UK top court to rule on legality of new Scottish independence referendum

Scotland's First Minister and leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), Nicola Sturgeon, reacts as she delivers her speech to delegates at the annual SNP Conference in Aberdeen, Scotland, on October 10, 2022. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 23 November 2022
Follow

UK top court to rule on legality of new Scottish independence referendum

  • Under the 1998 Scotland Act, which created the Scottish parliament and devolved some powers from Westminster, all matters relating to the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England are reserved to the UK parliament

LONDON: The United Kingdom’s top court will give its ruling on Wednesday on whether the Scottish government can hold a second referendum on independence next year without approval from the British parliament, potentially paving the way for a new vote.
In 2014, Scots rejected ending the more-than 300-year-old union with England by 55 percent to 45 percent, but independence campaigners have argued the vote two years later for Britain to leave the European Union, which the majority of Scottish voters opposed, has materially changed the circumstances.
Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP), announced earlier this year that she intended to hold an advisory independence vote on Oct. 19, 2023, but that it had to be lawful and internationally recognized.
However, the British government in London has said it would not grant permission for another plebiscite, saying it should be a once-in-a-generation event. Polls suggest voters remain evenly split over whether or not they support independence and a vote would be too close to call.
Under the 1998 Scotland Act, which created the Scottish parliament and devolved some powers from Westminster, all matters relating to the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England are reserved to the UK parliament.
The Supreme Court will decide firstly whether it should consider the issue at all, given that no referendum bill has been introduced yet into Scotland’s devolved parliament.
If it concludes it has jurisdiction, it will then decide whether an advisory referendum is a reserved matter.
In two days of hearings in October, the Scottish government argued that while politically significant, the vote on independence would be merely advisory and not legally binding.
However, the Conservative-led British government said the court should not even engage with an abstract legal question.
Most legal experts expect the court to support the view that no referendum can be held without the British government’s approval. Sturgeon has said that if that is the outcome, then her party would seek to make the next UK-wide election, expected in 2024, a ‘de facto’ vote on independence.
Scottish politics has been diverging from other parts of the United Kingdom for some time. The SNP has been the largest party in the Scottish parliament since 2007, partly driven by the demand for another referendum.
However, the party has been under pressure over its record on health and education. Scotland has the highest drug deaths in Europe and two thirds of the population is either obese or overweight, while a think tank report last year said its education system is the weakest in the United Kingdom.
“The independence movement is stuck, blocked constitutionally and legally, and it is stuck on 50 percent of the vote,” Michael Keating, a professor of politics at the University of Aberdeen.
“The unionists are also stuck on 50 percent of the vote and have run out of arguments for the union. They have not been able to articulate a clear case for the union and why Scotland should remain part of it.” 

 


China ‘strongly’ urges India, Pakistan to avoid escalation

Updated 10 May 2025
Follow

China ‘strongly’ urges India, Pakistan to avoid escalation

BEIJING: China on Saturday urged India and Pakistan to avoid an escalation in fighting, Beijing’s foreign ministry said, as the conflict between its two nuclear-armed neighbors spiralled toward full-blown war.
“We strongly call on both India and Pakistan to give priority to peace and stability, remain calm and restrained, return to the track of political settlement through peaceful means and avoid taking actions that further escalate tensions,” a statement by a foreign ministry spokesperson said.


Brazil’s Lula to visit China ahead of regional summit

Updated 10 May 2025
Follow

Brazil’s Lula to visit China ahead of regional summit

  • Beijing is Brazil’s biggest trading partner. Its exports to China reached more than $94 billion last year

BEIJING: Brazil’s president will begin a five-day trip to China on Saturday, Beijing announced, ahead of a gathering of Latin American leaders in the country next week.
Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s state visit comes at the invitation of counterpart President Xi Jinping and will last until Wednesday, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said in a statement on Saturday.
Since returning to power in early 2023, Lula has sought to improve ties with both China and the United States.
Beijing is Brazil’s biggest trading partner. Its exports to China reached more than $94 billion last year, according to the United Nations Comtrade Database.
The South American agricultural power sends mainly soybeans and other primary commodities to China, while the Asian giant sells semiconductors, telephones, vehicles and medicines to Brazil.
The two presidents are expected to attend next week’s summit between China and the 33-member Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC).
China is seeking to replace the United States as the main political and economic external influence in Latin America, where leaders have urged a united front against President Donald Trump’s global tariff blitz.
Two-thirds of Latin American countries have joined Beijing’s trillion-dollar Belt and Road infrastructure program, and China has surpassed the United States as the biggest trading partner of Brazil, Peru and Chile, among others.


South Korean conservative party moves to switch presidential candidates as election turmoil deepens

Updated 10 May 2025
Follow

South Korean conservative party moves to switch presidential candidates as election turmoil deepens

  • The replacement still requires confirmation through an all-party vote Saturday and approval by the party’s national committee Sunday
  • Han and Kim have lagged well behind Lee in recent opinion polls. Lee, who spearheaded the Democrats’ efforts to oust Yoon

SEOUL, South Korea: South Korea’s embattled conservative party has taken the unprecedented step of nullifying its primary and replacing presidential candidate Kim Moon Soo with former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo just one week after Kim’s selection, deepening internal turmoil ahead of the June 3 presidential by-election.
Saturday’s move by the People Power Party’s leadership, which Kim denounced as an “overnight political coup,” underscores the desperation and disarray within the party following the ouster of former President Yoon Suk Yeol over his ill-fated attempt to impose martial law in December.
Kim, a staunch conservative and former labor minister under Yoon, was named the PPP’s presidential candidate on May 3 after winning 56.3 percent of the primary vote, defeating a reformist rival who had criticized Yoon’s martial law. But the PPP’s leadership, dominated by Yoon loyalists, has spent the past week pressuring Kim to step aside and back Han, whom they believe stands a stronger chance against liberal Democratic Party frontrunner Lee Jae-myung.
Han served as acting president after Yoon was impeached by the legislature in December and officially removed by the Constitutional Court in April. He resigned from office May 2 to pursue a presidential bid, arguing his long public service career qualifies him to lead the country amid growing geopolitical uncertainty and trade challenges intensified by the policies of US President Donald Trump.
After failed talks between Han and Kim to unify their candidacies, the PPP’s emergency committee canceled Kim’s nomination in the early hours of Saturday and officially registered Han as a party member and its new presidential candidate.
The replacement still requires confirmation through an all-party vote Saturday and approval by the party’s national committee Sunday, which is the deadline for candidates to register with the election authorities.
Han in a message issued through the party claimed “if we unite, we can surely win.”
Speaking at a news conference, Kim lamented “democracy in our party died” and vowed to take unspecified legal and political steps, but it remained unclear whether any realistic path existed to restore his candidacy without the party’s cooperation.
Kim had opposed the legislature’s impeachment of Yoon on Dec. 14, though he said he disagreed with Yoon’s decision to declare martial law on Dec. 3. Kim had gained popularity among hard-line PPP supporters after he solely defied a Dec. 11 demand by an opposition lawmaker that all Cabinet members stand and bow in a gesture of apology for Yoon’s martial law enactment at the Assembly.
Han and Kim have lagged well behind Lee in recent opinion polls. Lee, who spearheaded the Democrats’ efforts to oust Yoon, ridiculed the PPP efforts to switch candidacies, telling reporters Thursday, “I have heard of forced marriages but never heard of forced unity.”
Lee has long cultivated an image as an anti-establishment figure capable of tackling South Korea’s entrenched inequality and corruption. However, critics view him as a populist who fuels division and vilifies opponents, warning that his leadership could further polarize the country.
He currently faces five trials for corruption and other criminal charges. If he becomes president, those trials likely will stop because of special presidential immunity from most criminal charges.


Judge pauses much of Trump administration’s massive downsizing of federal agencies

Updated 10 May 2025
Follow

Judge pauses much of Trump administration’s massive downsizing of federal agencies

  • The order, which expires in 14 days, does not require departments to rehire people

SAN FRANCISCO: The Republican administration must halt much of its dramatic downsizing of the federal workforce, a California judge ordered Friday.
Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco issued the emergency order in a lawsuit filed by labor unions and cities last week, one of multiple legal challenges to Republican President Donald Trump’s efforts to shrink the size of a federal government he calls bloated and expensive.
The temporary restraining order directs numerous federal agencies to halt acting on the president’s workforce executive order signed in February and a subsequent memo issued by the Department of Government Efficiency and the Office of Personnel Management.
The order, which expires in 14 days, does not require departments to rehire people. Plaintiffs asked that the effective date of any agency action be postponed and that departments stop implementing or enforcing the executive order, including taking any further action.
They limited their request to departments where dismantlement is already underway or poised to be underway, including at the the US Department of Health and Human Services, which announced in March it will lay off 10,000 workers and centralize divisions.
Illston, who was nominated to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, said at a hearing Friday the president has authority to seek changes in the executive branch departments and agencies created by Congress.
“But he must do so in lawful ways,” she said. “He must do so with the cooperation of Congress, the Constitution is structured that way.”
Trump has repeatedly said voters gave him a mandate to remake the federal government, and he tapped billionaire Elon Musk to lead the charge through DOGE.
Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, left their jobs via deferred resignation programs or have been placed on leave as a result of Trump’s government-shrinking efforts. There is no official figure for the job cuts, but at least 75,000 federal employees took deferred resignation, and thousands of probationary workers have already been let go.
Lawyers for the government argued Friday that the executive order and memo calling for large-scale personnel reductions and reorganization plans provided only general principles that agencies should follow in exercising their own decision-making process.
“It expressly invites comments and proposals for legislative engagement as part of policies that those agencies wish to implement,” Eric Hamilton, a deputy assistant attorney general, said of the memo. “It is setting out guidance.”
But Danielle Leonard, an attorney for plaintiffs, said it was clear that the president, DOGE and OPM were making decisions outside of their authority and not inviting dialogue from agencies.
“They are not waiting for these planning documents” to go through long processes, she said. “They’re not asking for approval, and they’re not waiting for it.”
The temporary restraining order applies to departments including the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Labor, Interior, State, Treasury and Veteran Affairs.
It also applies to the National Science Foundation, Small Business Association, Social Security Administration and Environmental Protection Agency.
Some of the labor unions and nonprofit groups are also plaintiffs in another lawsuit before a San Francisco judge challenging the mass firings of probationary workers. In that case, Judge William Alsup ordered the government in March to reinstate those workers, but the US Supreme Court later blocked his order.
Plaintiffs include the cities of San Francisco, Chicago and Baltimore; labor group American Federation of Government Employees; and nonprofit groups Alliance for Retired Americans, Center for Taxpayer Rights and Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks.


Columbia suspends over 65 students following pro-Palestinian protest in library

Updated 10 May 2025
Follow

Columbia suspends over 65 students following pro-Palestinian protest in library

  • Roughly 80 people were arrested in connection with the Wednesday evening demonstration at the university’s Butler Library
  • State Department reviewing visa status of library takeover participants for possible deportation, says Secretary Rubio

NEW YORK: Columbia University has suspended dozens of students and barred alums and others who participated in a pro-Palestinian demonstration inside the school’s main library earlier this week, a school spokesperson said Friday.
The Ivy League institution in Manhattan placed more than 65 students on interim suspension and barred 33 others, including those from affiliated institutions such as Barnard College, from setting foot on campus.
Interim suspension generally means that a student cannot come to campus, attend classes or participate in other university activities, according to Columbia’s website. The university declined to say how long the disciplinary measures would be in place, saying only that the decisions are pending further investigation.
An undisclosed number of alums who also participated in the protest are also now prevented from entering school grounds, according to Columbia.
Roughly 80 people were arrested in connection with the Wednesday evening demonstration at the university’s Butler Library. Most face trespassing charges, though some may also face disorderly conduct, police have said.
The mask-clad protesters pushed their way past campus security officers, raced into the building and hung Palestinian flags and other banners on bookshelves. Some protesters also scrawled phrases on library furniture and picture frames, including “Columbia will burn.”
New York City police in helmets and other protection broke up the demonstration at the request of university officials, who denounced the protests as an “outrageous” disruption for students studying and preparing for final exams.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said his office will be reviewing the visa status of those who participated in the library takeover for possible deportation.
The Trump administration has already pulled federal funding and detained international students at Columbia and other prestigious American universities over their handling of student protests against the war in Gaza.