Scotland’s independence movement suffers a setback at the Supreme Court One route to an independence referendum is blocked. Nicola Sturgeon seeks another

Nov 23rd 2022

“It’s up to this place now,” said Finlay Royle, gesturing towards the Houses of Parliament. He was leading a demonstration, clutching Saltires and eu flags, outside the Supreme Court on November 23rd. Mr Royle seemed rather chirpy for one whose campaign had just been dealt a blow; but breaking up a country is not for the faint of heart.

芬利?羅伊爾指著議會大廈的方向說： “ 現在就看這個地方了?！?11 月 23 日，他正在（英國）最高法院外領導示威，手里拿著蘇格蘭旗和歐盟旗幟?？紤]到他領導的群眾運動剛剛遭受打擊，羅伊爾先生心情好得不可思議。但玻璃心的人無法領導獨立運動。

Hours earlier, Lord Reed of Allermuir, the president of the court and a Scot, had delivered a judgment that reshapes Britain’s constitution. The Scottish government had asked whether the devolved parliament in Edinburgh has the power to legislate for a new referendum on independence without the agreement of the Westminster Parliament. It does not, said Lord Reed. The court could have ducked the issue; the “boldness and clarity” of its decision was a surprise, says Richard Parry of the University of Edinburgh.

幾小時前，英國最高法院院長、蘇格蘭人里德勛爵?(Lord Reed of Allermuir)?作出?了一項判決。這一判決將重塑英國憲法。蘇格蘭政府曾詢問愛丁堡權利下放議會是否有權在未經英國議會同意的情況下為新的獨立公投立法。里德勛爵表示?（?愛丁堡議會）并沒有這項權利。愛丁堡大學的理查德?·?帕里表示最高法院原本可以回避這個問題，但其?“?大膽和清晰”的回復令人吃驚。?

The Scottish government had argued that a referendum would have no immediate?legal effect, and would therefore be within its remit. Yet Lord Reed and his four?colleagues unanimously decided that it would have a significant political effect by?helping to undermine the union—that was the point, after all. It was therefore beyond?the Scottish Parliament’s limited scope. They brushed aside a submission from the?Scottish National Party (SNP) claiming a right to self-determination under?international law. Such concepts apply to colonies and to victims of foreign military?rule, not to Scots, the judges said. An artful ambiguity has been ripped from the?constitution. It is now beyond doubt that Scotland cannot unilaterally leave the union.?It takes two to divorce.?

蘇格蘭政府辯稱，公投并不會產生直接法律效果，因此組織全民公決應在其職?權范圍內。?然而，里德勛爵和他的四位同事一致認為，這將產生重大的政治影響，將破壞英國的團結。而這也是關鍵點。因此，?組織全民公決超出了蘇格蘭議會有限的權限范圍。英國最高法院對蘇格蘭民族黨（?SNP?）?聲稱根據國際法?享有自決權的意見不屑一顧。法官們說，這種概念僅適用于殖民地和外國軍事?統治的受害者，?而不適用于蘇格蘭人。英國憲法中已經剔除了關于蘇格蘭獨立問題的模糊性。現在毫無疑問的是，蘇格蘭不能單方面脫離聯邦，其獨立必須得到英國的批準。?

This blocks the road for Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister and leader of?the?SNP?, at least for a while. She wanted to hold a referendum on October 19th,?2023—a fresh shot at separation after Scots voted in a referendum in 2014 to stay in?the United Kingdom. But she insists that to be credible it must be lawful. She is?unable to organise one herself; the British government won’t organise one for her. Her?strategy now is to denounce the United Kingdom as a prison. “This ruling confirms?that the notion of the?UK?as a voluntary partnership of nations is no longer,” said Ms?Sturgeon. The next British general election, expected in 2024, will be a “de facto”?referendum on independence, she said.?

這至少在一段時間內堵住了蘇格蘭第一部長兼蘇格蘭民族黨領袖尼古拉?斯特金的路。斯特金想在2023?年10?月19日舉行公投，這將是自蘇格蘭人在2014?年公投中決定留在英國后對蘇格蘭獨立的新嘗試。但她堅持認為，要想成功組?織公投必須得到（英國）法律支持。她無法自己組織公投，英國政府也不會為她組織公投。她現在譴責英國是一個監(jiān)獄。斯特金說："?這項裁決證實了大不列?顛及北愛爾蘭聯合王國作為國家間自愿合作關系的概念已經不復存在。她表示2024年舉行的下一次英國大選將是一次“事實上的”獨立公投。

Quite what that means is unclear. The?SNP?will decide how to proceed at a special?party meeting in the new year. Trying to turn an election into a referendum looks like?a gambit to hold together a nationalist movement that has been pushing Ms Sturgeon?to deliver results and is running out of patience: one more election, one last heave.?This is a high-risk strategy. Scotland’s other parties are free to ignore Ms Sturgeon?and say that the election is really about the economy, health care or the upkeep of the?pavements. The SNP has failed to stir more than half of Scots to support?independence and only 39% of Scots think a general election could serve as a proxy?referendum, according to Ipsos, a pollster. Ms Sturgeon’s denunciations of Britain’s?democratic deficit will fire up her base. But they will probably do little to widen?support for independence among undecided Scots who are wary of its costs.?

我們還不清楚這意味著什么。蘇格蘭民族黨將在新一年的特別黨務會議上決定?如何推進計劃。試圖將選舉變成公投的行為看起來像是一種賭博，?目的是團結?起民族主義運動。這一運動一直在幫助斯特金成功但現在已然失去耐心。再來一次選舉，進行最后一次沖刺。?這是一個高風險策略。?蘇格蘭其他政黨可以無?視斯特金女士，說選舉更應該關注經濟、醫(yī)療保健或人行道的維護。據民調機構?Ipsos?稱，蘇格蘭民族黨未能使半數以上蘇格蘭人支持獨立。只有39%?的蘇格蘭人認為大選可以作為代理公投。斯特金女士對英國民主赤字的譴責將動搖她的基本盤。但是，它們可能對爭取更多對于蘇格蘭獨立的支持沒有什么作用，因為許多蘇格蘭人擔憂獨立的代價。?

In principle, the Supreme Court’s decision gives the British government the legal?cover to pursue a hard unionist strategy, declaring independence to be impossible?forever. That would be unwise. Rishi Sunak, the prime minister, so far appears to be?pursuing a softly-softly approach, stressing co-operation.

?原則上，最高法院的裁決為英國政府提供了法律保障，使其可以強硬地維護聯合王國的統一，并宣布蘇格蘭永遠不可能獨立。但這是不明智的。到目前為止，蘇納克（現任英國首相）似乎在追求一種軟中帶硬的方法，強調合作。?

Yet regardless of what the court ruled, the nationalist movement is more dependent on?the British government than it likes to admit. “Any viable path to independence?depends on co-operation between the Scottish and?UK?governments at every stage,”?remarked Anthony Salamone, a Scottish political analyst, in a recent lecture. Treaties?would need to be written; assets and debts divided; border posts built; nuclear?submarines moved. It would be a titanic joint endeavour, in which the British?government would hold many of the cards. Getting a referendum has become a distant?prospect, and it is just the start.?

然而，無論法院的裁決如何，民族主義運動對英國政府的依賴程度都比它愿意承認的要高。蘇格蘭政治分析家?Anthony Salamone?在最近的一次演講中說：“任何可行的獨立道路都取決于蘇格蘭和英國政府在每個階段的合作?！?他們需要制定條約，分割資產和債務，建造邊境哨所和調動核動力潛艇。這將是一項巨大的聯合行動，英國政府將在其中掌握許多籌碼。蘇格蘭獨立公投已經變得遙遙無期，而這僅僅只是個開始。