Brexit: the referendum

Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Yes. Exactly like that.

My view has always been that the SNP should just put it in their manifesto and implement it if they get a majority in the Parliament to do so.
Click to expand...
I think all parties know that can't work unless the UK parliament agrees with it. Unlike Brexit which could have been done that way. And I agree a referendum should not have happened for Brexit, rather, a political party should have got elected offering it.

With Scottish independence I have come to the view that a referendum is pretty much necessary. Which means it may well get repeated over time so "neverendum" has some validity even though the term was coined to indicate some idea of abuse of plebiscites.
 
Francesca R said:
I think all parties know that can't work unless the UK parliament agrees with it. .
Click to expand...

If Westminster are willing to deny the settled will of the people of Scotland and a vote in the Parliament then they can ignore a referendum too of course so there's nothing magical about the process in that regard.

That Westminster might agree to abide by a referendum but not a Scottish Election vote merely repeats that they think it's the right way to do it.

Of course the idea that Westminster can ultimately deny Scotland independence if it wants to is a nonsense.
 
jimbob said:
Giz has it right

ETA: He wasn't at this moment talking about a plural vote system, but the same arguments hold

Regardless of fairness*, giving some voters more votes than others for the same election would be begging for abuse.

*Which is a very strong argument.
Click to expand...
It happened in the UK until 1948 and NI until 1968. One model suggested is one vote for everyone with additional votes based in achievements such as higher education, military/civil service, specific acts of merit et cetera.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
If Westminster are willing to deny the settled will of the people of Scotland and a vote in the Parliament
Click to expand...
There is the matter of it having to get through the UK parliament. Unless they first pass an act saying that a Holyrood vote is binding on the Commons. Can't see that.
Of course the idea that Westminster can ultimately deny Scotland independence if it wants to is a nonsense.
Click to expand...
I agree. Not that this has happened of course, ever.
 
catsmate said:
It happened in the UK until 1948 and NI until 1968. One model suggested is one vote for everyone with additional votes based in achievements such as higher education, military/civil service, specific acts of merit et cetera.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it was a bad idea.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Nationalism coming back. Deal with it and brace yourselves for lots, lots more!

Thrilled with this result.
Click to expand...

Skeptic Tank said:
Blacks haven't been suppressed and oppressed by societies like South Africa and America just for kicks n' giggles.

Doing so is absolutely crucial to maintaining any sort of social order and societal viability long term. A crash course in this fact is coming, and has already been thoroughly demonstrated in South Africa.
Click to expand...

Those are just beautiful!

Have you considered changing your avatar to the AWB symbol?
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Sounds fantastic and very healthy for a society. A society which recognizes inequality is a more realistic and functional one.

Btw, this would be the mother of all "disproportionate impact" situations. These tiers of citizenship would be very racially segregated. Plenty of overlap, but stepping back far enough away to see the big picture would look a lot like a racial caste system.

Which would be fine by me.



Blacks haven't been suppressed and oppressed by societies like South Africa and America just for kicks n' giggles.

Doing so is absolutely crucial to maintaining any sort of social order and societal viability long term. A crash course in this fact is coming, and has already been thoroughly demonstrated in South Africa.
Click to expand...
Obviously I don't include you due to reasons beyond control. But if any one else said that I would think they were a right dickhead
 
MikeG said:
Yeah, I linked to that in another thread. There are too many damn threads on this subject.

I am sure we will see someone shortly to explain why the Scottish parliament would even get a vote on the matter as it is a UK wide issue. I'll also say again that I can't see anything in the text which substantiates the headline.
Click to expand...

It may be that DC has gone to the people and offered them something that his Parliament is not competent to deliver.

The suggestion is (and it's debated) that each devolved Parliament must give consent to this change. I believe it's something to do with EU law being embedded in the arrangements that set them up and the UK Parliament not being able to change the arrangements without the consent of the devolved Parliament.

It sounds like a potential stalemate but I suspect the reality is that there is someway the UK Parliament can simply force through the change. I'm no constitutional lawyer though.

There's certainly no obligation for the Scottish Parliament to approve something that's not in its best interests simply because the UK as a whole has decided that its the best way forward. That's the whole point of devolution after all.

Of course this really should have been discussed BEFORE the vote took place and not after it and arrangements put in place to address it. If it turned out to be the case that Scotland could veto the BRexit then the only person to blame would be David Cameron.
 
MikeG said:
Yeah, I linked to that in another thread. There are too many damn threads on this subject.

I am sure we will see someone shortly to explain why the Scottish parliament would even get a vote on the matter as it is a UK wide issue. I'll also say again that I can't see anything in the text which substantiates the headline.
Click to expand...
The thing I found interesting is an entire countries majority for one side gets lost.

I know it is a numbers game but can understand why they would be pissed off
 
Nicola Sturgeon should stop Scotland from leaving the EU. It is SNP party policy and the Scottish people voted not to leave. That it may prevent the rest of the UK leaving is the same collateral damage as England and Wales causing Scotland to have to leave.
 
Wudang said:
Interesting theory on why Bojo et al don't seem too thrilled at their victory. Basically they're handed a poison chalice.
Click to expand...
One reads this idea a lot, but it is all coming from the remain side. The curious hesitation about article 50 from the leavers is fuelling it of course.

Not sure I believe that the leave camp doesn't really want to exit and will fudge things though.
 
One interesting info graphic I saw on the voting trends, was that a voter was more inclined to vote leave with their area getting more EU funding.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom