Supreme Court referendum verdict – Banff and Buchan politicians react
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
BANFF and Buchan area politicians have shared their thoughts after the Supreme Court trashed plans for a second referendum.
Announced today (November 23), a unanimous ruling by the Court means the Scottish Government cannot hold a lawful independence vote without Westminster's approval.
Supreme Court President Lord Reed rejected the Scottish Government's argument that, as the referendum would not have a legal effect, it could not be considered a reserved matter.
The Court judgment instead argued that secondary impacts had to be considered, as even an advisory referendum would impact political choices about the constitution.
Constitutional matters are set out as reserved in the Scotland Act (1998) and the Scottish Government cannot currently legislate on them.
Aberdeenshire coast politicians were split along party lines in their reaction to the verdict.
Banffshire and Buchan Coast SNP MSP Karen Adam said the decision was actually good news for independence, as it "exposes as myth" of a voluntary Union.
Conservative Banff and Buchan MP David Duguid, however, said the verdict means that SNP politicians should "focus on the day job" and forget about independence.
Ms Adam said: “I wholeheartedly agree with the First Minister, that while all of us who believe in independence will be disappointed today, a legal interpretation by the Supreme Court that doesn't allow the people of Scotland to choose our own future, without Westminster consent, exposes as myth any notion of the UK as a voluntary partnership.
"It actually helps our case for independence.
“The result of the ruling makes clear that with Westminster denying Scotland her voice, and a Tory Government in charge despite no mandate for Tory policies in Scotland, today’s decision will boost support for independence.
"The democratic deficit in the Union is laid bare.”
Mr Duguid said: “Now the Supreme Court has ruled and spoken, it’s time for the SNP Government to finally listen to the people of Scotland and concentrate on what really matters to our country.
“Residents from across the north east want every politician to deal with the key priorities impacting their everyday lives and for most people right now, that does not include another damaging and divisive independence referendum.
“Nicola Sturgeon must drop her reckless obsession with breaking up our United Kingdom and focus on the day job of reducing the NHS backlog, ending strikes and helping with the cost of living.
“It’s now more critical than ever that our two governments work together to tackle the big challenges ahead this winter.”
Discussing why the Supreme Court reached its decision, Lord Reed said: "The court is not asked and cannot be asked to express a view on the political question of whether Scotland should become an independent country.
"Its task is solely to interpret the relevant provisions of the Scotland Act and decide whether the proposed bill would related to reserved matters.
"Previous Decisions of this court established that provisions will relate to a reserved matter if it has something more than a loose or consequential connection with it.
"A lawfully-held referendum would have important political consequences relating to the union and United Kingdom Parliament.
"Its outcome would possess the authority, in a constitution and political culture founded on democratic expression, of the view of the Scottish electorate.
"It is therefore clear that the proposed bill has more than a loose or consequential connection with reserved matters of the union of Scotland and England and the United Kingdom parliament."
Lord Reed also rejected an SNP argument that the ability to hold an independence referendum is protected by Scotland's right to self-determination.
He said that matters of self-determination in international law were reserved for colonial states, states under military occupation or states prevented from making their own political decisions.
The Court unanimously decided that Scotland was none of the above, based on previous judgments regarding Quebec.
Lord Reed said: "The Scottish National Party, which the court permitted to intervene in proceedings, made further submissions based primarily on the right to self-determination in international law.
"They argue, in summary, that the limitations upon the powers of the Scottish Parliament, as laid down in the Scotland Act, should be restrictively interpreted in a way which is compatible with that right to self-determination under international law.
"The court is unable to accept that argument.
"The right to self determination under international law exists in situations of former colonies, or where a people is oppressed as, for example, under foreign military occupation or where the final group is denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development.
"The court found that Quebec did not meet the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people, nor could it be suggested that quebecers were denied meaningful access to the government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development.
"The same as true of Scotland and of the people of Scotland.
"Accordingly, in the absence of any modification of the definition of reserved Matters by an order in Council under section 38 of Scotland act or otherwise, the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence."
