THE Supreme Court’s rejection of the argument that Scotland has the right to self-determination in international law is “very problematic”, according to a constitutional expert.
But he argued this risks undermining “conventions and understandings” on which the UK’s “largely unwritten” constitution depends. “The way is now open for the UK Government to say that there is no time or way for Scotland to exercise its acknowledged right of self-determination.” Keating said: “International laws is not at all clear on this matter but there is a body of opinion that secession is only permissible in the case of colonies or where there has been manifest oppression of a people. This does not apply in the case of Scotland.
It certainly is problematic 😳
No it isn’t problematic as even the Lord Advocate of Scotland thought it wouldn’t be lawful that’s why it went to the Supreme Court, 5 Judges, (1 Scot, 2 English,1 Welsh& 1 Northern Irish) came to a unanimous decision that it would be unlawful not to have a Section 30! 🏴🇬🇧👏
They were only asked to consider the law.
Sturgeon spent hundreds of thousands on a court case even her own legal experts knew would fail just so she could rile up her simpleton supporters. She's a fraud.
So once again no respect for the outcome
Bent court
Nippy took it to the supreme court no one asked her. Reminds me of the Celtic* fans taking Rangers to the advertising standards authority then ignoring the result because they didn't like it.
It is indeed very problematic. For Sturgeon.
The Supreme Court merely confirmed the agreement we signed when we got devolution
What we say to international agencies on an indesputable internal affair of the United Kingdom...
The sustained incompetence of the SNP is very problematic. ResignSturgeon
More straws to clutch at needed
If it was me I would be sick to the back teeth of these moaning 1 trick ponies SNP. Revoke devolution and govern Scotland from Westminster
no it’s not. It’s the law. Not problematic at all
Is this the same Keating that also lost his case Hardly an expert 😂
Yeh -
Of course it is... It means racist.... Anyway if OUR law says its legal... Then its legal. And we over-rule the Supreme Court... And their presiding tory judge.
Clutching at straws! Keating v Unanimous decision of Supreme Court. Even Sturgeon accepted Court decision
We do have the right. We voted. We won.
SC didn't say that, though. SC said that the law says constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster.
'Your' expert
SC ruling has clarified: Holyrood can't hold a referendum, itneeds to have the cooperation of the PM to hold a referendum. Sunak withholding his support for a referendum is denying both YES and NO voters the expression of their democratic rights! And Starmer is no better! Shame!
This headline is a grotesque lie, the SNP may have introduced that dishonest theme in their argument, but that isn't what the ruling was on. It is frankly disgusting that you're misleading your readers in this manner. Your contempt for Scotland and democracy is on full display.
Countries constitutional matters are nothing to do with international laws, only treaties.
It was Sturgeon's choice to take the matter to the Supreme Court, she should have read the Scotland act or sought help if she failed to understand it. She lost and in doing so she has hit a brick wall.
For clarity...There is no such thing a de-facto referendum. In a general election we vote for MP's from parties who present a range of policies. A referendum is a single issue plebiscite that transcends parties. It was done in 2014. The UKSC has now ruled on this. It's over.
So some self styled expect says the Supreme Court is wrong.
Let’s take a minute to remind ourselves *why* it was rejected.
Who cares what your pathetic rag prints?
This article is sh1te most constitutional experts were left scratching their bits when SHE chose this action instead of passing the legislation and leaving WM to object through the courts ‘more difficult’ but she did her own thing against advice of the LA Desperate stuff prevails
‘A Constitutional Expert’
ScotNational Why has the legal fight ended here. It should be taken to the European court of human rights. It should be fought under the basis of a country being denied it’s rights The election is two years away, Scotland should be given its rights quicker WhyNotScotland
We will have our independence if necessary through international law.
😂
Problematic for who? We had a referendum and we voted for the UK as expected and we still would The Scottish Government said the 2014 referendum was ‘once in a generation’ and the FM at the time said that was a period of around 18yrs Come back in 2032
How does thee SP decision compare alongside international law? At what point does the SP rejection go against the right of a country to self determination?
Does the SC rule on International Law?
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: TheSun - 🏆 64. / 61 Read more »
Source: The Yorkshire Post - 🏆 39. / 66 Read more »
Source: LBC - 🏆 17. / 74 Read more »
Source: SkyNews - 🏆 35. / 67 Read more »
Australian court blocks Clive Palmer coal mine on climate grounds\n\t\t\tJournalists in 50+ countries follow the constant flow of money made and lost in oil & gas while\n\t\t\ttracking emerging trends and opportunities in the future of energy. Don’t miss our exclusive\n\t\t\tnewsletter, Energy Source.\n\t\t
Source: ftenergy - 🏆 47. / 63 Read more »
Source: bbcemt - 🏆 120. / 51 Read more »