Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35980532)

A referendum is always advisory in our constitution, even if it’s set up to automatically trigger legislation to come in to effect (which this one wasn’t), because Parliament can’t bind its successors and a future Parliament can always repeal something done by a predecessor. Referendums lean on precedent for their authority, which in the few cases they have been used in our constitution, means that Parliament enacts the result of the referendum (or does not, in the case of status quo).

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35980532)

A referendum is always advisory in our constitution, even if it’s set up to automatically trigger legislation to come in to effect (which this one wasn’t), because Parliament can’t bind its successors and a future Parliament can always repeal something done by a predecessor. Referendums lean on precedent for their authority, which in the few cases they have been used in our constitution, means that Parliament enacts the result of the referendum (or does not, in the case of status quo).

It is undemocratic to hold a second referendum because it contravenes both precedent and the specific undertaking that the result would be enacted. It undermines public trust in the process and automatically dilutes the authority of any future referendum result, on whatever issue.*

It is not undemocratic to hold repeated general elections because that is the customary means (established by centuries of precedent) by which our constitution deals with a situation where a government cannot get its business through Parliament.

* To drag this back on topic, Sturgeon is playing a very risky hand by voicing support for a second referendum. If she ever manages to win one in Scotland, her words will return to haunt the entire Nat movement.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35980534)

That's just it, with constitutional matters such as devolved Parliaments and supranational agreements such as EU treaties and rules, Parliament cannot undo things.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35980535)

What if the question is different ? i.e accept or reject a proposed deal ?

As for Scotland, it's just a matter of time. Brexit probably brings the timetable forward.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35980538)

There is a subtle but important difference between Parliament’s de jure power and its de facto power to act in these circumstances. Parliament is sovereign and has always retained the right to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 - that’s its de jure, legal power - however, that piece of legislation enabled such a complex web of regulations and international obligations to develop that in reality, its de facto power was hopelessly compromised. The severe complexity of the last 2 years negotiations illustrates that.

And, to drag this back on topic, any SNP numpty who tries repeating the claim Salmond made in 2013, that Scottish independence could be achieved 18 months after a referendum win, would get laughed out of the park.

---------- Post added at 20:25 ---------- Previous post was at 20:20 ----------



It really doesn’t - as I’ve said before, people outside Scotland tend to misread our politics, and usually assume underlying nationalist sentiment is stronger than it is.

2014’s 45% yes was delivered on the back of ridiculous, extravagant promises to the urban poor of greater Glasgow and Dundee. That ruse won’t work a second time. Nor will the breezy claim that exit negotiations will be painless and concluded in 18 months. And the No campaign claim that Scotland would be isolated and outside of the EU is now demonstrably true.

Brexit gets about two thirds of Nats riled up; the other third, sensibly, recognise that EU membership is incompatible with national sovereignty and have been Leavers for decades. Either way, the messy truth of Brexit will kill off any hope of the SNP winning a referendum in this decade or the next.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35980545)

If Parliament really has power over EU directives, then they could alter their application in parts even if they can't overturn the whole thing. IF the UK Parliament could do that, then almost certainly other EU countries would do that. They can't and don't, therefore we can't.



A referendum should be seen as giving a "directed verdict" to Parliament, just as it's normal use where a Judge instructs a jury, but it is the jury that still has to formally issue the verdict.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35980584)

Oh happy day.

Even if nothing comes of it, a photo of him without that smug half-smile on his treacherous face is worth its weight in gold.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35980590)

Maybe we should wait until he's found guilty of anything, old fashioned I know....

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35980591)

Hence “even if nothing comes of it”. ;)

Quite aside from the things he’s been charged with, he has done more to poison and divide Scottish public life than any other living individual. Sadly that’s not criminal behaviour, and he won’t ever go to jail for it. So in my small-minded way I’ll just have to satisfy myself with a photo of him looking miserable.