A SUPREME Court ruling that Holyrood does not have the power to hold a referendum could boost support for independence by showing the UK Government believes Scotland is a “pretend” nation, according to a former UK civil servant who helped negotiate the 2014 vote.
Ciaran Martin, professor at the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford University, said while Unionists are “busy denouncing” the Scottish Government’s plans, they are paying less attention to the political consequences of the court’s decision.
He also said critics of the route map unveiled by Nicola Sturgeon have avoided discussing what she is supposed to do when the UK Government refuses to engage in a process to allow a referendum to take place.
Scotland has been left in a constitutional “no man’s land”, with the message from London to “go and crawl under a rock till the end of the 2030s, at least”, he added.
Lord advocate Dorothy Bain QC has asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether Sturgeon has the legal powers to stage a referendum without the UK Government’s authority.
Writing in a blog for the think tank UK In A Changing Europe, Martin said even a win in the Supreme Court for Sturgeon’s referendum bill would not necessarily deliver independence.
He said Westminster could change the law to make a vote unlawful or refuse to act on the result in advance and could also ignore a successful “de facto” referendum as nothing would compel independence negotiations to begin.
But he argued what was more likely is the court will rule that Scotland is “not really a nation” and “part of unitary state, not a voluntary union that one party can leave.”
Martin wrote: “Unionists are busy denouncing the ‘pretend’ referendum of the Scottish Government. They are paying less attention to the political consequences of a Supreme Court ruling – on the basis of UK Government arguments – that Scotland is, in law at least, a ‘pretend’ nation.”
He highlights the ongoing legal challenge to the Northern Ireland protocol, with court decisions that the post-Brexit trading arrangement is lawful being appealed.
Martin said, as expected, so far, the Unionists have lost, but the process “elicited the politically incendiary ruling that the Protocol has effectively repealed part of the Union” around trading rights.
He added: “That ruling significantly intensified Unionist opposition to the Protocol. Will a constitutional showdown over an independence referendum yield a similarly politically toxic conclusion?”
Martin also outlined a “constitutional no man’s land” that Scotland is in, saying the same threshold that triggered a referendum following the Holyrood vote in 2011, has been rejected following the 2021 election.
“But no alternative threshold has been formally given; the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Prime Minister have ad-libbed about various triggers in public appearances, with the earliest allowable dates ranging from 2039 to 2055,” he wrote.
“In effect, the message from London is to go and crawl under a rock till the end of the 2030s, at least.”
Martin added that even winning a “de facto” referendum would only secure “political bragging rights and the perceived right to exert more powerful political pressure”.
If the “gamble” over a referendum bill fails, it could be assumed the prospect of indyref2 would be “off the table” for the rest of the decade.
Martin concluded: “But therein lies a longer-term strategic threat to the United Kingdom; polls consistently show a strong lead for independence among younger Scots. Deferring a second plebiscite into the 2030s might ultimately benefit those who currently affect to object most to that delay.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel