The judgment says one thing constitutionally – but it’s a backhanded recognition of the power of popular resistance
At the heart of the debate over independence is a deceptively complex question: who decides? It sounds easy enough, and supporters of independence think the answer is clear: Scotland decides. For the most diehard opponents of independence, there is also a simple response: the UK decides. For those who settle somewhere between these two positions, however, things get more complex. What exactly are Scotland or the UK deciding on, and how?
In its judgment on Wednesday, the supreme court attempted to bring a little clarity to the debate after months of deliberations and thousands of pages of argument and evidence. The question was not independence itself, but whether the Scottish government has the power to hold a purely “advisory” referendum on independence. The ruling was instigated by the Scottish government’s own lord advocate, who referred the issue to the court in pursuit of a legally watertight means of fulfilling the manifesto promises on which the Scottish parliament’s SNP-Green majority was elected.
Rory Scothorne is a historian and writer based in Edinburgh
