Running out of Road: Implications of the Supreme Court’s Indyref2 Verdict

The Supreme Court has this morning delivered a verdict with wide-reaching political implications for both Scotland and the UK. The ruling could not have been clearer; any attempt by the Scottish Parliament to legislate for an independence referendum without the explicit approval of the UK Government would be illegal. In many ways, the verdict comes as no surprise given the Scotland Act (1998) makes clear that the constitution is a reserved matter. This court case was always as political as it was legal, however, and the result is a bitter blow to the SNP and to Nicola Sturgeon. Ultimately, the First Minister has run out of road and, for all its dominance over the Scottish electoral landscape, the SNP must now internalise the fact that - for as long as the UK Government remains implacably opposed to devolving a Section 30 Order - there is no legal route to a second referendum.

So, what next? This question is fundamental to the SNP and, by extension, Scotland, and its future relationship with the United Kingdom. First, expect to see the First Minister accept the verdict of the court. Nicola Sturgeon is a level-headed leader who will not entertain the notion of a Catalonia style ‘wildcat referendum’ as proposed by the more excitable elements of the nationalist movement. That said, the First Minister cannot escape the fact that she cannot deliver what she has promised her party and her country.

In June, when Sturgeon announced to the Scottish Parliament that she intended to refer the matter to the Supreme Court, she also said that, in the event of a negative ruling, her party would go on to fight the next general election as a ‘de facto referendum’ on independence. This tactic is fraught and potentially counter-productive; opponents have already stated no political party can tell voters what they should be voting on in an election and, even if the 2024 election were to become a ‘de facto’ referendum, it is highly likely this would galvanise unionists to vote tactically against the SNP. It appears that Nicola Sturgeon really has run out of cards to play.

SNP strategists will now think in the long-term. They know that the only way to secure independence is through a legally watertight and internationally recognised referendum, as per the 2014 vote. It may take a decade or more to secure one and, for all the dominance she has over her party, and Scottish politics more generally, this morning’s verdict almost certainly means that Nicola Sturgeon will not lead her country to independence. It will also call into immediate question how long she should continue to lead her party. Come 2024, she will have been First Minister for a decade and, with no referendum on the horizon, conversations will quickly turn to when it is time to make way for the next generation. Scottish Finance Secretary, Kate Forbes, and Constitution Secretary, Angus Robertson, are the clear favourites to succeed her.

Of course, this morning’s verdict does not change the fact that the independence question remains central to Scottish politics. It is an issue which splits the country down the middle and which, in the immediate term, is likely to keep the SNP in office. Many commentators lament the fact that Scottish politics is stuck and there is a lot of truth in that observation. For as long as a significant minority of Scotland votes for a party on the basis that they support independence, the SNP will continue to run the very devolved government they want to abolish. Pro-UK voters, who still outnumber pro-independence voters, will continue to feel disenfranchised and alienated. The long-term question remains what gives, and when?