British Parliament (Westminster) and Government Without the British Government, the Scottish Parliament (Holyrood) has no legislative competence and power to vote on Scottish independence (indyref2), the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled today on Wednesday. This should be allowed. The question of whether Holyrood could move forward with a bill to hold a new referendum without Westminster’s approval played into the hands of Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister and leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP). 1998 in an attempt to clarify the possibility of legislation on the subject based on the Scottish Act.
The decision of the judges of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was unanimous, justifying that the content provided by the Scottish Government was based on reserved material (Reserved matters) in the opinion of Lord Reid, President of Westminster and the Court, holding a referendum “would have political consequences in relation to the union and sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom over Scotland”, and “it would either strengthen or weaken the democratic legitimacy of the union. As the idea of a bill put forward by Scotland had only the initial purpose of confirming Scotland’s desire for independence – Cutting off the right to a popular consultation removes the fundamental democratic principles of trade unionism.To be honest – negotiations were ongoing – but because the idea of voluntary trade unionism was fading within the UK.
Over 300 years of union between Scotland and England continued gradually – in 1603, both kingdoms came under the same monarch, and only in 1707, the parliamentary union came into effect – the Scottish Parliament was opened. The Scotland Act 1998 followed a referendum aimed at restoring powers (return) which turned to the intention of policy makers and Scottish society in economic, educational, transport and legislative matters. However, the legislative issue has its peculiarity because the Central Government has the power to “Reserved matters”, restricts Scotland to legislate on certain issues, such as its relationship with the EU, constitutional issues and the meaning of a referendum on independence.
Scottish national identity can be understood through the confluence of many dimensions, such as social, cultural, religious, political, and economic. -, a historical past can be analyzed not only to understand Scotland in the present day, but also to understand its actions as a community and government with powers within a union that forms the United Kingdom. Associated with the democratic structures of Scottish society, it also provided the appropriate legitimacy to pursue the region’s desire for independence. However, the issue has more political meaning than a legal one because, with the United Kingdom, the implications for the British government will include the ongoing scandals inherent in the British Conservative Party – which is why ministers have always refused Scottish Government requests to call for a new referendum on independence through section 30 of the last British First Scotland Act 1998. are coming
The first referendum on Scottish independence – 44.6% (for), 55.2% (against) -, which took place in 2014, and the region’s referendum results Brexit – 62% (Remain in the EU) 38% (Leave the EU) – enable the development of the idea of a national identity (what is Scottish) and, as a result, the development of the debate on independence with the potential implications of disunity with an already fragile and weak United Kingdom.
After the Supreme Court’s ruling, Nicola Sturgeon, apart from being “disappointed”, respected the decision, but the Prime Minister “exposes the story” – and the argument defended by trade unionists and the UK government – of the voluntary co-operation/partnership union: “One of the partners will be denied the right to choose a different future – or himself. The said partnership cannot in any way be described as voluntary or involuntary where the right to question is denied. A partnership. The decision therefore confirms that the concept of a voluntary partnership of the UK states, if it ever existed, no longer holds true. It exposes a situation that is simply unacceptable. The decision of the British Supreme Court, in fact, that the union of the United Kingdom was not voluntary, and the self-determination and democratic wishes of the countries that make up the United Kingdom, and came to give a clear answer in this case. Scotland, not respected.
A recent poll showed that more than half of Scots (about 51%) would vote for the Scottish National Party in favor of independence, which would allow negotiations with the UK government to begin. In this sense, Nicola Sturgeon, this Wednesday, reinforced the idea presented in June: the SNP will use the next general election in the United Kingdom (scheduled for 2024) as a referendum on Scottish independence, so that “Scottish democracy will not be denied.”.
In this way, the idea of a referendum, based on the Scottish independence movement, is characterized by its democratic integrity, since the independence movement does not accept and does not resort to extreme measures to achieve its end. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom follows democratic precepts.
(Text edited according to new spelling convention.)
“Total creator. Devoted tv fanatic. Communicator. Evil pop culture buff. Social media advocate.”
