Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Zanza]

At least with Brexit they waited 41 years between votes.

I doubt Farage et al. would have waited 41 years if the result had been 52-48 for remain.

But I think the Conservative and Unionist Party has no interest at all in allowing a second Scottish Referendum. It's not like they can lose much in Scotland anyway.

[The Larch]

At least with Brexit they waited 41 years between votes.

And without it I don't think there would be a 2nd Scottish independence referendum. Goalposts have been moved, and what in normal circumstances would not be ok (holding a 2nd referendum so soon) becomes at the very least understandable. In any case Westminster will have to decide, and let's see what they think.

[Barrister]

What if Holyrood pushes for a second referendum without Westminster's blessing?

[Richard Hakluyt]

They can't have a referendum unless Westminster permits it. I suppose they could take to the streets.

[Zanza]

What if Holyrood pushes for a second referendum without Westminster's blessing?

Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King.

[Josquius]

As much as I oppose Scottish independence its pretty clear the situation has changed drastically compared to the last vote. This referendum is legitimate. Though I hope it will have proper rules in place unlike the brexit vote.

[Admiral Yi]

As much as I oppose Scottish independence its pretty clear the situation has changed drastically compared to the last vote. This referendum is legitimate. Though I hope it will have proper rules in place unlike the brexit vote.

What do you mean by proper rules?

[Tamas]

This is absolute madness.

There was a reason why sensible countries (like what the UK used to be) introduced an upper house to parliaments, and you can see why: you just can't have short-term career politicians ally with the fucking dimwit mob and let them get away with whatever they cook up.

[Barrister]

They can't have a referendum unless Westminster permits it. I suppose they could take to the streets.

Why not?  London can say they won't recognize it, but short of sending in the army what can they do to stop it?

Both of Quebec's independence referendums were not authorized by Ottawa (and as a result they had far weasily-worded questions than the Scots referendum). 

[Richard Hakluyt]

It would be illegal :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16638746

[Zanza]

@Tamas: The UK government has made very clear in their recent statements that in their view the upper house of parliament, the House of Lords (which has been around since Norman times), is no longer a sovereign institution as it has been since at least the 17th century, but rather that the people are sovereign and parliament is just there to implement what the people have decided in direct democracy. The British constitution that is based a lot on precedent and tradition has not really survived Brexit unscathed.

[Josquius]

As much as I oppose Scottish independence its pretty clear the situation has changed drastically compared to the last vote. This referendum is legitimate. Though I hope it will have proper rules in place unlike the brexit vote.

What do you mean by proper rules?

A simple majority for a massive and permanent constitutional change is madness. Wouldn't fly anywhere else.
Should require an actual majority of the electorate ideally. If not that then at least something about minimum turnout (a non issue in brexit though should have been there) or a minimum majority of 55% or more.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Remain/leave voters are not correlated with yes/no voters btw.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/scottish-independence-polls-say-nicola-sturgeons-bid-second/

Could make for a confusing campaign.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I don't have the energy to argue again how fundamentally stupid I find these British national referendums. Scottish independence (i.e. the breakup of the country) should not be based on a simple majority referendum, and neither should Brexit have been. Direct democracy is a plague, but a lot of British posters here seem to think a referendum is the best way to do it. So at this juncture I'd say "get it done with", once you've accepted plebiscites as a means of running your entire country you might as well get on with splitting Scotland off and getting Northern Ireland out of the UK and merged with the Republic, because that will always be the inevitable result.

Same thing with Brexit frankly. When you've decided popular passions are all that is required to make such monumental and permanent decisions, then the outcome which is permanent will always come to pass--in this case the end of the UK and Brexit. Because no matter how many referendums union or stay won, the other side can just look to the next one. They only have to convince half the people who bother to vote for one day at one point in history to win forever.

I look dimly on Scotland's EU membership, I suspect the EU will be keen to accept them with little fuss for political reasons. But the truth is if you look at Scotland's projected revenues and expenditures, and its debt, as a sovereign state it's not great. The dream of being Norway funded by petro dollars is mostly dead given the current level of potential income from North Sea oil, so instead you'll have a country with proposed benefit schemes that are unsustainable and a very lefty spend-happy government. It'll be like admitting Greece with full knowledge of how bad Greece's finances were at the time.

[Josquius]

Ireland is an interesting one.
I do wonder how young people traditionally from the unionist side of the fence would vote in a irish unification referendum