SNP crushed by

Sturgeon’s hope of referendum in tatters after Supreme Court’s shattering ruling

IT took just 12 minutes for the president of the UK’s highest court to demolish Nicola Sturgeon’s hopes of an independence referendum.

Lord Robert Reed yesterday ruled it was ‘clear’ that a Nationalist plan to unilaterally hold a rerun of the 2014 independence vote on October 19 next year would be unlawful.

In a unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court confirmed the power to grant a referendum sits wholly with Westminster.

Lord Reed said any vote on breaking up Britain ‘does relate to reserved matters’ and would have legal and practical implications for the union of the United Kingdom.

In a damning conclusion for Miss Sturgeon, he added: ‘The Scottish parliament does not have the power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence.’

The five judges charged with looking at the Scottish Government’s case took just six weeks to reach the united view that Miss Sturgeon could not hold a vote.

They agreed that they could rule on the case in the public interest after the Scottish Government’s top law officer, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain, requested it be heard. She argued that any referendum on Scottish independence would be ‘advisory’ and have no actual implications for the future of the Union.

But the UK Government’s lawyer told the court the proposal was ‘self-evidently, directly and squarely’ about the Union between Scotland and England – a matter he said was wholly reserved to Westminster.

Lord Reed stressed the court was not being asked to express ‘a view on the political question of whether Scotland should become an independent country’.

Instead he said the task of the judges was ‘solely to interpret the relevant provisions of the Scotland Act’ and decide if the Scottish Government’s proposed referendum Bill related to reserved matters – which are under the control of Westminster and not Holyrood.

The judgment said they were ‘in no doubt’ about whether it related to the Union. They stated: ‘It is plain that a Bill which makes provision for a referendum on independence – on ending the Union – has more than a loose or consequential connection with the Union of Scotland and England. That conclusion is fortified when regard is had to the effect of such a referendum.’

Revealing the outcome from the courtroom in London, Lord Reed said: ‘The effects of legislation, for the purpose of deciding whether it relates to a reserved matter, are not confined to its legal effects, but include its practical effects.

‘A lawfully held referendum would have important political consequences relating to the Union and the United Kingdom Parliament. Its outcome would possess the authority, in a constitution and political culture founded upon democracy, of a democratic expression of the view of the Scottish electorate.

‘It would either strengthen or weaken the democratic legitimacy of the Union and of the United Kingdom Parliament’s sovereignty over Scotland, depending on which view prevailed, and it would either support or undermine the democratic credentials of the independence movement.

‘It is therefore clear that the proposed Bill has more than a loose or consequential connection with the reserved matters of the Union of Scotland and England and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament.’

The Supreme Court also eviscerated the SNP’s written submission that attempted to portray Scots as being oppressed as part of the UK. The verdict pointedly stated the court was ‘unable to accept’ the party’s argument that the Scottish parliament had the right to hold a vote on separation under international law.

SNP lawyers had cited Quebec and Kosovo as case studies they hoped would show Scotland’s ‘right to self-determination’.

But Lord Reed said: ‘The right to self-determination under international law only exists in situations of former colonies, or 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, cultural and social development.

‘The court found that 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.’

Speaking after the verdict, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: ‘Today’s ruling blocks one route to Scotland’s voice being heard on independence.

‘But in a democracy our voice cannot and will not be silenced.’

‘No doubt it related to Union’ ‘Unable to accept their argument’