header-logo header-logo

A Scottish divorce?

09 November 2012 / Colin Munro
Issue: 7537 / Categories: Opinion , Public , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Colin Munro examines how we arrived at the referendum stage in Scotland and where we go after the vote

In the next two years, voters residing in Scotland will have the responsibility of deciding whether a union that has lasted over 300 years should continue. The alternative will be a (reasonably) amicable but necessarily complex divorce. The holding of a referendum on Scottish independence and some of its terms was the subject of an agreement between the British government and the Scottish administration, signed by the prime minister and Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister, in Edinburgh on 15 October.

How has it come to this? The late Donald Dewar and other architects of the Scotland Act 1998 probably expected that parties supporting the union would always be in the majority in the Scottish Parliament, as did indeed come to pass from 1999 to 2011. However, voters may choose for all sorts of reasons, and constitutional questions may not be at the forefront. At the general election in 2011, the Scottish National Party (with

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll