Connect with us

Published

on

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.

More on Scotland

“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.”

Continue Reading

UK

Woman’s body found in car boot in east London – as murder investigation launched by two police forces

Published

on

By

Woman's body found in car boot in east London - as murder investigation launched by two police forces

A murder investigation has been launched after a woman’s body was found in the boot of a car in east London.

Detectives said a murder inquiry has been launched into the “suspicious” discovery in Ilford.

The woman, who has not been named but is from Corby in Northamptonshire, may have been the victim of a “targeted incident”, police say.

“Fast track” enquiries were made after the force was contacted by a member of the public with concerns about the welfare of the woman.

This led to the discovery of a body inside a car boot.

Northamptonshire Police said: “The investigation is ongoing and there will be continued police activity over the weekend in various locations, including Corby and Ilford.

“Although we believe that this was a targeted incident and there is no wider risk to members of the public, extra patrols will be taking place in Corby in the coming days for reassurance purposes.”

Detectives from the East Midlands Special Operations Unit major crime team and the Metropolitan Police are working on the case, to try and establish the circumstances that led to the woman’s death.

Continue Reading

UK

Police investigating criminal offence after Daily Telegraph columnist ‘dumbfounded’ by social media post probe

Published

on

By

Police investigating criminal offence after Daily Telegraph columnist 'dumbfounded' by social media post probe

Essex Police say they are investigating an alleged criminal offence of inciting racial hatred, after Daily Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson said she was “dumbfounded and upset” when officers knocked on her door last Sunday.

Ms Pearson revealed she was told she was being investigated over a year-old deleted post online.

She said she wasn’t informed which post had been reported, but suggested it could have been related to the 7 October attacks in Israel or pro-Palestine marches.

She claimed the officers told her she was being investigated for a NCHI (a none crime hate incident) an incident involving an act which is perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards persons with a particular characteristic, but is not illegal.

NCHI reports have long been controversial, with many citing free speech concerns, and Ms Pearson’s account of the police visit has led to widespread support from Conservatives and online commentators, including Tory leader Kemi Badenoch.

But an Essex Police spokesperson has told Sky News its investigation was never for an NCHI, and that the matter was always being treated as an investigation into an alleged criminal offence of inciting racial hatred.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

Speaking on her Planet Normal podcast on Wednesday, Ms Pearson said she found the visit “chilling”.

More from Politics

“I was dumbfounded, upset, it’s not very nice,” she said. “I was in my dressing gown on the step of the house, these two coppers were there just outside the door.

“There were people gathering for the Remembrance Day parade so there were people watching from the other side of the road.

“Whatever I did or didn’t tweet, if somebody found it offensive, that to me is still not a reason for two policemen to come to my house on a Sunday morning.

“You know, they don’t do that for burglars, do they? We know policing is under-resourced and they are unable to attend often quite serious crimes.

“This was the most extraordinary overreach and state intrusion into my private life and I don’t think I did anything wrong and I think their response was outrageous.”

Read more:
Ex-Tory MP feels ‘enormous guilt’ over Westminster scandal
Farage issues message to his ‘haters’

In a statement, Essex Police said: “Officers attended an address in Essex and invited a woman to come to a voluntary interview.

“They said it related to an investigation into an alleged offence of inciting racial hatred, linked to a post on social media.

“For clarity: a complaint of a possible criminal offence was made to the police and this is why we called; to arrange an interview.

“Everyone was polite and professional throughout the brief conversation.”

They said an officer told Ms Pearson: “It’s gone down as an incident or offence of potentially inciting racial hatred online. That would be the offence.”

Essex Police say they have complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) over what they call “false reporting” regarding the ongoing investigation.

What is a non-crime hate incident?

Non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) are defined by the government as an incident involving an act which is perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards persons with a particular characteristic.

Those characteristics can include race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity.

These incidents do not amount to a criminal offence, but they are reported to police and recorded in case they escalate into more serious harm or indicate heightened community tensions.

It can be reported to police by anyone, whether they are directly affected by the alleged NCHI or not.

Not all incidents reported to police are recorded as NCHIs.

They need to meet this threshold, according to the government: “A single distinct event or occurrence which disturbs an individual’s, group’s or community’s quality of life or causes them concern.”

Furthermore, the personal data of the person reported should only be included in the reports if the incident in question presents a “real risk of significant harm” to individuals or groups with a particular characteristic and/or a real risk that a future criminal offence may take place against them.

The origins of NCHI recordings stem from the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993, who was murdered by a gang of racist attackers in southeast London as he ran to catch a bus.

An inquiry into his death in 1999 called for the creation of “a comprehensive system of reporting and recording of all racist incidents and crimes”.

The first guidance on NCHI was published in 2005, but there have been updates over the years in response to scrutiny over protecting free speech.

The latest guidance was published in June 2023, when an updated code of practice set out a “common sense and proportionate approach that should be adopted by the police”.

The guidance, introduced under the Conservative government, clarified “that debate, humour, satire and personally-held views which are lawfully expressed are not, by themselves, grounds for the recording of an NCHI” and that an NCHI should not be recorded if police deem a report to be “trivial” or “irrational”.

In an interview with The Telegraph published yesterday, Kemi Badenoch said police visiting a journalist over a social media post was “absolutely wrong” and that “we need to look at the laws around non-crime hate incidents”.

“There has been a long-running problem with people not taking free speech seriously,” she said.

She challenged the prime minister to review the laws, saying: “Keir Starmer says he is someone who believes in these things. Now he needs to actually show that he does believe it. All we’ve seen from him is the opposite.”

Ms Badenoch added: “We need to stop this behaviour of people wasting police time on trivial incidents because they don’t like something, as if they’re in a nursery.

“It’s like children reporting each other. And I think that in certain cases, the police do it because they’re afraid that if they don’t do it, they will also be accused of not taking these issues seriously.”

Essex Police said the officers went to the address to invite Ms Pearson to attend a voluntary interview as part of their investigation, which was passed to them by another force.

“The report relates to a social media post which was subsequently removed,” the statement read.

“An investigation is now being carried out under Section 17 of the Public Order Act.”

Essex Police also said they made attempts to contact Ms Pearson before the visit.

Other prominent Conservative voices such as Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Chris Philp have also leapt to Ms Pearson’s defence online, as has X owner Elon Musk, who quoted a post about the incident and said: “This needs to stop.”

Police commentator Graham Wettone told Sky News the police are “duty bound to investigate allegations of crime”.

“They’ve had an allegation of crime made there,” he said. “They will investigate it. If at the end of this they decide that no criminal offence has been committed – and we’re not at that stage yet – then it can still be recorded as a none crime hate incident.”

The police, he said, are duty bound to keep a record of none crime hate incidents.

“Parliament said they want the police to do this, to investigate and record incidents like this. So they are doing exactly what parliament and society asked them to do, and they are getting criticism for doing what people want.”

Continue Reading

UK

Sir Keir Starmer vows to defend budget decisions ‘all day long’ as farmers slam ‘disrespectful’ PM

Published

on

By

Sir Keir Starmer vows to defend budget decisions 'all day long' as farmers slam 'disrespectful' PM

Sir Keir Starmer has said he will defend the decisions made in the budget “all day long” amid anger from farmers over inheritance tax changes.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced last month in her key speech that from April 2026, farms worth more than £1m will face an inheritance tax rate of 20%, rather than the standard 40% applied to other land and property.

The announcement has sparked anger among farmers who argue this will mean higher food prices, lower food production and having to sell off land to pay for the tax.

Sir Keir Starmer

Sir Keir defended the budget as he gave his first speech as prime minister at the Welsh Labour conference in Llandudno, North Wales, where farmers have been holding a tractor protest outside.

Sir Keir admitted: “We’ve taken some extremely tough decisions on tax.”

He said: “I will defend facing up to the harsh light of fiscal reality. I will defend the tough decisions that were necessary to stabilise our economy.

“And I will defend protecting the payslips of working people, fixing the foundations of our economy, and investing in the future of Britain and the future of Wales. Finally, turning the page on austerity once and for all.”

He also said the budget allocation for Wales was a “record figure” – some £21bn for next year – an extra £1.7bn through the Barnett Formula, as he hailed a “path of change” with Labour governments in Wales and Westminster.

And he confirmed a £160m investment zone in Wrexham and Flintshire will be going live in 2025.

‘PM should have addressed the protesters’

Among the hundreds of farmers demonstrating was Gareth Wyn Jones, who told Sky News it was “disrespectful” that the prime minister did not mention farmers in his speech.

He said “so many people have come here to air their frustrations. He (Starmer) had an opportunity to address the crowd. Even if he was booed he should have been man enough to come out and talk to the people”.

He said farmers planned to deliver Sir Keir a letter which begins with “don’t bite the hand that feeds you”.

Farmers' tractor protest outside the Welsh Labour conference in Llandudno, North Wales
Image:
Farmers’ tractor protest outside the Welsh Labour conference in Llandudno, North Wales

Mr Wyn Jones told Sky News the government was “destroying” an industry that was already struggling.

“They’re destroying an industry that’s already on its knees and struggling, absolutely struggling, mentally, emotionally and physically. We need government support not more hindrance so we can produce food to feed the nation.”

He said inheritance tax changes will result in farmers increasing the price of food: “The poorer people in society aren’t going to be able to afford good, healthy, nutritious British food, so we have to push this to government for them to understand that enough is enough, the farmers can’t take any more of what they’re throwing at us.”

Mr Wyn Jones disputed the government’s estimation that only 500 farming estates in the UK will be affected by the inheritance tax changes.

“Look, a lot of farmers in this country are in their 70s and 80s, they haven’t handed their farms down because that’s the way it’s always been, they’ve always known there was never going to be inheritance tax.”

On Friday, Sir Keir addressed farmers’ concerns, saying: “I know some farmers are anxious about the inheritance tax rules that we brought in two weeks ago.

“What I would say about that is, once you add the £1m for the farmland to the £1m that is exempt for your spouse, for most couples with a farm wanting to hand on to their children, it’s £3m before anybody pays a penny in inheritance tax.”

Read more:
Ex-Labour adviser suggests doing to farms ‘what Thatcher did to coal mines’
Farmers ‘could block ports and disrupt food supply’

Welsh farmer Gareth Wyn Jones
Image:
Welsh farmer Gareth Wyn Jones

Ministers said the move will not affect small farms and is aimed at targeting wealthy landowners who buy up farmland to avoid paying inheritance tax.

But analysis this week said a typical family farm would have to put 159% of annual profits into paying the new inheritance tax every year for a decade and could have to sell 20% of their land.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

The Country and Land Business Association (CLA), which represents owners of rural land, property and businesses in England and Wales, found a typical 200-acre farm owned by one person with an expected profit of £27,300 would face a £435,000 inheritance tax bill.

The plan says families can spread the inheritance tax payments over 10 years, but the CLA found this would require an average farm to allocate 159% of its profits each year for a decade.

To pay that, successors could be forced to sell 20% of their land, the analysis found.

Continue Reading

Trending