header-logo header-logo

Indyref2: the Supreme Court has spoken

02 December 2022 / Marc Weller
Issue: 8005 / Categories: Features , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail
102820
The Supreme Court has ruled that a second referendum on Scottish independence cannot go ahead without Westminster’s permission: Marc Weller examines its judgment
  • Much of the Supreme Court’s ruling that a second Scottish independence referendum cannot proceed without permission from the UK Parliament focused on whether or not the question could be brought by the Lord Advocate at all.
  • Its finding suggesting that self-determination in the sense of secession does not apply to Scotland, as it does not suffer from repression, exclusion or colonial rule, may need further elaboration and readjustment.

The Supreme Court has spoken. According to its ruling in the reference brought by the Lord Advocate of Scotland ([2022] UKSC 31), the Scottish Parliament lacks the authority to pass a Bill for holding a referendum on possible independence. The reason is that the Scotland Act 1998, which establishes the devolved powers for the Scottish institutions, reserves certain matters for the UK Parliament in Westminster. This includes the independence referendum proposed by the Scottish First Minister (at para [92]).

In

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll