[T] there are several legal channels within the current legal framework that could allow the request [to hold an independence referendum] to be met by the President of the Generalitat and that these channels depend only on the political will of the Spanish government […]. [A] The political will to reach an agreement is in situations similar to those in the United Kingdom and Scotland or Canada and Quebec, where the legal framework does not constitute an obstacle to conducting a survey of Scottish and Quebec citizens on their political future.38 The law also requires the Electoral Commission to test the “readability” of a proposed referendum question. However, contrary to the British precedent, this requirement does not apply if the electoral commission has previously published a report on the same issue or if the electoral commission has recommended the text. This indicates that if the Scottish Government opts for the same issue as in 2014, there would be no need for further testing. The second part of the document, the Memorandum of Understanding, contains clauses and narrow wording and appears to be much more “legal” than the opening agreement. It contains “elements of the agreement that require a legal provision in The Section 30 Regulation” but also “elements that have been agreed between governments on a non-legal basis.” The third document, the draft order section 30, is a bill (but of course it still has to go through the confirmation processes by the United Kingdom and the Scottish parliaments to become law). Perhaps it was an international agreement? The Vienna Convention provides for “international agreements between states and other subjects of international law.” However, the “subject of international law” is not defined and, again, both sides should have intended to make their agreement binding under international law, and it seems clear that this is not the case. It is unlikely that either side would want to violate the agreement, so why should we ask ourselves whether it is legally binding or not? It`s interesting, isn`t it? Is the Edinburgh agreement a legal agreement? Or just a political deal? If a legal agreement, what is it some kind of agreement, and how could it be implemented? If there is a political agreement, what social and political mechanisms are in place for the application of legislation and the legal methods to implement it maintained? If it was not a legal agreement, why did the parties seem to present it as such? Similar issues were important in similar agreements elsewhere – the legal status of agreements between sovereign governments and sub-state actors poses legal problems on a global scale, and for that reason alone, it merits some thought.