Of course, being a creature of the devolved Scottish Parliament, the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee was bound to avoid the most obvious conclusion.
Righty. I'm fairly sure I dropped a link to this some time ago, but it seems appropriate. Possibly a backdrop to all this painstaking progress since 2020, particularly the UKSC of 2022 - or a waste of time, whichever your views.
A lot of people can't be bothered following up links - life is too short. So I'm taking the liberty of a large "fair use" cut and paste of it. Follows:
***************************
Scotland as a Constitutional Self-determination Entity
Scotland’s position is certainly no worse than that of Quebec. It was formerly an independent Kingdom that voluntarily joined the union, kept its distinct culture, legal and educational system and gained significant autonomy in its governance within clearly defined territorial boundaries. In fact, the United Kingdom itself has made it amply clear that Scotland falls into the category of implied constitutional self-determination. Indeed, it has formalized this fact.
In the Edinburgh Agreement between the UK and the Scottish government on the (first) referendum on Independence of 15 October 2012, the UK government confirms that it would work together with the Scottish authorities to ensure that the 2014 referendum could take place. Moreover, much like the Canadian Clarity Act, the Memorandum attached to the Edinburgh Agreement establishes the modalities for the referendum. The agreement also commits the sides to working ‘together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.’ This was taken to be, to the extent possible within the bounds imposed by the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament, as an undertaking to honour a referendum outcome as an exercise of self-determination of the people of Scotland.
The actual issue for Scotland is therefore not whether it somehow fits into the category of constitutional self-determination. It clearly does. The actual question is whether the central government can unreasonably withhold from such an entity the opportunity to actualize that right through a referendum.
However, having raised the issue of self-determination only in order to illuminate the very technical question of UK law concerning reserved powers according to the Scotland Act (1998), the SNP invited the Supreme Court to address this issue in an incidental and somewhat cursory way. Hence, it has ended up with a highly condensed and brief treatment by the Court—a treatment that might be misunderstood as denying the application of the right of self-determination to Scotland altogether.
In reality, of course, the Court has merely found that Scotland is not a classical colony. Hence, the classical right of unilateral secession does not apply. Scotland cannot simply declare independence and leave if it wishes to obtain the benefit of a legally privileged secession in international law as a constitutional self-determination entity—in fact a practical necessity given Scotland’s hope to achieve widespread recognition and EU membership as an independent state. But if it enjoys constitutional self-determination, Scotland should be entitled to assess the will of its population at reasonable intervals. And if there is a clear majority in favour of independence, both sides would be obliged to negotiate the divorce in good faith.
Sturgeon gifted our sovereignty to Westminster in her appeal to the Supreme Court albeit it could be argued that she only acted for a politicdl party not the nation.
These proposals compound that error... Someone needs to record ... Not in our Name...
I am a poor uneducated soul so i cant understand why a Treaty signed by two internationally recognised sovereign states Scotland and England, to unite, cannot by the same nations agree jointly or severally to dis-unite. Egypt and Libya had a treaty uniting the two states but revoked that later. If I were educated I'm sure I could find other examples. But as professor Black had said... The union was not a union but a continuation of the English parliament... So if the English parliament continued sovereign... So did the Scottish one, as confirmed in the opening speech of the new devolved Parliament by Winnie Ewing... Jesus how we miss her nationalist clarity...
So.. if we ever had a Scottish parliament with a majority vote to revoke the acts of union then it could be done and in effect UDI. It's not so scary but preparatory work should be done now in establishing which nation states would recognise our independence. It doesn't have to be formal, but an honourable agreement between diplomats or presidents, for instance Ireland should be asked its position as should all the other small European states. However, the basic problem is we don't have robust enough nationalists around. Maybe the English will make a big mistake and generate some real nationalists by their actions. It's about my only hope.
Nations will not normally pre-recognise another. They might not formally recognise Scotland at all . . . ever! It's not necessary for one nation to formally recognise another. Recognition can be implicit in trade deals or joint security agreements, for example.
Taiwan is a good example of how 'nuanced' the whole international recognition thing can be. Only 12 countries officially recognise Taiwan as a sovereign nation. But for almost all purposes, this makes no difference. Most countries either never recognised Taiwan or have rescinded recognition. It doesn't stop Taiwan trading with these nations.
The US originally recognised Taiwan, but then rescinded that recognition. You wouldn't know this from appearances as the US provides Taiwan with significant military aid and maintains diplomatic relations that are close despite being informal.
In short, international recognition is not the huge obstacle some make it out to be. There is no reason to suppose non-recognition of Scotland would be economically damaging, and little reason to suppose most countries would not grant formal recognition. The rump UK (rUK) could block Scotland's membership of the UN using is veto as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. But it is at least as likely that rUK would lose that seat to one of the BRICS nations.
It is of course a Holyrood cross-party committee, Convener SNP + 2 SNP members, Deputy Convener Conservative + 1 member, Labour 1 member and Green 1 member (plus previous members). And the reason it's a good report is, because of its very existence. Title:
"Options for a legal mechanism for triggering any independence referendum"
It's a vital part of any and every discussion about the existence or non-existence of actual usable Scottish Parliamentary self-determination for Scotland in terms of it initiating and holding a referendum. And its conclusion is: "Naw, nah, no, zilch, nada, rien, zip, nihil, gtf".
Which conclusion did not exist before, in a Parliamentary legal or constitutional sense.
Now it's up to the SNP, Greens, Alba if they still exist. Liberate Scotland et al how they use it. But also of course, Labour, Conservatives, LibDems - all Scottish. Not to mention Your Party and Reform!
Or, concisely, the UKSC says self-determination is not being denied to Scotland by the UK state - the cross-party Scottish Parliament committee says it is, after taking evidence from several constitutional and legal experts.
AND it says that it's urgent that that total denial be fixed. And no wonder.
But you are being HONEST Peter!......holy wullie and co ( that includes the cesspit )are devious ..fork tongued and wouldn't recognise honesty if it came up and kicked them in the ass...because they don't want to....
The best way of dealing with them is to hold a big hammer behind your back as a negotiating tool. It really is up to the Scots ...if 'our colonial masters ' think they trump our will...that hammer has proved successful in other countries who have dealt with the colonial parasitic pariah state next door. Cast your eyes across the Irish sea..they are free of this ghastly little nation who insist we are 'better together'.( boke)...a bit like the fox chatting amiably with the quivering chickens in the henhouse. Time tae get oot the henhoose Scotland. A fox got accidentally caught in a henhouse and the inmates pecked him to death...( true story)..It only takes a bit of backbone...enough of you ..and peck... peck...peck...
For OUR Scotland and her weans who have forgotten how to peck....
The National reports that the committee agreed that
“while the Scottish constitutional tradition of the sovereignty of the people is widely accepted, the UK’s constitutional arrangements vest legal sovereignty (i.e. the highest law-making authority) in the UK Parliament”.
The sovereignty of the Scottish people might be "widely accepted" but quite obviously not by committee members.
The above quote is a pretty clear acceptance of, and acquiescence in, the British state's view that Westminster veto trumps Scottish popular will.
Righty. I'm fairly sure I dropped a link to this some time ago, but it seems appropriate. Possibly a backdrop to all this painstaking progress since 2020, particularly the UKSC of 2022 - or a waste of time, whichever your views.
https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-uk-supreme-court-reference-on-a-referendum-for-scotland-and-the-right-to-constitutional-self-determination-part-ii/
A lot of people can't be bothered following up links - life is too short. So I'm taking the liberty of a large "fair use" cut and paste of it. Follows:
***************************
Scotland as a Constitutional Self-determination Entity
Scotland’s position is certainly no worse than that of Quebec. It was formerly an independent Kingdom that voluntarily joined the union, kept its distinct culture, legal and educational system and gained significant autonomy in its governance within clearly defined territorial boundaries. In fact, the United Kingdom itself has made it amply clear that Scotland falls into the category of implied constitutional self-determination. Indeed, it has formalized this fact.
In the Edinburgh Agreement between the UK and the Scottish government on the (first) referendum on Independence of 15 October 2012, the UK government confirms that it would work together with the Scottish authorities to ensure that the 2014 referendum could take place. Moreover, much like the Canadian Clarity Act, the Memorandum attached to the Edinburgh Agreement establishes the modalities for the referendum. The agreement also commits the sides to working ‘together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.’ This was taken to be, to the extent possible within the bounds imposed by the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament, as an undertaking to honour a referendum outcome as an exercise of self-determination of the people of Scotland.
The actual issue for Scotland is therefore not whether it somehow fits into the category of constitutional self-determination. It clearly does. The actual question is whether the central government can unreasonably withhold from such an entity the opportunity to actualize that right through a referendum.
However, having raised the issue of self-determination only in order to illuminate the very technical question of UK law concerning reserved powers according to the Scotland Act (1998), the SNP invited the Supreme Court to address this issue in an incidental and somewhat cursory way. Hence, it has ended up with a highly condensed and brief treatment by the Court—a treatment that might be misunderstood as denying the application of the right of self-determination to Scotland altogether.
In reality, of course, the Court has merely found that Scotland is not a classical colony. Hence, the classical right of unilateral secession does not apply. Scotland cannot simply declare independence and leave if it wishes to obtain the benefit of a legally privileged secession in international law as a constitutional self-determination entity—in fact a practical necessity given Scotland’s hope to achieve widespread recognition and EU membership as an independent state. But if it enjoys constitutional self-determination, Scotland should be entitled to assess the will of its population at reasonable intervals. And if there is a clear majority in favour of independence, both sides would be obliged to negotiate the divorce in good faith.
***************************
Here's anither good article, and a fir companion for the previous one:
https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/the-scottish-independence-ruling-here-we-go-again/
Just one quote from that, but it concisely summarises something I've posted about a lot.
"But a failure of internal self-determination can justify forming a new state through a qualified right to secession."
Sturgeon gifted our sovereignty to Westminster in her appeal to the Supreme Court albeit it could be argued that she only acted for a politicdl party not the nation.
These proposals compound that error... Someone needs to record ... Not in our Name...
I am a poor uneducated soul so i cant understand why a Treaty signed by two internationally recognised sovereign states Scotland and England, to unite, cannot by the same nations agree jointly or severally to dis-unite. Egypt and Libya had a treaty uniting the two states but revoked that later. If I were educated I'm sure I could find other examples. But as professor Black had said... The union was not a union but a continuation of the English parliament... So if the English parliament continued sovereign... So did the Scottish one, as confirmed in the opening speech of the new devolved Parliament by Winnie Ewing... Jesus how we miss her nationalist clarity...
So.. if we ever had a Scottish parliament with a majority vote to revoke the acts of union then it could be done and in effect UDI. It's not so scary but preparatory work should be done now in establishing which nation states would recognise our independence. It doesn't have to be formal, but an honourable agreement between diplomats or presidents, for instance Ireland should be asked its position as should all the other small European states. However, the basic problem is we don't have robust enough nationalists around. Maybe the English will make a big mistake and generate some real nationalists by their actions. It's about my only hope.
Nations will not normally pre-recognise another. They might not formally recognise Scotland at all . . . ever! It's not necessary for one nation to formally recognise another. Recognition can be implicit in trade deals or joint security agreements, for example.
Taiwan is a good example of how 'nuanced' the whole international recognition thing can be. Only 12 countries officially recognise Taiwan as a sovereign nation. But for almost all purposes, this makes no difference. Most countries either never recognised Taiwan or have rescinded recognition. It doesn't stop Taiwan trading with these nations.
The US originally recognised Taiwan, but then rescinded that recognition. You wouldn't know this from appearances as the US provides Taiwan with significant military aid and maintains diplomatic relations that are close despite being informal.
In short, international recognition is not the huge obstacle some make it out to be. There is no reason to suppose non-recognition of Scotland would be economically damaging, and little reason to suppose most countries would not grant formal recognition. The rump UK (rUK) could block Scotland's membership of the UN using is veto as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. But it is at least as likely that rUK would lose that seat to one of the BRICS nations.
It's actually a good report (well, you didn't expect me to agree with you did you?).
https://bprcdn.parliament.scot/published/CEEAC/2026/2/27/179f583b-c31a-4e6b-b15f-414dcee86764/CEEACS062026R02.pdf
It is of course a Holyrood cross-party committee, Convener SNP + 2 SNP members, Deputy Convener Conservative + 1 member, Labour 1 member and Green 1 member (plus previous members). And the reason it's a good report is, because of its very existence. Title:
"Options for a legal mechanism for triggering any independence referendum"
It's a vital part of any and every discussion about the existence or non-existence of actual usable Scottish Parliamentary self-determination for Scotland in terms of it initiating and holding a referendum. And its conclusion is: "Naw, nah, no, zilch, nada, rien, zip, nihil, gtf".
Which conclusion did not exist before, in a Parliamentary legal or constitutional sense.
Now it's up to the SNP, Greens, Alba if they still exist. Liberate Scotland et al how they use it. But also of course, Labour, Conservatives, LibDems - all Scottish. Not to mention Your Party and Reform!
Or, concisely, the UKSC says self-determination is not being denied to Scotland by the UK state - the cross-party Scottish Parliament committee says it is, after taking evidence from several constitutional and legal experts.
AND it says that it's urgent that that total denial be fixed. And no wonder.
And there you go - job already done. Took just a few hours, what mugs Starmer and his pet Scottish muppet Douglas Alexander are. The twa corbies!
https://archive.is/4O0Dt
"'Undemocratic' UK Government refuses to engage after indyref2 inquiry"
But you are being HONEST Peter!......holy wullie and co ( that includes the cesspit )are devious ..fork tongued and wouldn't recognise honesty if it came up and kicked them in the ass...because they don't want to....
The best way of dealing with them is to hold a big hammer behind your back as a negotiating tool. It really is up to the Scots ...if 'our colonial masters ' think they trump our will...that hammer has proved successful in other countries who have dealt with the colonial parasitic pariah state next door. Cast your eyes across the Irish sea..they are free of this ghastly little nation who insist we are 'better together'.( boke)...a bit like the fox chatting amiably with the quivering chickens in the henhouse. Time tae get oot the henhoose Scotland. A fox got accidentally caught in a henhouse and the inmates pecked him to death...( true story)..It only takes a bit of backbone...enough of you ..and peck... peck...peck...
For OUR Scotland and her weans who have forgotten how to peck....
The National reports that the committee agreed that
“while the Scottish constitutional tradition of the sovereignty of the people is widely accepted, the UK’s constitutional arrangements vest legal sovereignty (i.e. the highest law-making authority) in the UK Parliament”.
The sovereignty of the Scottish people might be "widely accepted" but quite obviously not by committee members.
The above quote is a pretty clear acceptance of, and acquiescence in, the British state's view that Westminster veto trumps Scottish popular will.
Either that or they just don't understand the concept of sovereignty.