22nd September 2026
Scotland's independence debate is moving back to the centre of Holyrood politics, with John Swinney's Scottish Government seeking parliamentary backing for Scotland's right to decide its constitutional future.
The Scottish Parliament is due to debate a motion today, 22 September 2026, which states that “Scotland is a nation that has a right to decide its own future.” It was lodged by First Minister John Swinney on Monday 21 September.
The Scottish Greens have put forward an amendment to the motion stating that the 2026 Scottish Parliament election returned the biggest-ever majority of pro-independence MSPs.
That means Green support could be important to the SNP Government as it seeks to demonstrate parliamentary backing for another independence referendum.
But there is a significant difference between winning a vote at Holyrood and actually being able to hold a referendum.
The legal problem
The UK Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate for an independence referendum on its own because such legislation would relate to the reserved matter of the Union.
The route used for the 2014 referendum was different.
In 2013, the UK Parliament approved a Section 30 Order which temporarily gave Holyrood the necessary authority to legislate for the referendum. That referendum was subsequently held on 18 September 2014.
A Section 30 Order therefore became the established mechanism for transferring the necessary power to Holyrood. The House of Commons Library notes that such an order requires approval by the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament.
The Scottish Government has been asking Westminster for another such transfer of power.
The answer from the UK Government is currently no.
In a parliamentary answer on 10 September, Scotland Office minister Melanie Ward said the UK Government had been elected on a commitment not to support independence or another referendum.
That leaves the two governments taking different positions.
Holyrood can argue that the election produced a political mandate for independence to be put to the people.
Westminster can argue that the Scottish Parliament does not have the legal authority to organise such a referendum without the necessary transfer of powers.
Those two positions can coexist politically, but they do not provide an obvious route to actually holding another referendum.
What will today's vote change?
Possibly quite a lot politically, but much less immediately in law.
If the SNP and Greens can secure parliamentary backing for the motion and the Green amendment, the Scottish Government will be able to point to another vote at Holyrood supporting its position.
It would not, however, automatically create the legal authority to hold a referendum.
That distinction is important because Scotland has been through this argument before.
Following the 2026 election, the Scottish Parliament has already debated the independence question. The Scottish Government argued that the election produced what it described as the largest pro-independence majority ever elected to Holyrood and called for a Section 30 Order. The UK Government rejected that request.
Today's motion therefore appears likely to add political pressure rather than immediately change the legal position.
Another Westminster-Holyrood confrontation?
That is where the issue becomes more interesting.
The SNP Government can say that the Scottish Parliament has expressed a democratic view about Scotland's constitutional future.
The UK Government can maintain that constitutional change cannot be achieved simply by a vote at Holyrood and that it will not authorise another referendum.
Neither side is likely to regard the other's position as settling the argument.
There is also a wider question about what the 2026 election result actually means.
The Greens' amendment specifically refers to the number of pro-independence MSPs returned. But the composition of the Parliament and the number of MSPs supporting independence are not the same thing as a referendum vote among the Scottish electorate.
The last independence referendum, in 2014, asked voters directly whether Scotland should be an independent country. The result was 55% against independence and 45% in favour.
Today's parliamentary vote is a different type of democratic exercise.
That does not make it unimportant, but it is worth keeping the distinction clear.
What happens next?
If the motion passes, the Scottish Government will have another parliamentary expression of support behind its demand.
The next question will be whether it seeks again to persuade the UK Government to grant a Section 30 Order, or whether it pursues another route.
And that is where the constitutional argument could become more difficult.
The Scottish Parliament cannot simply turn today's vote into a referendum without confronting the legal position established by the Supreme Court.
Westminster, meanwhile, can refuse to provide the additional power.
For people in Caithness and the rest of Scotland, therefore, today's vote is unlikely to produce an immediate referendum date.
What it could produce is another period of political and constitutional argument between Edinburgh and London.
The debate may also become more complicated because the 2026 Holyrood Parliament contains no single-party majority. The SNP needs support from other parties to get measures through Parliament, making the Greens an important part of the arithmetic on independence as well as on other legislation.
The immediate story is therefore not “Scotland is having another independence referendum.”
It is that Holyrood is again asserting a right to decide Scotland's constitutional future, while Westminster maintains that another referendum requires its agreement.
The question of what happens when those two positions remain irreconcilable is likely to stay with Scottish politics for some time.
David Green MSP for Caithness, Sutherland and Ross has lodged an amendment to Swinney's motion. The Scottish Parliament's record confirms that amendment is among those being considered today.
An argument that is unlikely to disappear
There is also a longer-term issue behind today's debate.
Even if the Scottish Parliament votes in favour of the SNP Government's position, that does not settle the constitutional question. And if the vote goes against the Government, it is unlikely to mean that the independence issue disappears from Scottish politics.
Independence has been a central objective of the SNP for many years. The party has pursued different routes towards a referendum when Westminster has refused to provide the necessary powers, including arguing that elections could provide a democratic mandate for negotiations. Its 2026 election manifesto again made a referendum a central part of its appeal to voters.
That means today's debate should probably be seen as another stage in a much longer argument rather than a final decision.
This is where some voters may become frustrated. If an independence referendum is not achieved, will the Scottish Government continue returning to the question at future elections and parliamentary debates?
The SNP's answer would be that this is not simply a party policy but an issue of Scotland's democratic right to decide its own future. Critics take a different view, arguing that the Government should concentrate on using the substantial powers already available to Holyrood to deal with issues such as the NHS, the cost of living, education, economic growth and public services.
There is therefore a practical question as well as a constitutional one.
How much of the Scottish Parliament's political time should be devoted to the question of independence, and how much to the problems that people are experiencing now?
That argument is unlikely to be resolved by one vote in Holyrood.
The other question for Holyrood
There is another question that will inevitably be asked as the independence debate returns to the centre of Holyrood politics.
What about the issues facing people and businesses right now?
Households are still dealing with high energy costs and the wider cost of living. Businesses are facing rising costs and difficult trading conditions. Scotland's universities are under financial pressure, while councils and other public services are dealing with their own budget constraints.
Those issues do not disappear simply because Parliament is debating Scotland's constitutional future.
Nor is it necessarily a choice between the two. Parliament has time to debate constitutional matters while committees, ministers and MSPs deal with economic and public-service issues.
But there is a question about political attention and priorities.
For someone struggling with an energy bill, worrying about whether their business can survive another difficult year, or concerned about the future of a local university campus, the constitutional question may feel rather distant from the immediate problem.
Supporters of independence would argue that constitutional powers are ultimately relevant to many of these issues because they determine what decisions Scotland can make for itself.
Those who do not see independence as the answer are likely to argue that the Scottish Parliament already has substantial powers and should concentrate on using them to address problems within its existing responsibilities.
That leaves voters with two quite different questions.
What should Scotland's constitutional future be?
And, perhaps more immediately, what can the Scottish Parliament do with the powers it already has to deal with the problems people are facing today?
Both are legitimate political questions, but they are not the same question.
For people in Caithness and the Highlands, the second may be particularly tangible. Energy costs, housing, business conditions, public services, transport and the future of universities are issues that affect everyday life regardless of the constitutional debate.