The intense discussion over Scotland’s future is reaching another, major milestone.
Politicians on both sides of Scotland’s independence debate are waiting with bated breath for the judgment from the Supreme Court on whether the Scottish parliament has the power to legislate for a second referendum without the approval of Westminster.
Five judges – who have spent the last month examining 8,000 pages of legal arguments – are set to deliver their determination at 9.45am today.
There are four possible outcomes.
Scottish government wins
If the Scottish government wins, activists say it would essentially trigger the beginning of a referendum campaign.
It would allow Nicola Sturgeon to table the draft referendum bill at the Scottish parliament, where it would pass because the majority of MSPs are independence supporters.
An emboldened first minister would demand renewed talks with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to seek the “gold standard” agreement similar to 2014.
Advertisement
It is likely these talks would be fraught.
UK government wins
The second scenario is the court sides with the UK government and rules consent is needed from Westminster to re-run a referendum.
Downing Street would feel its position has been vindicated, but Ms Sturgeon is likely to argue it is an attack on democracy and “proves” Scotland is “trapped in an unequal union”.
The first minister has been clear that she will use the next general election on the single issue of whether Scotland should become independent.
Her ministers say it would be a “de-facto” referendum; their opponents say they will boycott any such scenario.
Court makes no ruling
Another possible outcome is the court decides it is unable to rule on a Holyrood-created referendum because the planned legislation is still in draft form.
Court gives a view – even if premature
And even though UK government lawyers urged the judges to hold back on ruling on hypothetical scenarios, they might decide to offer a view to clear things up once and for all.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:04
‘Fiction’ of union if referendum blocked
How did we get here?
In the run-up to the 2014 Scottish referendum, the former first minister Alex Salmond and then prime minister David Cameron signed an official agreement to allow the vote to take place.
The eventual outcome was Scotland voting to stay in the United Kingdom.
Since then, Ms Sturgeon’s SNP government has won every Scottish election and put a referendum commitment in each manifesto.
Ms Sturgeon argued, among other issues, that Scotland was “dragged” out of the EU despite voting to remain.
She insists her party has a mandate to test the electorate on the question of independence on 19 October 2023.
However, this time the Conservative government at Westminster is not agreeing to a second vote.
Successive prime ministers have said the 2014 vote was decisive, and the SNP should instead focus on improving domestic challenges in education and the health service.
Why this ruling matters
There has been a deadlock between Holyrood and London for years.
The political stand-off landed in the Supreme Court in October, where the Scottish government sought clarity on Edinburgh holding a vote without the consent of London.
It argued any referendum would be “entirely advisory” with “no legal consequences”.
UK government lawyers insisted it was crystal clear Holyrood does not hold the power for a second vote, and urged judges to throw out the case.
They argued it would be “premature” to rule on something which is only a proposed bill at this stage.
The Supreme Court’s role is to look at the matter only from a legal perspective.
It cannot be underestimated how important this ruling is because nearly every day-to-day issue in Scotland is seen through the prism of the constitution.
It is arguably the biggest political elephant in the room, lingering over domestic debate.
Almost every poll suggests Scots are split down the middle on the future of the country, and it’s unclear whether this judgment will help settle the matter.
Countries in South and Southeast Asia have been coping with a weeks-long heatwave which has seen record temperatures sweep parts of the region.
Pupils in the Philippines, India and Bangladesh have been told to stay at home and learn remotely due to a severe health risk.
Schools in Cambodia have also cut back on their hours.
Cambodia faces its hottest temperature in 170 years, according to meteorologists – as high as 43C (109F).
Bangkok in Thailand has reached 40C (104 F), but the heat index is said to have topped 50 C (122 F) due to the heat being trapped among the mass of buildings.
The United Nations Children’s Fund warned in April that the heat could put the lives of millions of children at risk and asked people who care for them to take extra precautions.
A spokesperson for UNICEF said around 243 million children were exposed to hotter and longer heatwaves.
More on Bangladesh
Related Topics:
They said the increased heat was “putting them at risk of a multitude of heat-related illnesses, and even death”.
Thirty people in Thailand have died from heatstroke in the past month, according to data from the country’s health ministry.
Advertisement
People are being advised to avoid outdoor activities and to stay hydrated.
Several towns in Myanmar were included on lists of the hottest spots globally last month, with temperatures reaching 48.2C (118F) in at least one case.
Parts of eastern India also experienced their hottest April on record.
Kerala, on India’s west coast, this week instructed all schools and colleges to close until Monday, while influencers in Bangladesh have encouraging people to plant trees in response to the record heat.
Benjamin Horton, director of the Earth Observatory of Singapore, said there were three factors for heatwaves: a naturally-occurring climate phenomenon known as El Nino, an increase in global temperatures, and human-induced climate change.
Philippine coastguard spokesman Jay Tarriela told Sky News that this week’s confrontation was the first time China had used “such aggression” against their ships.
“The metal parts and the railing were bent. The canopy was also destroyed. So this came as a surprise for us that China never hesitated to use brute force,” he said.
“It completely justifies us calling The People’s Republic of China a bully country.”
The Philippine coastguard was on a resupply mission to the Scarborough Shoal to deliver food and fuel to Philippine fishermen when they were struck.
The submerged reef lies in disputed waters. China claims sovereignty over the reef but it is much closer to the Philippines and lies within its legally recognised exclusive economic zone.
More on China
Related Topics:
The vessel Sky News was on board was the closest the coastguard had ever been to the shoal – just 600 metres away from it.
Asked if the mission to the shoal was a provocative move by the Philippine coastguard, Commodore Tarriela denied they were “poking the bear” but rather “driving the bear out of our own territory”.
Advertisement
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:26
Sky witnesses China-Philippine confrontation
The Philippines has been stepping up its patrols in the area under the instruction of President Bongbong Marcos, and reasserting its claim to the shoal in recent months.
It has raised the spectre of open conflict. While neither side currently wants that, there is now a greater threat of open conflict.
Asked what the end game was for the Philippines, Commodore Tarriela said their priority was to “tell the world” about China’s aggression.
He said their secondary goal was to ensure “like-minded states” also made China “fall in line and respect international law”.
Philippine government policy is not to resist using water cannon against Chinese vessels – and Commodore Tarriela insisted that policy remains in place after the confrontation.
The government also remains intensely determined to protect the waters it believes it has every right to operate in.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
“We’re not going to yield and we’re not going to surrender a square inch of our territory,” Commodore Tarriela insisted.
Beijing has called the action its own coastguard took as “necessary”.
Speaking at the Chinese foreign ministry’s daily news conference, spokesperson Lin Jian described the coastguard’s conduct as “professional, proper, and lawful”.
Three suspects have been charged by Canadian police over the killing of a Sikh separatist leader in Vancouver last June, in an incident that sparked a diplomatic spat between Ottawa and New Delhi.
Hardeep Singh Nijjar, 45, was shot dead outside a temple by masked gunmen in Surrey, outside Vancouver, on 18 June 2023.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police assistant commissioner David Teboul said police could not comment on the nature of the evidence or the motive.
“This matter is very much under active investigation,” Teboul said.
The three suspects – Indian nationals Kamalpreet Singh, Karan Brar and Karampreet Singh – were arrested in Edmonton, Alberta, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police said.
Superintendent Mandeep Mooker said: “This investigation does not end here. We are aware that others may have played a role in this homicide and we remain dedicated to finding and arresting each one of these individuals.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:18
Canada killing ‘linked’ to India govt
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sparked a diplomatic feud with India when he said in September that there were “credible allegations” of Indian involvement in the killing. India angrily denied involvement.
More on Canada
Related Topics:
Mr Nijjar, an Indian-born citizen of Canada, was a leader in what remains of the Khalistan movement – a once-strong group calling for the creation of an independent Sikh homeland.
He was organising an unofficial referendum in India for an independent Sikh nation at the time of this death and had denied allegations of ties to terrorism.
Advertisement
The Khalistan movement has lost much of its power but is still supported by some in the Punjab state in northwestern India and in the Sikh diaspora overseas.
A violent, decade-long Sikh insurgency shook north India in the 1970s and 1980s, and was ultimately crushed in a government crackdown which saw thousands of people killed, including prominent Sikh leaders.
In June 1984, Indian forces stormed the Golden Temple, the holiest Sikh shrine in Amritsar, where separatists had taken refuge.
In more recent years, the Indian government has repeatedly warned that Sikh separatists were trying to make a comeback.
The Indian government said it “completely rejected” Mr Trudeau’s allegations and added: “We are a democratic polity with a strong commitment to rule of law.”