If we vote for Brexit what happens

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

It would simply be invalid. The Scottish Parliament can't call a referendum and don't have the funds to pay for it.

If the SNP in the Scottish Parliament tried to call a referendum my best guess is that it would be put up for judicial review at which point it presumably would be struck down. At that point the Scottish Government would then have a choice between breaking the law anyway (not sure what happens then) or backing down.

Get real. Theoretically most referendums in the UK are consultative. In practice what on earth would be the point of trying to stop a Scottish referendum if it looks like a majority of Scots want to leave the UK ? It would only boost independence support still further and if most Scots want to go anyway, what's the use of blocking the means ? Westminster could do nothing except park the tanks ( theoretically ).

Don't keep making the mistake of confusing the SNP calling a referendum with the Scottish electorate calling for one. Because it's the latter that's entirely the point. Not the SNP.

There will be no law broken in calling one, and certainly not in international law.

chewmylegoff

All referendums are consultative by nature as the result doesn't become law. If the SNP held a referendum it would simply be invalid and a massive waste of taxpayer funds. The result would have no credibility unless the unionist side of the debate engaged with it, which they almost certainly would not.

mwpt

chewmylegoff wrote: »

All referendums are consultative by nature as the result doesn't become law. If the SNP held a referendum it would simply be invalid and a massive waste of taxpayer funds. The result would have no credibility unless the unionist side of the debate engaged with it, which they almost certainly would not.

And why should the UK be subject to all the uncertainty caused by a referendum every time the SNP feel like it.

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

All referendums are consultative by nature as the result doesn't become law. If the SNP held a referendum it would simply be invalid and a massive waste of taxpayer funds. The result would have no credibility unless the unionist side of the debate engaged with it, which they almost certainly would not.

I expect that a unionist would take the whole thing to a judicial review and that it would be found to have no basis in law.

HornetSaver

BobQ wrote: »

That such an important decision turns on actions primarily driven by the preservation of stability in the Conservative Party.

Deciding those issues is good for the country as it gives certainty going forward, though it's beyond question that his motives were based on narrow political interest, and that a defeat in any of them would instantly make his legacy one of a failed PM, regardless of anything else he might have done.

Politically I think Cameron is an absolute genius. He has called referenda to decide the single most burning issues for the Lib Dems, the SNP and now the Conservatives. In the process he has made Labour unelectable in 30-odd seats they previously regarded as safe, and (as a result of coalition government) decimated the Lib Dems in seats that would always vote Tory over Labour, but didn't always vote Tory because of the Lib Dems. And he is one referendum away from getting his preferred outcome in every case.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, I know I've posted before here and there but frankly can't be bothered to read over 100 pages from scratch. Has anyone else mentioned the seven year plague of locusts, and hailstones the size of cathedrals raining from the sky? I'm not sure which outcome will produce this result, but one of them will.

antrobus

wotsthat wrote: »

Hoping for a landslide stay vote in Scotland and landslide leave vote in UK I would've thought.

That does give rise to the prospect of a double Brucie Bonus.

£10 bn a year saved in EU contributions. £7 bn a year saved in the Scottish subsidy. Crumbs, that's sorted the deficit.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

I expect that a unionist would take the whole thing to a judicial review and that it would be found to have no basis in law.

I'd expect a unionist to take the whole thing to a judicial review before it took place, (waving the Edinburgh Agreement) arguing that the Scottish government can't legislate on a referendum. If it can't legislate on a referendum, it won't be able to organise one.

Although I also suspect that even if they did organise some kind of private 'consultative ' poll it would just be ignored. Just like the Venice one.

antrobus

HornetSaver wrote: »

...Getting back to the topic of the thread, I know I've posted before here and there but frankly can't be bothered to read over 100 pages from scratch. Has anyone else mentioned the seven year plague of locusts, and hailstones the size of cathedrals raining from the sky? I'm not sure which outcome will produce this result, but one of them will.

I know what you mean. I've lost track as well. I'm sure that we are supposed to have a plague of frogs and the death of a firstborn if we pick one of the two options, but I can't remember which one of them it is.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

I know what you mean. I've lost track as well. I'm sure that we are supposed to have a plague of frogs and the death of a firstborn if we pick one of the two options, but I can't remember which one of them it is.

I thought it was a plague of firstborn and the death of a frog.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

I thought it was a plague of firstborn and the death of a frog.

Perhaps it depends on what option we pick? Vote stay, and you get a plague of frogs; vote leave, and you get the death of a frog.