The International Court of Justice recognised in the 2010 Kosovo Reference that unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) is not against international law (COCC). UDI is a less certain and less satisfactory way to achieve independence. The discourse on Scottish independence intersects with arguments about prioritising the cost of living crisis and the jurisdictional power between Westminster and Holyrood. Alex Salmond, through his Alba Party, proposes a new plan for Scottish independence, seeking legislative means to prompt a referendum despite Westminster’s opposition. Legal and political complexities surround this issue, as the Supreme Court’s ruling on Holyrood’s power for independence negotiations clashes with Scotland’s perceived right to self-determination. Amidst debates on legal implications of Holyrood’s power for independence talks, the possibility of a unilateral declaration of independence emerges if Westminster continues to deny Scotland’s pursuit of self-governance.
Alex Salmond’s Scottish independence plan
Voices suggest that the Scottish government should prioritise addressing the cost of living crisis instead of pursuing independence. Yet, it’s argued that the root cause of Scotland’s cost of living challenges lies in Westminster’s flawed decisions. Consequently, proponents posit that Scottish independence holds the solution for a prosperous future. Alex Salmond has put forth his strategy in this realm of Scottish independence.
As BBC reports, Alex Salmond presents a new Scottish independence plan. Alex Salmond’s Alba Party aims to draw up legislation for a referendum about Scottish independence. Mr Salmond wants to hold a vote next year on the 10th anniversary of the 2014 independence ballot. They aim to ask Scots whether Holyrood should be able to start independence talks. The proposals will be set out in a members’ bill submitted by MSP Ash Regan. Ms Regan recently defected to Alba from the SNP. The UK government has refused to consent to a second referendum formally. It won a Supreme Court case last year that stated Holyrood could not legislate for a vote without that consent.
Alba argued it could get around the Supreme Court ruling with Ms Regan’s bill seeking to force a referendum. They would ask voters whether the Scottish Parliament should have the power to legislate for and negotiate independence. Then, Alba would seek to secure a mandate with more than 50% of the votes for pro-independence parties.
Independence negotiations: Legal basis or political consensus
Legal implications of Holyrood’s power for independence talks are of supreme importance. However, the political imperialism of Westminster dominates legal issues. The UK Parliament Website says any independence negotiations need a legal basis. The evidence we received suggested that the UK Government will likely have legal power to negotiate. However, the Scottish Government may need to have the legal power. In the event of a “yes” vote, this should be put beyond doubt. In this case, a bill would be introduced to the UK Parliament soon after any such vote. Then, the UK parliament would establish the negotiating team for the rest of the UK. After that, it would devolve power to the Scottish Parliament to form a negotiating team for Scotland.
According to LSE, Anthony Salamone says arguments over whether a new Scottish independence referendum should occur have assumed a mostly legal focus. However, he argues that holding a referendum and implementing pro-independence results would depend on political agreement rather than legal authority.
Scotland’s right to decide
The Supreme Court ruled in November 2022 that the Scottish government’s independence referendum bill was outside the Scottish Parliament’s powers. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision, Scottish people can decide if Scotland should become independent. The Scottish Government Website refers to the benefits of the 1997 devolution referendum. Establishing the Scottish Parliament and transferring devolved powers from Westminster to Holyrood extended democracy in Scotland. It established democratically accountable national self-government. It allowed Scottish decision-making on vital issues in line with the choices of people living in Scotland. A terrible damage to Scotland was Brexit. The referendum on EU membership resulted in Scotland’s favouring Remain. However, Scotland has to pay for the wrong decision made by England.
Legal implications of Holyrood’s power for independence talks
Holyrood’s power for independence talks indicates that Westminster considers the talks to be legal. Nicola Sturgeon made efforts to achieve independence through so-called legal processes. However, Westminster blocked the SNP’s way to success through the unfair Westminster-influenced legal system of the UK.
As BBC reports, in 2022, Nicola Sturgeon decided to ask the Supreme Court to rule on Scotland’s power for independence. The court was to decide whether Holyrood had the power to legislate for an independence referendum.
The court ruled that the fate of the union was reserved to Westminster. However, they thought there might be a technical route to victory by claiming that the referendum would only be advisory and not start independence independently. They needed to be right. The court unanimously ruled that MSPs could not set up a vote without Whitehall’s agreement.
Unilateral declaration of independence
The Centre on Constitutional Change outlines two paths to independence: one involves agreement or acquiescence from the parent state, adhering to its domestic constitutional requisites; the other is through a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI). The article deems the court’s judgment unlawful, unfair, and biased. It suggests that Mr Salmond’s Alba Party, in tandem with the SNP, can strive for a “Scotland United.”
Should Westminster decline engagement in independence negotiations, Scotland may find itself compelled to pursue a unilateral declaration of independence to uphold the Scottish people’s right to self-determination in governing their land.