There is a lot of loose usage of the word ‘precedent’ in the context of what the outcome of the elections in Scotland means for a further independence referendum. It’s worth exploring what we mean and what counts as a precedent in political and constitutional matters.

A precedent involves the production of an obligation to act in a particular way because of the similarity of facts to those in which a previous decision was made. Neither of these elements is present when we think of what led to the 2014 independence referendum and the circumstances that prevail in May 2026.

That the Scottish and U.K. Governments signed the Edinburgh Agreement in 2012 created no legal or constitutional obligation to hold future referendums. It was a political choice at a moment in time. The section 30 order that followed gave the Scottish Parliament a very temporary licence to legislate for a referendum. Nothing in this framework implied the creation of any kid of obligation to repeat the exercise in the future.

Importantly the facts giving rise to the 2012 Edinburgh Agreement are not the same as prevail now. The Scottish National Party had won an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament elections in 2011.with a 45% vote share. The SNP isnunlikely to have an overall

Majority and its vote share will be well down on what was achieved in 2011. But perhaps more importantlly what is different now than from 2012 is that the 2014 independence was held. Voters had an opportunity to express their preference for or against independence and did so.

It is perfectly legitimate to make a claim or assert a need for a further referendum on independence. But it is no more than that. There is no constitutional or legal precedent to follow.