THE leader of a Canadian independence-supporting organisation has denounced the decision by the UK Supreme Court which ruled that Scotland cannot legislate for an independence referendum without Westminster’s consent.
Benoit Roy, president of the Rassemblement pour un Pays Souverain (Rally for a Sovereign Country), has said it should be up to Scotland to decide its own future.
Roy said: “This is a colonial-inspired legal judgment that Québec knows too well. It is only up to the Scottish and Québec nations to decide on their future.”
On November 20, the group held up a Scottish flag during a traditional commemoration event of the Patriots War between 1837 and 1838.
This comes after Alex Salmond showed his support for remarks made by Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, the leader of the Parti Québécois, who also expressed support for Scottish independence.
Translated from French, Salmond said: “Thank you for your support and that of the Parti Quebecois in the fight for Scottish independence.
“I hope we can talk soon to explore how we can support each other.”
Roy explained that the Supreme Court of Canada also ruled on the constitutionality of the unilateral declaration of independence by Québec in 1998.
This ruling was referenced in the recent Supreme Court case, with Lord Reed mentioning the fact that the Canadian court ruled Québec did not have the right to decide on its independence.
In a recent blog post, constitutional expert Michael Keating explained that should Québec or any other province vote for independence by a clear majority, then the Government would need to negotiate.
He added: “The UK Supreme Court, on the contrary, argued that, precisely because a referendum would be an expression of the democratic will of the Scottish people, it would have political consequences and therefore be illegal.”
More recently, members of the Quebec parliament refused to swear allegiance to King Charles III.
Plamondon said that the oath was a “straitjacket that condemns each elected representative of the people of Quebec to hypocrisy”.
Roy also said he did not think the Quebec government would have any choice but to let those who refused to take the oath take their seat in parliament.
“This institutional anachronism has existed for too long. It is time to put an end to it.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel