Europe, Referendum & Brexit (formerly Europe..IN or OUT??)

I totally agree Censorship The FM and Scottish Parliament's responsibility is to the Scottish people, but then if you did vote a 2nd time in any new Scottish referendum would you vote differently from first time round or not?

(26-06-2016 14:14 )munch1917 Wrote:  

(26-06-2016 14:02 )HannahsPet Wrote:  he might be Right Sturgeon on Sunday Politics Sunday said they would not let it past in hollyrood

Seems like yet more clutching at straws from the 'inners'.
I don't see any constitutional basis on which scotland could over-rule it.

Its in the scotland act Hollyrood along with all devolved parlimants have to give permission

(26-06-2016 14:17 )Censorship :-( Wrote:  I don't know the details but, apparently, the Scottish Parliament has to give 'legislative consent', or some such thing.

Possibly as a result of the Scotland Act, an act of Westminster that established the Scottish Parliament?

I've heard this being stated, but I've yet to see any real proof.

A couple of links were posted here last night to a document that talks about something like this. If you actually read the document it is actually saying something different though. By my reading, it is talking about the legal system in scotland. Currently, as in england, there is provision for laws from the EU to be applied in scotland (I believe this is a requirement of EU membership). The document is saying that this will need to be revised in the event of an EU exit, with some laws being dropped, and maybe some being adopted natively, and that process of legal dis-entanglement may require new legislation to be passed by the scottish parliament.
I don't see that as holding up any EU exit however, failing to pass such legislation would simply leave scottish law in some kind of limbo.

(26-06-2016 14:18 )babelover48 Wrote:  I totally agree Censorship The FM and Scottish Parliament's responsibility is to the Scottish people, but then if you did vote a 2nd time in any new Scottish referendum would you vote differently from first time round or not?

The issue of indyref2 is separate to this developing 'legislative consent' story, but I would vote the same way as I did in 2014!

However, the 'legislative consent' issue would, presumably, stop indyref2 from happening at all!

FWIW:

Could Scotland block Brexit?

By BBC Scotland's political editor Brian Taylor

I think Holyrood blocking Brexit is unlikely in that the power arises because the Scottish Parliament has to implement European legislation.

It is not a power that arises with regard to the things that matter, which is the single market and the EU treaties.

I also think that politically there would be a huge resentment from Westminster and England.

If, for example, Scotland had voted "Yes" to independence in 2014 and the Westminster parliament used the blocking mechanism to stop that, one can understand the anger in that regard.

It is a possible political scenario, but in terms of it being a likely political scenario, I think not.

What's happening here is the remain camp are trying to escalate the fear of leaving to the point of hysteria so they can over turn a demographic decision made by the British public and try and win a vote they actually lost.

Same with Scotland, the devolution (ironic isn't it) camp have seen an opurtunaty to break free from a demographic decision made by the people of Scotland not 2 years ago by exploiting a loop hole.

That really can't be right.

If the scare mongering is successfull it would mean that referendums and 'asking the people' would be dead, if you don't like the result either ignore it or have another go till you get the result you wont.

People talk of Britains reputation in the world will go down if it leaves the EU, it would plumment if it now stayed especially if the referendum was merely ignored. This would make the the suez crisis look like an accidental fart in public. It would be the single most humilating thing to happen to Britian and it's reputation would be nothing.

I suspect now, the reason the PM resigned (he was told he didn't have to resign) and refused to impliment article 50 was to create this hysteria and uncertainty so people would beg him to stay and sort the mess out the British public has made.

People should let the dust settle, enter the negotiations and see what happens next, a vote was won, the PM did not challange it at the time and so it should stand, rightly or wrongly.

you can't compare the Suez crisis to a fart in public mate!! that's a bit below the belt!!

(26-06-2016 14:40 )wackawoo Wrote:  SNIP

Same with Scotland, the devolution (ironic isn't it) camp have seen an opurtunaty to break free from a demographic decision made by the people of Scotland not 2 years ago by exploiting a loop hole.

That really can't be right.

SNIP

That was two years ago, when, as has been pointed out already in this thread, the No campaign said that the only way to guarantee Scotland's place in the EU was to reject independence - Patently, things have changed!

FTR, and FWIW, the Yes campaign said that the only threat to Scotland's place in the EU was remaining a member of the UK.

And independence would only occur is the people of Scotland voted for it in indyref2; what's undemocratic, exploitative, or 'not right' about that?

(26-06-2016 14:42 )babelover48 Wrote:  you can't compare the Suez crisis to a fart in public mate!! that's a bit below the belt!!

You miss the point. Suez was a humiliating back down by the UK forced by the americans and was pretty much the 'offcial' end to the British empire and Britian being the world power, then end of empire.

That document that seems to have given rise to this scottish veto thing is also just an interpretation of article 50 requirements, it isn't a definitive statement.

Given that Cameroon has resigned and the EU themselves are preparing for uk exit, I can't really see there being any loopholes.