With this attention to detail, the ubiquitous legal language, a series of clear commitments and the signing of government officials, is it certainly a legal document? This does not sound like a simple “political pact,” and you only have to compare yourself to the famous political pact – the coalition agreement – to see the differences. The coalition agreement was concluded between two political parties rather than between government representatives and, although it gave commitments to constitutional policies, the content of the agreement itself was not a constitutional matter. The nature of the commitments to broad areas of the common policy meant that, although consistently formulated, they were not enshrined in the specific legal obligations of the Edinburgh Agreement – that was not the nature of the matter. Finally, and even more provocatively, if Scotland voted “yes” and the separation of Scotland were negotiated with the United Kingdom, a whole series of agreements would have to be concluded between the United Kingdom and the Scottish Government, and the difficulty of finding a binding legal form for these agreements would probably be highlighted. Does the agreement have a contractual dimension? It is clear that this is not a contract between two private parties. But, like other agreements between the United Kingdom and decentralized governments, it is probably quasi-contractual in nature, as it establishes common mutual agreements and commitments with regard to the organisation of the referendum. Indeed, the agreement appears on the Scottish Government`s website in its “Concordate” section. (The last paragraph of the Memorandum of Understanding of the Edinburgh Agreement mentions that “the spirit” is the agreement already reached between the two governments). The discussion sets up our legal sense of the availability of the right to Swiele. The Edinburgh Agreement could not be signed legally binding, as there is no simple and appropriate legal form for this type of agreement in our legal system. In Scotland, where violence and instability are not a problem, it is not that important. But this was very important in other contexts where negotiations between governments and sub-state governments (governments or potential governments) take place in a context of violence, and where central governments, in the middle of the process, want to switch between the parties for and against peace, and perhaps abandon the commitments of their predecessors without losing their reputation.