Supreme Court rule Nicola Sturgeon cannot hold Scottish Independence referendum

Nicola Sturgeon today suffered a massive setback in her battle to split the UK – as the Supreme Court ruled she cannot hold a referendum without approval from Westminster.

Judges unanimously rejected the SNP chief’s push for Holyrood to legislate for a re-run of the 2014 contest, despite Rishi Sunak refusing to sign off on the plans.

President Lord Reed said the court did have the power to rule on the issue, and the question of sovereignty was ‘reserved’ to the UK government.   

Ms Sturgeon has pledged that if she loses the SNP will fight the next general election on a single issue of holding another referendum – although crucially she has ruled out a ‘wildcat’ vote. 

She said she will make a full statement at 11.30am. ‘Today’s ruling blocks one route to Scotland’s voice being heard on independence – but in a democracy our voice cannot and will not be silenced,’ she said. 

Before their arguments were rejected, the Scottish government wanted to hold a ballot on October 19 next year. 

Polls suggest the Scottish public is split down the middle on the independence issue. The last referendum – billed by both sides as once in a generation – delivered a 55-45 per cent win for unionists.  

The Supreme Court’s president Lord Reed said it did have the power to rule on the issue, and the question of sovereignty was ‘reserved’ to the UK government

Nicola Sturgeon faced a moment of truth in her battle to split the UK today as the Supreme Court ruled on whether she can hold a referendum without approval from Westminster

Shadow Scottish secretary Ian Murray urged the SNP to ‘respect’ the ruling. SNP MP Hannah Bardell said the UK was not a ‘voluntary union’ 

Polls suggest the Scottish public is split down the middle on the independence issue

Lord Reed rejected comparisons with Quebec’s efforts to hold a referendum.

‘The court unanimously concludes that the proposed bill does relate to reserved matters,’ he said. ‘The Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence.’

Explaining the decision, he said: ‘A lawfully-held referendum would have important political consequences relation to the Union and the United Kingdom Parliament.

‘Its outcome would possess the authority, in a constitution and political culture founded upon democracy, of a democratic expression of the view of the Scottish electorate.

‘It would either strengthen or weaken the democratic legitimacy of the Union and of the United Kingdom Parliament’s sovereignty over Scotland, depending on which view prevailed, and would either support or undermine the democratic credentials of the independence movement.

‘It is therefore clear that the proposed bill has more than a loose or consequential connection with the reserved matters of the Union of Scotland and England, and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament.’

It means the Scottish Government’s top law officer, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC, will not be able to clear the Bill for passage through the Scottish Parliament. 

During a two-day hearing in October, Ms Bain asked the court to rule on whether Holyrood has competence to legislate for the vote.

She said resolving the legality of the proposed Scottish Independence Referendum Bill is a ‘critically important question’.

Ms Bain said the issue had been ‘festering’ since the early days of devolution.

Judges rejected the SNP’s push to legislate for a re-run of the 2014 contest, despite Rishi Sunak (pictured) refusing to sign off on the plans

The UK Government’s representative, Sir James Eadie KC, argued the Bill ‘squarely and directly’ relates to a matter reserved to Westminster – the union between Scotland and England.

He also argued the Bill is at too early a stage for the court to issue a ruling on, saying the question of the Bill’s competence should not be ‘farmed out’ to the Supreme Court.

The court firstly addressed whether it could determine the ‘reference’ from the Lord Advocate, before turning to the question of whether the Bill relates to a reserved issue – concluding that it does.

In October Lord Reed warned it would be ‘some months’ before the judgment was handed down.

However, he said today that the process had been faster than expected because the judges were unanimous, and had prioritised the importance of the case.