economic clarity due to the soundbite focus. Where are the reasonable economic projections for both sides of the argument. The fact that the UK side don’t want to even argue a case for Scotland remaining part of the UK (and is now clearly a very minor part in terms of democracy within the UK), isn’t a good look.
So with a lack of decent economic information being promoted by both sides, maybe this view from abroad in 2014 is as good as can be expected in terms of a fair assessment of the economic future of both Scotland & England after they both become independent. For Scotland, energy would likely still be the key, previously oil & gas and now with renewables becoming the more important. This economic view of Scotland & England after both become independent, would certainly explain why the UK is so dead set against Scotland’s independence. It’s the economy stupid!
https://fortune.com/2014/09/17/scotland-uk-independence/
Apologies for not mentioning Wales & NI, but NI is already halfway to leaving the UK and Wales may not be far behind either.
“The economics of huge decisions based on a referendum (Brexit and Scottish & therefore effectively English independence) are too often badly lacking in as sound economic forecasts as can be made at the time.”
The idea that “sound economic forecasts” are A) available (economics is insufficent of a scince to do predictions, and it is unable even to forecast with any usable reliability – that is just a fact; the OBR fails constantly, and its review of the Hunt Budget has already been forensically dismantled); and B) can be used for something as complex and beyond the capacities of usable modelling for as long term commitment of this complex kind, is frankly unsustainable. In 2014 the SNP Government did the best it could with a 500 page attempt that was as decent could “be made at the time”; but as I have already argued in pricncile, in practice it doesn’t age well, it was easy to find the holes, and the limitations of such methods soon enough make them look pointless. The British Brexit Government Johnson-Cummings solution to the problem? Produce nothing at all. Make promises. Claim £350Bn savings, provide no evidence. Make assertions, disaparage everybody else, change the narrative every day, and talk guff; meanwhile do the real work though Big Tech techniques; quietly play to the worst prejudices of the British people, and exploit to the limit and beyond through the Conservative Press. Then blamer you opponents as all social media trolls, for the ensuing angry division and anger.
We are still paying, every day for lighting that fuse.
You are asking of economics what it can’t do; it just isn’t that good. Economics just isn’t the Physics that it always wants to be (perhaps because the economics discipline at least appears too often to be run by people who haven’t ever grown up); but it can, all too easily be used by people who know only too well how to use mere economists, and their crude methods, to game any system in the text.
If you want to accept the status quo of having no ‘reasonable’ economic projection for the likes of Brexit or Scotland’s (and England’s) independence, that’s fine, but it begs the question of just what would you base your vote on? The slogans and verbal bs? For me I’m looking for a quantitative and qualitative case from both sides in order to attempt to make as reasonably informed decision as I can. Simply allowing soundbites (and unchallenged lies) to determine the outcome of any critical referendum is a recipe for disaster, as both the Brexit and Scottish referendum results clearly show. The need is for better information, particularly economic information, rather than ‘opinions’ pushed by one side or the other. Otherwise the best snake oil salesperson wins.
‘In an interview with Faisal Islam of Sky News on June 3, 2016, Michael Gove, the UK’s justice secretary and a leader of the campaign to leave the Europe Union, said that the British people “have had enough of experts.”‘
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGgiGtJk7MA
Major transformations rarely arrive in the way you think. What we are living though is a genuinely transformatory time; it is not, however instituted by the domestic democratic process, which never moves beyond minor tinkering. Other forces are at work in which democracy is a spectator, and will react by adapting itself to new conditions as an act of self-preservation. There is also built-in to democratic systems a built-in bias toward inertia. The can is generally kicked down the road, with a little give and take.
Brexit happened because political opportunists parasitically leeched on to a long-standing problem Britain has had with the European idea (not Scotland, which learned quickly from 1973 the value of such a strong associative relationship with Europe, much as it had, in turn had to adapt to the problem of Union and the attraction of Empire. For Scotland the truth is the Empire was more important than Union). Brexit did not suprise me (however disappointed I was), because I always thought Britain had only ever cycnically joined the Union, without believing in the Treaty of Rome (or even reading what it promised); and appeared to believe they could simply make of it whatever Britain wanted; and then failed.
As for the actual politics of Britain? We have a Party system. The rot starts there. You think that is going to change? Party can’t afford the risk. The best snakeoil salesman wins? I have used that expression about British politicans on the blog more than anyone. We elect glib bullies, chancers and charlatans; and the worst seem to rise to the top. That is the cream of the Party System. Good luck with that.
Thanks for the link which makes very interesting reading. You suggest a lack of decent economic information regarding what an independent Scotland’s economy might look like, however Plaid Cymru recently commissioned an analysis of how the economy of Wales might look compared to the current GER estimates provided by the UK Government which provides food for thought. See https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/new-report-proves-wales-can-25142907
Ian, look no further than UK Gov accounting for the reason that firm data on the relative economies (Scotland, England and UK and almost certainly Wales and NI too) is hard to find. To a very significant extent it either doesn’t exist at all or, if it does, it’s never made public. Years ago I did an analysis of GERS on the basis of audit trail and found that only c4% of the values in GERS could be substantiated by probative source data, with everything else being based on allocations of UK-wide figures or estimates. You couldn’t run a sweetie shop on this basis, but I suspect that the opaque accounting is entirely intentional to disguise reality and maintain the status quo.
Thanks Ken, and agreed
With FPTP, a pro-independence Scottish party can never be part of a Westminster Government. Scotland is effectively governed by the grant it receives from Westminster. By voting for pro-independence parties, Scotland gives up any real say in how it is governed.
There is a similar irony in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement brought a welcome form of peace, but it has an unintended side effect. Even if the non-sectarian Alliance party becomes the largest party in the next election, the GFA specifies that the Northern Ireland government must be composed of the two sets of squabbling bigots.
PS Richard, Get well soon
Michael G: “With FPTP, a pro-independence Scottish party can never be part of a Westminster Government. Scotland is effectively governed by the grant it receives from Westminster. By voting for pro-independence parties, Scotland gives up any real say in how it is governed”.
Your statement clangs into Lord Reed’s over-reaching answers given yesterday; that Scotland and Scots were not excluded from Government etc. This attempts to quel any future attempt to reason that Scotland is effectively a colony, (The Speaker of the House, upon the signings of the Treaty in 1707): “We have catch’d Scotland and we will bind her fast.”. That we are “catch’d” is, as was always the case, clear.
This ruling could be the death of the Yes Campaign but not due to the decision but the reaction of the People of Scotland. To accept that Westminster shall never loosen the chains, or to galvanise, unite and focus their energy (and anger), on this foreign judgement.
To me, this needs change. The SNP has no form in the past 8 years of any ability to do so…another glorious defeat for the Scots! Inflicted entirely upon themselves, by themselves!
The Supreme Court ruling has been celebrated by the papers with a great deal of gloating and animus directed at Nicola Sturgeon, as if she alone is calling for Independence in Scotland. Slightly more than half of Scots now support Independence and as one of them I am both outraged and amused by this response. In the long wait for this verdict, there has been plenty of speculation as to what the UK Government’s preferred outcome would be. Nobody was naive enough to say it would obviously go in the Scottish Government’s favour, what was really feared, and in my view what UKgov hoped for, was that the caution of the judges would win out and they would bat away the question as hypothetical. This was a major part of the case put by Sir James Eadie for UKgov, that the case brought by Scotgov could not be answered as no bill to conduct a referendum had been passed by the Scots Parliament. This would have left a stalemate, with any attempt to pass a bill stymied by Scotland’s Lord Advocate, who would not have the confidence to support it, and the possibility of endless legal entanglement.
The verdict has put both Sunak and Starmer on the spot. They have no answer to the question: “What democratic route can the people of Scotland take to remove themselves from this Voluntary Union?” So Sturgeon’s quick response has been to point out the lack of democracy that the law (clarified by the ruling) represents.
What has really been clarified is the existence of the United Kingdom as the last bastion of British Empire. Neither Scotland nor Wales nor Northern Ireland are able to leave the Union without the Permission of England. Although Northern Ireland has constitutional provision for a referendum (every 7 years, please note, those who bring up the ‘Once in a lifetime’ trope at every opportunity) it would be dependent on the judgement of the Secretary of State For Northern Ireland.
It is, as Paul Kavanagh has put far more eloquently than I can manage, A Pyrric Victory for British Nationalism.
I saw a tongue-in-cheek, half-in-earnest suggestion asking “how does Scotland go about acquiring colony status?” That at least carries a legal right to secede! This crystallizes the sheer madness of the current situation.
Agreed
Sovereignty is the issue, mentioned thrice by the SC. And that’s where the battle will lie. Whether Nicola wants to or not. It will be taken out of her hands. For sovereignty rests with the people of Scotland. More than ever we need indy supporters to sign up at liberation.scot
What has really been clarified is the existence of the United Kingdom as the last bastion of British Empire. Neither Scotland nor Wales nor Northern Ireland are able to leave the Union without the Permission of England.
the courts are not English but british.the judges are appointed froem all our nations and use british ,not english law.
however ,if those nations choose to leave, just take the risk and the consequences. Divorce is not illegal
“British” law doe not exist as a system. There are no Courts of first instance, or even Appellate in “British” law; save the Supreme court. Lord Reed, President of the Supreme Court, who delivered the Referendum decision, is a Scottish lawyer and Judge. That is how the system has developed in order to function, over 300 hundred years,
The technical legal concept this solution represents is called a “fudge”. It is how Btitain’s elastic Constitution manages to bumble along on the long and rambling road it is taking from Empire, to Perdition.
Thank you John S Warren, for the term “fudge”. Not being of a legal background, I had to google “legal fudge” to find out how widespread it is! Elizabeth Holmes, we have long learnt to interpret British as meaning English. Scotland has not elected a majority of Tories to Westminster since 1955, but the large contingent of SNP MPs have no voice at Westminster and it is The Tories’ majority of English MPs who carry through policies which the majority of Scots oppose. Brexit is just one example. In order for there to be a “divorce” there has to be a legal understanding of the implications of “marriage”. This case before the Supreme Court was an attempt to define wether Scotland is free to ask the question of itself: if it wants a divorce. The verdict says it is not. In this context, how can you say “divorce is not illegal”?
The SNP won 48 of 59 Westminster seats in Scotland in 2019 (on 45% of the vote, incidentally; proportional representation could easily have delivered a unionist majority). Its MPs have about as much voice in Westminster as the 49 of 73 MPs that Labour secured in London (from about 48% of the vote there). The Conservative dominance since 2019 comes from their 345 seats in England, and almost total dominance south of the Humber (apart from London).
A case can be made for London to seek independence from the English shires. Its population and GDP are about twice the size of Singapore, and its peoples have a very different composition and social outlook.
What would Englandshire survive on, I wonder?
Well, London would need to import most of its food, and water, and electricity, and other necessary basic resources, and export most of its waste. There would also be a substantial number of daily cross-border migrant workers.
As I understand it, the GDP of London is about a quarter of England as a whole, with about 1/7th of its population; and about three times Scotland, with about 1.5 times its population.
Englandshire has a quite a wide hinterland, including a fair amount of agriculture, and a number of large ports towns and cities.