Moreover, this judgement in itself renders it weak and vulnerable – once again subjecting the independence of the Scottish legal system to that of the British state. In referring the matter to the final judgement of the Supreme Court in London the implication is that the Court of Session is not the highest court in Scotland – that it has no real independence, that Scots Law must be tested through a higher British court before it can be considered valid, legal and binding in and over this so-called union of equals. This strikes me as utterly pathetic.
In sum, for as long as Scotland and its valuable natural resources are of economic and strategic value to the British state, the law will function to preserve the integrity of the British state – even if that means denying the democratic will of the majority of Scottish people. The familiar argument against this assertion; that we had an independence referendum in September 2014, is a facile one. Scotland was granted an independence referendum in 2012 by David Cameron, a serial gambler, in the assumption we would lose.
When the Advocate General says Westminster is sovereign and the Scottish parliament is not he is presuming a definition of sovereignty which is fundamentally foreign to the Scottish national constitution. More than this, he is assuming a unicity – a singular notion of sovereignty and power in a singular British state – that has never before been made explicit. He is giving England’s idea of sovereignty priority over that of Scotland. This engenders a worrying logical problem; unicity renders the heretofore existing duality of legal understandings impossible.
McHarg writes that the requirement for a Section 30 order – that is the permission of the London government to call a referendum – is not actually an expressly reserved matter.