THE Supreme Court judgment is “not the end of the road” for a Scottish independence referendum, a leading constitution expert has said.
Professor Nicola McEwen, senior fellow at the UK in a Changing Europe think tank, said that the ruling that Holyrood did not have the power to pass a Referendum Bill as it relates to reserved matters, simply kicked the debate back into the political sphere.
However, the Edinburgh University politics professor cautioned that there would likely have to be “dramatically different” circumstances for the UK Westminster Government to pay attention to any calls for Scottish independence.
She added that although there is “rationale” for fighting a de-facto indyref2 at the next UK-wide General Election, she believes it will be “really difficult” to pull off.
We told previously how in the wake of the ruling, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon vowed to hold a special SNP conference to thrash out the details with party members ahead of a UK-wide ballot.
Speaking to The National, McEwen noted that there had been claims that the independence debate had been delivered a death knell due to the Supreme Court’s ruling.
She said: “There was some reporting of it I noticed in the immediate aftermath of the judgment saying, ‘Oh, that's it now, that’s the end of the road’.
“Well, I don't think that at all. One avenue is blocked, but there are others, it’s back into the realm of political debate and elections and the outcome of those elections.”
McEwen cautioned that she was unsure if winning an election on an independence mandate, as the FM has planned, would “make the difference either”.
She explained: “It might have some sort of the political impact but it still leaves you having to secure the agreement of the UK Government, whoever that is, to recognise the mandate, and to recognise the legitimacy of the process and to negotiate on that behalf.
“I don't see why an election in a Westminster context would be substantively different from an election victory in a Scottish Parliament context without respecting that aspect.”
Even if the Supreme Court judgment had ruled in the Scottish Parliament’s favour and said it did have the legislative competence to pass a Referendum Bill, McEwen argued, the UK Government would still have to be engaged on the issue.
She explained: “There’s no legal obligation for them to do so.
“I think it's back to where we were, in that you need political agreement, or that the process is a legitimate one, and that isn't there at the moment.
“I think that the challenge for advocates of independence is to build support, to be able to make the case that this is, to borrow a phrase from pre-devolution, that this is the settled will of the people and there's definitely no evidence of that right now.”
McEwen added: “On the other hand, I think there are questions for the UK Government, they’re under no obligation to answer them, about what then would be the circumstances in which you would agree to an independence referendum of some form.”
She said: “The Union is a reserved matter. So, in that sense, putting the focus on that in a Westminster election, there's some rationale for that.
“But I fail to see how the outcome would lead to the UK Government recognising that and negotiating independence in that way, unless things are dramatically different from the way they are today.”
Asked if a resounding victory for Yes would push the UK Government to engage in the debate, McEwen said: “That’s always going to be really difficult at a general election, which will be about many things and ultimately will be about who runs the UK, in the UK General Election.
“A party can say this is why we want you to vote for us, and this is what we're standing on, but voters may choose to vote for parties for many reasons.
“Also in a Westminster election, people are voting for their local parliamentary candidate, the party might be underneath the candidate's name on paper, but it's not a party vote, it's a candidate vote, which also makes it a bit problematic.”
“The outcome of an election will matter more than what’s in a manifesto, it’s about the balance of power ultimately,” McEwen added.
