Nicola Sturgeon told MSP on Tuesday afternoon that she had written again to Boris Johnson, the latest of repeated requests for a Article 30 order under Scottish Law 1998 that would give Holyrood the power to legislate for another referendum. The previous one happened in 2014 and is a process described as the “golden rule” by the first minister. Johnson replied that “he will study it very carefully and we will answer correctly”, but the answer is unlikely to differ from previous repetitions: no. Sturgeon has repeatedly ruled out a Catalan wild cat vote, leaving Sturgeon’s path to Holyrood, but suggested by constitutional experts, raises the key question of whether the Scottish Parliament can legislate for a second term. when the constitution is intended for Westminster. The Scottish Government introduced a referendum bill on Tuesday and – in a precautionary move that occupies the political agenda and overlooks the risk of the Holyrood chairman ousting the bill with competence – asked the ombudsman, the senior ombudsman. of Scotland, to raise the matter in the Supreme Court. Sturgeon told MSP: “There has been a lot of comment in recent days that a consultative referendum would not have the same place as the 2014 vote. This is just wrong, real and legal. The referendum regime proposed in this bill is exactly the same as the 1997 referendums [devolution]2014 [independence] and 2016 [Brexit]. » Sturgeon’s emphasis on the advisory nature of the vote is strange. As Kenneth Armstrong, a professor of European law at the University of Cambridge, points out: “Every referendum in our constitutional system is advisory and not self-executing, unless the law stipulates what should happen if a vote goes in a certain way. Given the experience of the Brexit referendum, there is an argument for a proposed referendum (is independence a good idea?) Followed by a positive referendum (this is what independence looks like, is that what you want?) But that’s another matter. constitutional planning “. According to James Mitchell, professor of public policy at the University of Edinburgh, Sturgeon “ignores the crucial point that while legally her account may – depending on the Supreme Court ruling – be the same, it is politically completely different. And, as he should know, the United Kingdom has a “political constitution”. The most notable aspect of the statement was that Sturgeon had put the ball in another campaign, Mitchell said, “but there is nothing new beyond that.” Subscribe to the First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every morning at 7 p.m. BST As for how the Supreme Court can decide on the Lord Attorney’s petition, Armstrong said he must first decide whether he is willing to accept it without seeing the final version of the bill, which has just been published. “There is a risk that the Scottish Parliament will have to pass the bill first, so that the issue is not just hypothetical or advisory.” Sturgeon said that if the Supreme Court did not rule in favor of the Scottish Government, the Scottish National Party would run in the next general election in the United Kingdom over whether Scotland should be independent. While this may well put Scotland Labor in a difficult position in an upcoming election campaign, the result would have absolutely no legal force – “merely campaign rhetoric”, as Chalmers puts it. Success would add strength to the SNP’s claims of political mandate, but it would also go against Sturgeon’s claim that any future vote must be legally valid and internationally recognized.
