The case for a second Scottish independence referendum is weak

 It would be absurd to have a referendum every time the SNP won an election – once in a generation sounds about right

Source - daily telegraph 28/06/22

Link

On Tuesday, Nicola Sturgeon announced that she was introducing a referendum bill. But can she call a referendum without the consent of the British Government?

In 2011, David Cameron agreed to a section 30 order, provided under the 1998 Scotland Act, to allow the 2014 referendum. Some 55 per cent of Scots rejected independence. Boris Johnson, supported by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, refuses to countenance another such order.

Shortly before the 2014 referendum, the Scottish Government published a White Paper declaring it a "once in a generation opportunity". But Nicola Sturgeon argues that Brexit, which Scottish voters opposed in the 2016 EU referendum, is a material change of circumstances justifying a second referendum. She claims a mandate since the SNP and the Greens, who also support independence, won 72 of the 129 seats in the 2021 Holyrood elections.

In Scotland, she insists, the people, not Westminster, are sovereign. But the Scotland Act reserved to Westminster the power to alter the constitution, including in Schedule 5 1 (b) "The Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England". And in May 2022, Mike Russell, the SNP President, admitted that Holyrood was "not presently empowered" to hold a referendum. 

Nicola Sturgeon reaffirmed that a referendum must be legally watertight. The bill she proposes would be consultative, not self-executing, and therefore without binding legal effect. So were the 1997 devolution referendum, the 2014 devolution referendum and the 2016 Brexit referendum.

A Yes vote, therefore, would not make Scotland independent, which would require further legislation by both Westminster and Holyrood. But it would give Nicola Sturgeon the power to negotiate with Westminster on independence.

Nicola Sturgeon accepted that the referendum might not be within Holyrood’s legislative competence. The British Government, under section 33 of the Scotland Act would almost certainly ask the Supreme Court to determine its legality after it was held.

But, so Nicola Sturgeon insisted, legal clarity was needed now, so that Scots could have certainty when they came to vote. She had therefore asked the Lord Advocate, Scotland’s senior law officer, to refer it to the Supreme Court.

Were the referendum to be declared unlawful, that, Nicola Sturgeon argued, would show the Union not to be a partnership of equals. The SNP would then treat the next general election as itself a referendum on independence.

Unionists should stand firm

The Supreme Court, therefore, will have to make a momentous decision which could determine the future of the United Kingdom.

Douglas Ross, the Scottish Conservative leader, indicated on Tuesday that he would advise unionists to boycott a referendum. It would, in consequence, lack legitimacy and fail to secure international recognition.

Politically the case for a second referendum is weak. It would be absurd to have a referendum every time the SNP won an election – a neverendum. The resulting uncertainty would wreak havoc on the Scottish economy.

Quebec’s economy has still not recovered from the two independence referendums of 1980 and 1995 which led to an exodus of banks and major companies. Unionists, therefore, should stand firm. Once in a generation seems about right.