Quebec – a harsh lesson from history

IT WAS a Canadian court verdict that proved to be a hammer blow to Nationalist hopes of breaking up Britain.

The Scottish Government was convinced that the Scottish parliament had the right to self-determination under international law. But Lord Reed of Allermuir said ‘the court is unable to accept that argument’.

In 1995, the people of Quebec were asked in a referendum whether it should become a sovereign state, along with the establishment of a new economic union with Canada.

In the end, 50.6 per cent of the electorate voted No while 49.4 per cent voted Yes.

Following the knife-edge vote, the Canadian Government went to the Supreme Court of Canada to ask whether the

French-speaking province could break away. Judges unanimously ruled that such a unilateral declaration would violate both constitutional law and international law.

The court conclusion stated: ‘In summary, the international law right to selfdetermination only generates, at best, a right to external self-determination in situations of former colonies; where a people is oppressed, as for example under foreign military occupation; or where a definable group is denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, social and cultural development.’

Fast forward more than two decades and Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain cited the historic ruling in Canada to justify MSPs enacting a second independence referendum. She also relied on submissions to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the independence of Kosovo.

In 2010, the ICJ was consulted by the United Nations regarding the Balkan country’s declaration of independence from Serbia in 2008.

By a vote of ten to four, the court declared that the declaration did not violate international law.

But in his summary Lord Reed said the right to self-determination under international law only exists in situations ‘of former colonies, or where a people is oppressed… or where a definable group is denied meaningful access to government’.

In his short address, Lord Reed concluded: ‘The court found Quebec did not meet the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people, nor could it be suggested that Quebecers were denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development.

‘The same is true of Scotland and the people of Scotland.’

He added: ‘The SNP also relied on the submissions of the United Kingdom Government to the International Court of Justice in a case concerned with Kosovo.

‘But those submissions are consistent with the Quebec case: the Government submitted that the right to self-determination under international law was normally limited to situations of a colonial type or those involving foreign occupation. That is not the position in Scotland.’