Has the UK Supreme Court stopped Scottish Independence?

On the 23rd November the UK Supreme court decided that the Scottish Parliament did not have the power to enact legislation to hold a second independence referendum in Scotland.
In this short video Professor Alison Young explains the backdrop to the case, sets out how the Supreme court decided the case, and explores possible future paths to Scottish independence.
Alison Young is the Sir David Williams Professor of Public Law at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of Robinson College. She teaches constitutional law on undergraduate and postgraduate courses at the University of Cambridge and is the author of Turpin and Tomkins’ British Government and the Constitution (8th Edition).
For more information about Professor Young, please refer to her profile at www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/acad...
Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

[@erinundra]

What is the legality of stripping Scotland's citizens of their rights in 1707 when our freedoms were sold to Westminster? There was no referendum to join the Union. Scots protested loudly and were garrisoned by redcoats for twenty years for their trouble. Never mind Westminster's rights, what about OUR rights?

[@brucemacdougall6121]

The Treaty of Union was supposed to be a Voluntary Union between two Nations, neither of which gave up their Nationhood. The Parliament of Scotland signed the document in an Edinburgh cellar, while a mob roamed the streets above, trying to prevent its signing. Those riots lasted for 12 weeks. The signing was marred by bribery and corruption. Spme Parliamentarians were threatened with a loss of property which they owned in England, under the Alien Act, which also affected trade between the two Nations. There was also an English Army gathered near the border, with an implied threat of invasion. A question should be asked: that whether the Treaty was ever legal in the first place, due to the coercion (it wouldn't be now), and whether a voluntary treaty requires the consent of both Nations to end it? My own opinion is, it should be treated like a Divorce where only one partner wants it. As it was signed by Parliament's only, it should also within the elected parliaments of either one or both to end the Union by majority vote.

[@vamboroolz1612]

There is no such thing as a U.K. parliament. Its an English parliament. It is run for the sole purpose of what is best for England.

[@doreenhollywood7459]

We will continue our fight for INDEPENDENCE. This was only the first step in our plan.

[@bobrobertson9547]

Whats the rest of the plan?

[@julianshepherd2038]

The Supreme Court decision was a boost to the independence campaign and We want a referendum because it is the will of the legally elected Scottish Parliament. We shouldn't have to say anymore than that unless this is not a voluntary union.

[@mueslimuncher1950]

The answer to your question is no. If anything the supreme court ruling makes independence more likely by highlighting the very reason for it! The ruling does not concern independence, but the referendum. It demonstrates precisely why Scotland SHOULD be independent: subservience!

[@joebrown2279]

So democracy can be withheld from Scotland even if the people vote a majority in favour for parties with a independence referendum as their main agenda ? From a union of equals to a colony because Scotland still has wealth & resources to be pillaged by the English government.

[@fearnpol4938]

WM is NOT sovereign under Scottish law nor is the Monarch.

[@michael6255]

yes it is. As specified by this case and S28(7) of the Scotland act.

[@ce1834]

It literally is, if you listen to the ruling and the Scotland Act. The UK is very much a sovereign unitary country, the powers are exactly that - devolved from WM

[@mcmustangno1567]

So because the English government ballsed up by having the doomed brexit advisory referendum and, it changed the constitutional components of every nations by the tiniest smidgen of a majority of those who bothered to vote, which showed NO settled will of the U.K. at all, Scotland has to suffer the consequence of having the right to legislate to hold their own advisory referendum 🤷‍♂️ We here in Scotland know that the independent minded voters, do have an overwhelming majority now, due to the ill conceived and thought out advisory referendum by the English government, that was underwhelmingly supported by the whole U.K. and the Union would now take a tanking in any independence referendum, advisory or otherwise and are shitting themselves, thank you for explaining this 👍🏼

[@pauls3204]

No is the answer you are looking for. When such a large percentage of the people who bother to vote , choose to vote for a particular objective there is no stopping them . The numbers of pro indi voters increase by the week, 7/10 coming of age Scot’s voters are pro indi and pro EU

[@chris_anon88]

Obviously a very complex situation, however I don't think the position of the UK government is sustainable for very long.

[@kangaroo2543]

In Westminster MPs are elected on a First Past The Post system. So given all other legal routes to Independence have been blocked, then if Parties wanting Independence get more than 50% of the elected MPs from Scotland then that is a legal mandate for Independence.

[@dannymcintyre3819]

British/English people telling Scottish people what we can and cannot do with our own country. Typical.

[@bobrobertson9547]

Its a United Kingdom.

[@medorajoe7542]

Having summarised the decision of the Supreme Court, it would be interesting to have your opinion or advice as to the route the democratically elected Scottish Government could take to fulfil it’s mandate to the Scottish electorate.

[@chriskost7291]

So brexit will break up the UK! 😉

[@vincescotian8083]

"Normally" all other nations that have separated from England have not managed to do this with any kind of amicable agreement. The only difference with Scotland is that Scotland has already a devolved parliament and a codified "Bill of Rights" that supports the union and the sovereignty of its people; Scotland is bound to address and exhaust all argument with the Westminster Governments and courts; however this action is an irrelevance Westminster already ignores UK High court rulings and has to support Scotland, Wales and NI as "voluntary" union members no matter what.

[@1701enter]

I am amazed no one has made any comment! but me!!. That said thank you for your explanation, I found it most informative. To my mind, I believe however reluctantly the English/UK Parliament will have to grant its population the right to decide its future given as you say the circumstances have changed so much since 2014. Given it is a huge subject full of emotion and debate I will say no more but, as you gave such a good explanation I shall now become a regular subscriber!

[@scottferguson48]

I would like to thank you for a great channel . I like what you have said . even that I m strongly for Independence for Scotland . I liked what you said because there is to many video on you Tube just downing Scotland . I would once again thank you for being so professional in your job.

[@DavidHoodEdinburgh]

The UK Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over Scotland. Check out Salvo, the Claim of Rights, and other references re the principle of the sovereignty of the people (not parliament, as the latter is a wholly English principle in law). Ergo, there is no higher 'court' in the land but that of the people of Scotland. Whatever they decide to do, including their form of government, is theirs alone to decide.

[@johnnicolson467]

The English supreme court has no power over Scotland

[@AngusandAndrewfunguys]

To start with England cannot tell Scotland what to do as both are different countries, but act in a union. The Act of Union 1707 made a larger populated country out-vote a smaller populated country and force it into things illegally. This was and still is the case and Scotland should have dissovled the UK state long ago. Scotland should not have laws imposed on it outwith its boundries. That is why the Scottish lawyers in 1707 wanted to keep Scottish Laws as part of the deal for joining a union with England. The Scottish Laws were and are to safeguarded the Scottish way of life and also keep Scottish Lawyers in their jobs, which was probably the number one thought on Scottish Lawyers minds in 1707. So in short, England's Laws are made in England to be imposed in Scotland too and has been accepted and treated as normal, but this should NOT legally be the case. Scottish Lawyers in 1707 accepting laws made in another country were probably put under duress, given threats, punnishments and fears of financial losses. I have never heard of any Scottish Lawyer opposing an English Lawyer about a law made in England that will affect Scotland. So laws made in England are just accepted in Scottish Courts or slightly amended, but this should never be the case. The UK is four separate states. Why is it just accepted for England to make all the rules? Scottish Laws have been ignored from the start right upto today, 317 years altogether. Time for change now, no more time-wasting.

[@DASDmiser]

How should Scotland handle this? "When in the course of human events..."

[@josephturner7569]

At last resort, there is always the Rhodesia solution.

[@grahamniven]

In more simple terms: Naw it husny.

[@paparobbo62]

For what its worth the UK Government I believe was heavily involved in drawing up the legislation that created the ECHR and have long argued that this must be upheld so my argument would be to present the Referendum case to the ECHR and if this is upheld then surely that would put huge international pressure on the UK Gov which they could not defend.

[@julianshepherd2038]

No. “It is never difficult to distinguish between with a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine.”― P.G. Wodehouse, Blandings Castle 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿❤️🇪🇺❤️🇺🇦

[@normannabatar6260]

Perhaps, the economic well being of its people should go beyond pride and prejudice. First, the representatives of Scotland in the UK Parliament lobbied for it. So, if it was their representatives who created the Union in 1707, these same representatives may break the union. It is as Scottish as Scotch whisky should be.

[@billgiles3261]

The recent SNP shenanigans has thrown this all into touch for a decade.

[@Jean-de-lune]

Absolutely regardless of all the legal squirming, the SNP carry-on has put the kybosh on a referendum never mind independence. The most obvious thing Sturgeon can do now is slink away and start paying back the illegally acquired funds before she gets the steel bracelets fitted. Oh-an I'll have a pint of what Prof Young is on.

[@Kiltking]

What a mouth full. We all know the answers up in the Glenns. It’s all about the money my dear. ⚖️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🤝🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

[@FranzBieberkopf]

The comments below haven't aged well. Support for the SNP in opinion polls has collapsed, it is in the process of fragmentation with losses to Alba, the previous FM has been arrested, support for independence is 42-45%-and there are plenty more disasters looming for the SNP. I was especially amused to read the armchair judges seeking to overrule the verdict on the grounds of their (mind-bendingly one-sided) analysis of their events of 1603 and 1707. Shows you the difference between Supreme Court judges and keyboard warriors.

[@trapperraptor7356]

You will force the jockery eventually into civil disobedience ,,,,,,,,,,then civil war,,,,,,,,,,

[@sayithowitis1]

Yes.

[@mothermovementa]

Yes

[@kabirhussain9053]

Yes - this is something useless we don't wanted. Scotland our heart 💖💖💖 No independence. England - Scotland - Wales - N-Ireland. Stick together's Forever's.