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.
If the Scottish government hopes to defend our voice in London then it has no option but to stick to its guns, forcing the British government to ignore us and take us from the EU without our consent. Only then will we be in a position to resist and protect our sovereign democratic will – even if that means seeking independence. The moment we support a People’s Vote we accept the result that was made for us and thereby lose the high ground we currently hold.
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.