Sturgeon plans to hold a legal independence referendum agreed with London on 19 October 2023, but unlike the one held in 2014 – in which independents lost 45% compared to 55% – in this case he does not have authorization from the Government of London to do so. The SNP leader promised to hold a second plebiscite after Britain voted in 2016 in favor of Brexit, “against the wishes of the Scots”, who preferred 62% to 38% to remain in the EU.

The judges of the High Court of the United Kingdom unanimously rejected the possibility that the autonomous Scottish Parliament at Holyrood could hold a new referendum on independence unilaterally; that is, without the authorization of the British Parliament.

The UK Supreme Court’s decision is legally predictable, but will not resolve the open debate in Scottish society about its future as a nation. Edinburgh Executive Solicitor Dorothy Bain asked Britain’s highest court of justice to determine or clarify this constitutional question before Scotland’s chief minister, independent Nicola Sturgeon, proceeding with the Scottish independence Referendum Bill before her legislature.

Sturgeon’s disappointment had both emotional and political basis in not allowing Scotland to choose its own future without Westminster’s consent debunking the myth that a country like England was seen as the result of the voluntary association of nations. This is a key argument from the debate that is now about to unfold in Scotland.

The predictable strategy of the independence defenders will be based on concentrating all political and social efforts on strengthening a broad and multiple internal consensus, on placing all democratic pressure on whoever holds the key to solving such important political questions. If one party (London) does not want to sit down, its immobility must be overcome by strengthening and expanding social and political support, urging the need to solve problems with political roots from politics.

Sturgeon has warned that if the Supreme Court concludes, as it has done, that the Scottish Parliament lacks the power to act without permission from London, the next regional election will turn into a plebiscite. This kind of Plan B, which consists of the next election as a de facto referendum, has its complications: on the one hand, and if it wins it, London can ignore the result. It is also possible that the entire bloc of unions (Labor, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats) decide to boycott them, in which case their legitimacy – and the resulting legitimacy – will be called into question. But it is certainly a more viable alternative to a unilateral declaration of sovereignty.

The Court’s decision was based on the primary understanding that under a 1998 Scottish statute passed by the current Scottish Parliament, only the Government and Parliament of England have jurisdiction over matters relating to the union between England and Scotland, which would include an independence referendum. .

The core argument of the sentence can be summarized as follows: “a legal referendum would have important consequences, not only legal, but also political, with respect to the unions and the UK Parliament. The result will have constitutional authority, based on democratic principles, being the democratic expression of the Scottish electorate. This will serve to strengthen or undermine the legitimacy of trade union democracy and the sovereignty of the British Parliament over Scotland, depending on which view prevails.”

Does this argument invalidate the will of a nation (Scotland) located in Great Britain configured as a plurinational nation? Not. The debate is still open, without a doubt. Not everything is resolved by legal opinion.