Indyref2 cannot go ahead without UK parliament permission, court rules

Published

3 years ago

November 23, 2022

admin

The Scottish Parliament does not have the power to call a second independence referendum in the country, the Supreme Court has said.

The unanimous ruling from the UK’s top judges said, despite demands from the SNP for a fresh vote, the country’s government would need approval from the government in Westminster before going ahead.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon had proposed a second referendum – dubbed Indyref2 – for 19 October 2023.

Politics live: ‘Disappointed’ Sturgeon responds to Supreme Court ruling

But she had also warned she would use the next general election as an informal referendum if the court ruled against her plan.

Tweeting after the ruling was made, the first minister said while she was “disappointed”, she respected the ruling, adding the Supreme Court “doesn’t make law, only interprets it”.

Ms Sturgeon added: “A law that doesn’t allow Scotland to choose our own future without Westminster consent exposes as myth any notion of the UK as a voluntary partnership and makes [the] case for independence.

“Scottish democracy will not be denied. Today’s ruling blocks one route to Scotland’s voice being heard on independence – but in a democracy our voice cannot and will not be silenced.”

But Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar said now the ruling is done, “we must focus on the problems facing our country, from rising bills to the crisis in our NHS”.

“There is not a majority in Scotland for a referendum or independence, neither is there a majority for the status quo.

“One thing is clear – there is a majority in Scotland and across the UK for change. A Labour government will deliver that change.”

And the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Douglas Ross, said: “The SNP must now get back to work, drop their referendum obsession and focus on what really matters to the people of Scotland.”

Scotland held an independence referendum in 2014 and just over 55% voted to remain part of the UK.

But the pro-independence SNP, which has led the country since 2007, believes it has a mandate to hold a fresh vote because of its continued success in elections – the majority of members in the Scottish Parliament back independence – and because of the change in circumstances since Brexit.

Ms Sturgeon began her attempts to get approval for a new referendum in 2017 by asking then-prime minister Theresa May for a Section 30 order, which is used to increase or restrict, permanently or temporarily, the Scottish Parliament’s legislative authority – and was used to temporarily legislate for the first referendum.

But she and subsequent UK PMs have refused, leading to today’s court case on whether the Scottish Parliament could pass a bill to hold a referendum without the nod from Westminster.

‘Political consequences’

Announcing the ruling, the court’s president, Lord Reed, said legislation for a second vote would relate to “reserved matters”, making it outside the powers of Holyrood.

“A lawfully-held referendum would have important political consequences in relation to the Union and the United Kingdom Parliament,” he said.

“It would either strengthen or weaken the democratic legitimacy of the Union and of the United Kingdom Parliament’s sovereignty over Scotland, depending on which view prevailed, and would either support or undermine the democratic credentials of the independence movement.

“It is therefore clear that the proposed bill has more than a loose or consequential connection with the reserved matters of the Union of Scotland and England, and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament.”

This is a blow for Sturgeon – Analysis by Connor Gillies, Scotland correspondent

This is a major blow for Nicola Sturgeon’s ambition to hold a second independence vote next October. It almost certainly rules out that plan.

But it’s not entirely surprising as the First Minister’s own top law officer wasn’t fully convinced of the legal basis for Holyrood legislating for a referendum against Westminster’s approval. That is why the Supreme Court got involved.

Indy campaigners will not be deflated at this ruling.

They are likely to see this as a stumbling block as they now pivot to Plan B which is using the next General Election as a defacto independence vote.

This will mean more rough and tumble of political back and forward. Opposition politicians will boycott.

To read more, click here

Lord Reed also said the panel of judges did not accept the SNP’s argument about the “right to self-determination” in international law.

The party had cited rulings in the Canadian Supreme Court and the International Court of Justice – namely over Quebec’s own independence referendums in 1980 and 1995.

But the leading justice said such an international law only exists in situations “of former colonies, or where a people is oppressed… or where a definable group is denied meaningful access to government”.

“The court found that Quebec did not meet the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people, nor could it be suggested that Quebecers were denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development,” he said.

“The same is true of Scotland and the people of Scotland.”

‘Scotland will be independent’

SNP MPs took to social media to express the upset at the decision, with Dave Doogan tweeting: “In the eyes of the people of Scotland, there is NOTHING settled about the current constitutional arrangement.

“The people will decide, and Scotland will become independent.”

But former Scottish Tory leader Baroness Davidson welcomed the “unanimity and clarity” of the court.

“No doubt the SNP will try to leverage this ruling for further grievance,” she wrote. “If only the huge effort, capacity and resource spent bidding to rerun the original vote had been put into health, education and the economy.”

UK

Nurse Sandie Peggie who complained about sharing changing room with transgender doctor wins part of employment tribunal

Published

55 mins ago

December 8, 2025

admin

Nurse Sandie Peggie who complained about sharing changing room with transgender doctor wins part of employment tribunal

A nurse who complained about sharing a changing room with a transgender doctor has won part of her employment tribunal against NHS Fife, although several claims were dismissed.

Sandie Peggie took action against the health board and transgender medic Dr Beth Upton after she was suspended from her job at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy following a row with her colleague on Christmas Eve 2023.

Ms Peggie, who has worked for the NHS for 30 years, was placed on special leave after Dr Upton made an allegation of bullying and harassment, and cited concerns about patient care.

The nurse lodged a claim against NHS Fife and Dr Upton, citing the Equality Act 2010, including sexual harassment, harassment related to a protected belief, indirect discrimination, and victimisation.

The employment tribunal hearings took place in Dundee before Judge Sandy Kemp earlier this year.

In a written judgment on Monday, the harassment claim was upheld against NHS Fife, but allegations of discrimination, indirect discrimination and victimisation were dismissed.

The claims against Dr Upton did not succeed and were dismissed.

Ms Peggie stated: “I am beyond relieved and delighted that the tribunal has found that my employer Fife Health Board harassed me after I complained about having to share a female-only changing room with a male colleague.

“The last two years have been agonising for me and my family.

“I will have much more to say in the coming days once I’ve been able to properly consider the lengthy judgment and discuss it with my legal team.

“For now, I am looking forward to spending a quiet few days with my family.”

Ms Peggie paid tribute to her “incredible” legal team, which included lead counsel Naomi Cunningham, junior counsel Dr Charlotte Elves, and solicitor Margaret Gribbon.

She added: “There are many others I would like to thank and will do so in the coming days.”

The tribunal found that NHS Fife had harassed Ms Peggie by failing to revoke the grant of permission to Dr Upton on an interim basis after the nurse complained, for the period until different work rotas took effect so that they would not work together and said that, as a result, Dr Upton was in the changing room when the claimant was present on two occasions.

It also found the board had harassed Ms Peggie by taking an unreasonable length of time to investigate the allegations against her; by making reference to patient care allegations against her on 28 March 2024; and giving an instruction to her not to discuss the case, until a further message a little over two weeks later which confirmed that applied only to the investigation.

A separate hearing on remedy – which could see Ms Peggie receive financial compensation – will take place at a later date.

NHS Fife said it had been a “complex and lengthy process”.

The health board added: “The employment tribunal unanimously dismissed all of the claimant’s allegations against Dr Upton and all of the allegations against the board apart from four specific aspects of the harassment complaint.

“We will now take time to work through the detail of the judgment alongside our legal team to understand fully what it means for the organisation.

“We want to recognise how difficult this tribunal has been for everyone directly and indirectly involved.

“Our focus now is to ensure that NHS Fife remains a supportive and inclusive environment for all employees and our patients and to deliver health and care to the population of Fife.”

UK

Ex-footballer Joey Barton sentenced for X posts sent to Jeremy Vine, Eni Aluko and Lucy Ward

Published

55 mins ago

December 8, 2025

admin

Ex-footballer Joey Barton sentenced for X posts sent to Jeremy Vine, Eni Aluko and Lucy Ward

Retired footballer Joey Barton has been sentenced over X posts he sent to football pundits Eni Aluko and Lucy Ward, along with broadcaster Jeremy Vine.

Barton, 43, had been found guilty of six counts of sending a grossly offensive electronic communication with intent to cause distress or anxiety.

He was sentenced to a six-month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, at Liverpool Crown Court on Monday.

The former Manchester City, Newcastle United and Rangers midfielder had claimed he was the victim of a “political prosecution” and denied his aim was to “get clicks and promote himself”.

But the jury decided Barton, capped once for England in 2007, had “crossed the line between free speech and a crime” with the six posts he made on the social media platform.

The prosecution argued that Barton, who has 2.5 million followers, “may well be characterised as cutting, caustic, controversial and forthright”.

Peter Wright KC continued: “Everyone is entitled to express views that are all of those things.

“What someone is not entitled to do is to post communications electronically that are – applying those standards – beyond the pale of what is tolerable in society.”

Barton denied 12 counts of sending a grossly offensive electronic communication with intent to cause distress or anxiety between January and March last year.

He was found guilty on six counts, but cleared of another six.

In one post in January 2024, Barton compared Aluko and Ward to the “Fred and Rose West of football commentary”, and superimposed the women’s faces on a photograph of the serial murderers.

He also described Aluko as being in the “Joseph Stalin/Pol Pot category”, suggesting that she had “murdered hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of football fans’ ears”.

The jury found him not guilty in relation to the comparison with the Wests, Stalin and Pol Pot, but decided the superimposed image was grossly offensive.

Another message allegedly suggested Vine had a sexual interest in children, after the broadcaster posted a question relating to the posts about the football commentators asking whether Barton had a “brain injury”.

The court heard Barton replied to Vine’s tweet with a post referring to him as “you big bike nonce” and made references to convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The ex-footballer told the court the posts were “dark and stupid humour” and “crude banter”. He also said he had no intention of implying Vine was a paedophile.

Sentencing, the Honorary Recorder of Liverpool, Judge Andrew Menary KC, told Barton: “Robust debate, satire, mockery and even crude language may fall within permissible free speech.

“But when posts deliberately target individuals with vilifying comparisons to serial killers or false insinuations of paedophilia, designed to humiliate and distress, they forfeit their protection.

“As the jury concluded, your offences exemplify behaviour that is beyond this limit – amounting to a sustained campaign of online abuse that was not mere commentary but targeted, extreme and deliberately harmful.”

Barton was also given a two-year restraining order preventing him from contacting Aluko, Ward or Vine, or publishing any reference to them on a social media platform or broadcast platform.

He will also have to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work in the community and pay prosecution costs of £23,419.

UK

More arrests after ‘pepper spray’ incident at Heathrow Airport

Published

2 hours ago

December 8, 2025

admin

More arrests after 'pepper spray' incident at Heathrow Airport

Two more people have been arrested following a “pepper spray” incident at London’s Heathrow Airport

The incident took place shortly after 8am on Sunday, when two women were allegedly robbed of their suitcases after leaving the car park lift within the airport’s Terminal 3 building.

The alleged robbers then sprayed them with what is believed to be pepper spray, which then affected others nearby.

A 31-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of robbery and assault close to the scene on Sunday. He was released under investigation while enquiries continue.

Now, a 24-year-old man in Lambeth has been arrested on suspicion of robbery and assault and a 23-year-old woman on suspicion of conspiracy to commit robbery, the Metropolitan Police said.

The pair remain in custody.

London Ambulance Service attended the scene and treated 21 people, including a three-year-old girl.

Five people were taken to hospital. Their injuries are not believed to be life-changing or life-threatening.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the latest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.