The Supreme Court has unanimously decided that the Scottish Parliament will not be able to move forward with a Bill to pursue a second independence referendum. I will cover the judgment in more detail on the podcast but Lord Reed gave a short statement this morning summarising the decision. Before the Justices walked into the courtroom there were essentially three options:
That would be one way. Alternatively, in 2013 the UK made an Order in Council that changed the law so Scotland could pass their own referendum legislation.
I'm honestly pretty shocked by this, and can only agree that even if the majority want to keep things as they are, a fundamental principle has been violated here.
Yes, it would be a hard sell and in that grey area of when law and political conflicts arise. I would like to see an attempt as it would be useful for other nations seeking independence such as the Catalans. Article 10 freedom of expression would seem to be engaged. Victims one could say all Scots including even those, perhaps the majority, that wish to remain in the UK.
It would be interesting if an individual Scottish person who supports independence brought a human rights case claiming their rights have been impinged. This issue feels too important to not be heard before the European Court.
I don't think so because for an application to be accepted by that court, the human rights issues would have to be raised in the original case and none were raised here. Also there isn't an identifiable 'victim' for the purposes of human rights law.
The slave can be freed but only if the slave master agrees.
Does this mean that the only legal pathway to Scottish independence will be through a bill in Westminster?
That would be one way. Alternatively, in 2013 the UK made an Order in Council that changed the law so Scotland could pass their own referendum legislation.
I'm honestly pretty shocked by this, and can only agree that even if the majority want to keep things as they are, a fundamental principle has been violated here.
Yes, it would be a hard sell and in that grey area of when law and political conflicts arise. I would like to see an attempt as it would be useful for other nations seeking independence such as the Catalans. Article 10 freedom of expression would seem to be engaged. Victims one could say all Scots including even those, perhaps the majority, that wish to remain in the UK.
It would be interesting if an individual Scottish person who supports independence brought a human rights case claiming their rights have been impinged. This issue feels too important to not be heard before the European Court.
Is the door open to bring this to the ECHR?
I don't think so because for an application to be accepted by that court, the human rights issues would have to be raised in the original case and none were raised here. Also there isn't an identifiable 'victim' for the purposes of human rights law.