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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll