Scotland wants to veto UK exit from EU if vote goes that way.

[TheKnightWho]

They as a matter of simple electoral fact do have a mandate to Govern, whether I or you happen to like it or not.

No, the ministers that comprise the elected members of parliament (if we assume a constitutional mandate) are elected to govern, and the prime minister has been selected by the queen as such - the parties form no part of the official process. The fact that it looks like there'll be significant rebellions from the Europhiles in the Conservatives makes it unlikely any repeal of the HRA will get through, whether the Tories have a majority of seats or not.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I disagree. A majority using the current voting system clearly gives a mandate in terms of that voting system - that much is a fact, not a perception.

Anything beyond that is just opinion.

No, I've explained why it's not a formal mandate, just a perceived one.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The GOVERNMENT, by definition, HAVE A MANDATE. The people voted, in the current system, and they WON. If the current system is right/fair/appropriate is a totally different issue.

I guess that depends a bit on what you mean by a 'mandate'. If you view a mandate as being defined by the UK convention that a party that wins a majority of seats as having a mandate to carry out what was in their manifesto, then you are correct that, in that sense, the Conservatives do have a mandate.

I think those of us who feel that the Conservatives don't have a mandate are coming from a somewhat different perspective in which a mandate is seen in more of a moral rather than a historical/conventional sense. Looked at in that sense, it is clearly absurd to claim that a party that won 36.9% of the votes has a mandate to enact legislation that 63.1% of those who voted appear to have voted against. When you then throw in the (admittedly more subjective) issue that I would argue some of those votes were the result of the Conservatives and some of the press extensively misleading people during the election campaign, and the fact that it appears that the Conservatives had far more money than anyone else to pay for their campaign, then existence of a moral mandate becomes even less clear in my mind. Surely, if the existence of a mandate is to make any moral sense, it should be based on an honest campaign and a reasonably level playing field.

(And by the way - lest anyone misunderstand me - I would say the same thing about a Labour Government elected in similar circumstances).

 

[HilversumNS]

Looked at in that sense, it is clearly absurd to claim that a party that won 36.9% of the votes has a mandate to enact legislation that 63.1% of those who voted appear to have voted against.

I'd argue that 63.1% didn't vote AGAINST it, but for something else, but that's nit-picking.

The main arguments above seem to be saying that the Government do not have the right to enact their manifesto, which is simply wrong.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A legal mandate is defined by the prevailing electoral system. How can it be anything else?

A moral one is just an opinion. How can it be anything else?

 

[TheKnightWho]

A legal mandate is defined by the prevailing electoral system. How can it be anything else?

A moral one is just an opinion. How can it be anything else?

Because we don't have a written constitution it's done through precedent. Therefore it's all a bit nebulous.

(Welcome to British government...)

 

[PHILIPE]

Without taking sides. it seems many people are happy with the fact that the can't boot out foreign criminals. there has been a massive change since since the vote to join the Common Market in 1975. Things have come a long way since then with creeping politicalisation. It is only fair to give the electorate a chance in a referendum which is running some 30 years late already. Whatever the result of such a referendum people will then be able to accept but they should be given their say. We have an election every 5 years to decide who governs us in Westminster but have no say in whether we are fully governed by Westminster or partly by Brussels.

 

[muz379]

Without taking sides. it seems many people are happy with the fact that the can't boot out foreign criminals. there has been a massive change since since the vote to join the Common Market in 1975. Things have come a long way since then with creeping politicalisation. It is only fair to give the electorate a chance in a referendum which is running some 30 years late already. Whatever the result of such a referendum people will then be able to accept but they should be given their say. We have an election every 5 years to decide who governs us in Westminster but have no say in whether we are fully governed by Westminster or partly by Brussels.

We wont just suddenly be able to boot out foreign criminals if we leave the EU, we have a responsibility to refugees for example and cant just boot out people claiming asylum because of our obligations under the refugee convention . Something that we decided upon as a country in our own right .

A legal mandate is defined by the prevailing electoral system. How can it be anything else?

A moral one is just an opinion. How can it be anything else?

Exactly , its interesting the number of people who are now claiming that the electoral system is substantially flawed now that the election has not gone their way .

Because we don't have a written constitution it's done through precedent. Therefore it's all a bit nebulous.

(Welcome to British government...)

And precedent dictates that a party that has won a majority will form a government .

 

[St Rollox]

Without taking sides. it seems many people are happy with the fact that the can't boot out foreign criminals. there has been a massive change since since the vote to join the Common Market in 1975. Things have come a long way since then with creeping politicalisation. It is only fair to give the electorate a chance in a referendum which is running some 30 years late already. Whatever the result of such a referendum people will then be able to accept but they should be given their say. We have an election every 5 years to decide who governs us in Westminster but have no say in whether we are fully governed by Westminster or partly by Brussels.

We joined the common market in 1973.
1975 vote was asking if we wish to stay in.

 

[AM9]

We joined the common market in 1973.
1975 vote was asking if we wish to stay in.

Since then the Thatcher government agreed to the Single Market on our behalf and the Major Government agreed to aspects of the Maastrict treaty, giving the UK an option not to join the ERM/Euro as it became.

It's an aspect of the Single Market agreement that the Tories are banging on about in terms of welfare rights. How strange that Thatcher didn't see that one comiong, or didn't see it as significant in the greater scheme of things.

 

[edwin_m]

And as far as I recall UK governments of all colours have pushed for enlargement of the EU to take in some much poorer countries. This is the main cause of the immigration which is now a concern to a significant proportion of the public.

 

[Metrailway]

I'm a tad bemused regarding this thread's argument over 'mandate'.

Firstly, the UK does have a constitution. The vast majority of it is written i.e. Magna Carta, Act of Union 1707, Parliament Act 1911 etc. So it is wrong to say that the UK has an 'unwritten constitution'. However, some of the constitution is unwritten i.e. the constitutional conventions.

It would be correct to say that Britain has an uncodified constitution.

Secondly, the vast majority of the power of 'The Crown' rests not with the Sovereign but with Parliament.

In part due to this, it is a long established convention (i.e. part of the constitution) that on the advice of the (outgoing) Prime Minister, the Monarch invites a member of Parliament who is most likely to command the confidence of the House of Commons.

In 2010, on the advice of Gordon Brown, the Queen invited David Cameron to form a Government. He had the confidence of the Commons, therefore succeeded and became Prime Minister. He had a constitutional right to be Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, he advises the Queen on who to appoint and dismiss as ministers. Therefore, after 2010, HM Government, in which David Cameron was Prime Minister, had a constitutional right to govern.

After the 2015 election, Mr Cameron remained as Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury as he continued to have the confidence of the Commons. As stated above, as Prime Minister, Mr Cameron advises the Queen on who to appoint/dismiss as ministers. Therefore, HM's current Government, in which David Cameron is Prime Minister, has a constitutional right to govern.

You might not like this constitutional right to govern, you may think it is flawed and requires change, but the current Government does have a mandate to govern.

Since then the Thatcher government agreed to the Single Market on our behalf and the Major Government agreed to aspects of the Maastricht treaty, giving the UK an option not to join the ERM/Euro as it became.

It's an aspect of the Single Market agreement that the Tories are banging on about in terms of welfare rights. How strange that Thatcher didn't see that one comiong, or didn't see it as significant in the greater scheme of things.

Ironically, with the Single European Act in 1986, Mrs Thatcher presided over the greatest transfer of powers from the UK to Brussels. Far greater than Maastricht.

Mrs Thatcher was always an advocate of the a fully integrated Single Market - she (and many others on the continent) probably didn't realise that this meant Brussels would become far more powerful.

I believe in the noughties, she stated that she regretted the Single European Act.

And as far as I recall UK governments of all colours have pushed for enlargement of the EU to take in some much poorer countries. This is the main cause of the immigration which is now a concern to a significant proportion of the public.

Quite right, again this policy started in Mrs Thatcher's time in office. She (and subsequent administrations) encouraged enlargement of the EU to the ex-communist countries as she felt that they would be a brake on European integration.

As the populace of these countries had experience in being ruled by a foreign power, she felt that they would fight to keep their newly found freedoms and powers within their sovereign nations and not hand them over to Brussels.

She was in part correct. Aside from the 'old' eurosceptic countries of the UK and Denmark, most of the eurosceptism in the EU is found east of Germany*. However, this has not stopped the power of the European Commission from increasing.

*It has changed recently due to the Euro crisis with most member states nowadays having strong eurosceptic movements.

 

[HilversumNS]

Excellent posts by Edwin_M and especially Metrailway.

The Tory-haters also forget that Blair loved Europe and wanted to become president.

I doubt that that the stated facts will convince the no-mandate crew, but let's see.

Just so people know, I can't actually vote in the UK General Elections as I'm Dutch (although I've lived here for more than 30 years) but if I could, it would not be blue or red and not orange either. My views span across the whole spectrum, depending on what subject is up for discussion. Sort of glad I don't have to choose one

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because we don't have a written constitution it's done through precedent. Therefore it's all a bit nebulous.

(Welcome to British government...)

Our entire legal system is precedent-based (in England and Wales). That's the nature of the beast.

 

[Senex]

My views span across the whole spectrum, depending on what subject is up for discussion.

My views too -- and I wonder how many more of us don't fit at all neatly into the rigid molds of one or another of the political parties.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My views too -- and I wonder how many more of us don't fit at all neatly into the rigid molds of one or another of the political parties.

Me too. I'm left on some things (e.g. a desire to nationalise transport, energy etc), right on others (e.g. a strong dislike for financial waste and preference for private-style efficiency even in the public sector) and centre on others (e.g. immigration, where I recognise the strong benefits it provides but think it needs some level of checks and balances). No one party fully represents me, though the Tory-Lib Dem coalition was in some ways oddly close if a bit far right overall, and Labour is probably as close as it is likely to get with a single party (which is how I voted this time).

I think German politics probably represent me better, but that to some extent is true of the whole culture from top to bottom, really.

 

[Dave1987]

I was torn between the Lib Dem and Tory candidate at the election. But the Lib Dem opposition to building more housing locally swayed me to the Tory candidate.

The SNP rep got a right pasting on Question time last night on this subject. He even inadvertently insulted one of his supporters in the audience. I only wish Ruth Davidson was leader of the Conservatives south of the border, she put on another fantastic performance, I think she is a bit wasted in the Scottish parliament.

 

[Senex]

I think German politics probably represent me better, but that to some extent is true of the whole culture from top to bottom, really.

There I'd agree with you 100%.

 

[DownSouth]

Me too. I'm left on some things (e.g. a desire to nationalise transport, energy etc), right on others (e.g. a strong dislike for financial waste and preference for private-style efficiency even in the public sector) and centre on others (e.g. immigration, where I recognise the strong benefits it provides but think it needs some level of checks and balances). No one party fully represents me, though the Tory-Lib Dem coalition was in some ways oddly close if a bit far right overall, and Labour is probably as close as it is likely to get with a single party (which is how I voted this time).

I think German politics probably represent me better, but that to some extent is true of the whole culture from top to bottom, really.

The reason for this is probably that the dumbing down of politics to a one-dimensional system with a spectrum or axis is generally prevalent only in English-speaking countries.

European countries fall over themselves in laughter every time a broadcaster like the ABC does some variant of the two dimensional 'vote compass' exercise and proclaims it to be a new and innovative way of looking at politics. They laugh because they moved away from 2D politics back during the latter segment of the Cold War and they needed to start considering models with three or more dimensions.

 

[me123]

I was torn between the Lib Dem and Tory candidate at the election. But the Lib Dem opposition to building more housing locally swayed me to the Tory candidate.

The SNP rep got a right pasting on Question time last night on this subject. He even inadvertently insulted one of his supporters in the audience. I only wish Ruth Davidson was leader of the Conservatives south of the border, she put on another fantastic performance, I think she is a bit wasted in the Scottish parliament.

Really? As an MSP, she leads the Conservative party and forms by far the strongest opposition to the government (the frankly pathetic Scottish Labour party lead by the hopeless Kezia Dugdale have no chance). She maintains a high profile up here. If she got a seat in Westminster (and that's a big if - she's highly unlikely to get elected under FPTP), she'd likely fade into political obscurity (see also, Cathy Jamieson and Margaret Curran - former Labour front bench MSPs who "got promoted" to Westminster and are now on the dole).

Back to the original issue. I kind of understand the SNP's suggestion that all member states of the UK should agree to withdrawal. It is broadly in line with the EU rules on ratification of constitutional treaties (such as the Treaty of Lisbon). Furthermore, we have just had a referendum in Scotland in which the majority backed remaining in the UK. The "Better Together" campaign used (I would argue, unfounded) fears that an independent Scotland might not be accepted into the EU as a key part of their campaign. As such, a vote for the Union was by extension a vote for the security of continued EU membership.

On the other hand, it is entirely undemocratic to need each of the four member states of the UK to agree to withdrawal. 75% of the vote would lie with the three smaller countries, which combined have less than a fifth of the population of England! That can hardly be considered democratic. Perhaps a slightly better solution would be that each EU constituency in the UK needs to agree (which would again be in line with EU constitutional practices, but would give stronger power to England), but I'd be in favour of a simple majority as the most democratic outcome, even though the other options would likely support my preferred outcome of remaining in the UK.

In a scenario where Scotland votes to remain in the EU but the outcome of the referendum overall is for withdrawal - I think that would form part of a strong argument for a further independence referendum in the foreseeable future. This would represent a seismic change to the constitution as it stands, and could very possibly change the opinions of many people on Scottish independence.

The focus is, of course, on Scotland here. At the moment, it seems to be fashionable to blame Scotland for just about everything. As such, the threat of "Scotland blocking the democratic will of the English" is what's being trumpeted by many. However, I think that Sturgeon's suggestion would see an equal threat from Northern Ireland, that little enclave that's so often forgotten about. I can't imagine that NI are likely to vote for withdrawal, given that it would separate them further from their neighbour in the Republic of Ireland, with whom there are strong cultural, business and political ties. Could we see a simple "unionist/republican" split in NI, or would there be an overwhelming support for EU membership over there? Whilst the focus currently remains on us in Scotland, I think the vote will be at least equally interesting over there.

 

[yorksrob]

The SNP have a point. If we were a properly federal country, there would be a layer of democratic representation that was more reflective of the member states than pure population, which would most likely be more strongly reflected in constitutional affairs such as a referendum on EU membership. Would I give Scotland a veto on a European referendum? Perhaps I'm too statist for that, but the SNP would certainly be justified in seeking another independence referendum in the event of a no vote in my opinion.

This underlines the point that democracy is about more than just one member one vote. It is also about national self determination and self Government. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean complete independence in the "ourselves alone" mould, but it should certainly prevent supra-national (and even national) states riding roughshod over the needs of their constituent parts, and that seems to be something the EU needs to learn as much as we do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Your statement is similar to Scotland leaving the UK. Unfortunately, the UK government sees some value in conceding more power to Scotland to keep it sweet. The EU will not be so kind should the UK threaten to leave.

Then more fool the EU. The Euro-fiasco has shown comprehensively that one size doesn't fit all, and trying to force different countries into an ever closer straight jacket will only move it away from the core aim of preventing conflict and disharmony between countries. If they've any sense, they will see this as an opportunity to take stock and change direction.

 

[AM9]

The SNP have a point. If we were a properly federal country, there would be a layer of democratic representation that was more reflective of the member states than pure population, which would most likely be more strongly reflected in constitutional affairs such as a referendum on EU membership. Would I give Scotland a veto on a European referendum? Perhaps I'm too statist for that, but the SNP would certainly be justified in seeking another independence referendum in the event of a no vote in my opinion.

This underlines the point that democracy is about more than just one member one vote. It is also about national self determination and self Government. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean complete independence in the "ourselves alone" mould, but it should certainly prevent supra-national (and even national) states riding roughshod over the needs of their constituent parts, and that seems to be something the EU needs to learn as much as we do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Then more fool the EU. The Euro-fiasco has shown comprehensively that one size doesn't fit all, and trying to force different countries into an ever closer straight jacket will only move it away from the core aim of preventing conflict and disharmony between countries. If they've any sense, they will see this as an opportunity to take stock and change direction.

But if the UK, and maybe one or two other states want big changes and the other 80% of the EU population prefer to leave things as they are, wouldn't it just be the democratic process that ensures that the majority wish prevails? To deny that would turn the arguments for voting democratically expressed in this thread, upside down.

 

[yorksrob]

But if the UK, and maybe one or two other states want big changes and the other 80% of the EU population prefer to leave things as they are, wouldn't it just be the democratic process that ensures that the majority wish prevails? To deny that would turn the arguments for voting democratically expressed in this thread, upside down.

If Scotland wanted big changes and the rest of the UK didn't, there would also be a democratic argument for not doing anything. And the UK would be finished.

For the EU to fulfil it's core aims, it has to remain united. That means developing from its member states rather than against them. That means generous separations of powers and subsidiarity, not "ever closer union".

There should be more acceptance of states running their own affairs, for example, what services should be public and what privately owned (a freedom Cameron won't be arguing for).

 

[radamfi]

However, I think that Sturgeon's suggestion would see an equal threat from Northern Ireland, that little enclave that's so often forgotten about. I can't imagine that NI are likely to vote for withdrawal, given that it would separate them further from their neighbour in the Republic of Ireland, with whom there are strong cultural, business and political ties. Could we see a simple "unionist/republican" split in NI, or would there be an overwhelming support for EU membership over there? Whilst the focus currently remains on us in Scotland, I think the vote will be at least equally interesting over there.

That's an absolutely crucial point. That is one of the many adverse consequences that need to be brought to the fore. Although most people in NI are lucky as people born in NI are entitled to Irish citizenship so they can retain their freedom of movement. Freedom of movement is such a privilege, enabling us unrestricted access to many great countries but some people want to imprison us in the UK for life. If the UK does lose freedom of movement there should at least be some allowance for people to acquire another nationality so they can retain their EU citizenship.

 

[HilversumNS]

Then more fool the EU. The Euro-fiasco has shown comprehensively that one size doesn't fit all, and trying to force different countries into an ever closer straight jacket will only move it away from the core aim of preventing conflict and disharmony between countries. If they've any sense, they will see this as an opportunity to take stock and change direction.

I agree, but as most major stuff in the EU has to be ratified by all countries, the smaller ones who benefit far more as things are, will not want drastic reforms.

If the UK does lose freedom of movement there should at least be some allowance for people to acquire another nationality so they can retain their EU citizenship.

Which makes me glad I've always kept my dutch passport. I'm curious as to what my right of abode in the UK will be should the UK leave the EU, I'm not worried (lived here for 30+ years) simply curious.

 

[dcsprior]

At the moment, the 4 countries within the UK are members of the EU via the UK's membership. Is there anything to stop the membership being instead held individually by all 4 constituent countries? Then each could vote in/out seperately.

The Kingdom of Denmark is a sovereign state with 3 constituent countries (Denmark, Greenland, Faroe Islands); of these, only Denmark is an EU member.

 

[HilversumNS]

At the moment, the 4 countries within the UK are members of the EU via the UK's membership. Is there anything to stop the membership being instead held individually by all 4 constituent countries? Then each could vote in/out seperately.

The Kingdom of Denmark is a sovereign state with 3 constituent countries (Denmark, Greenland, Faroe Islands); of these, only Denmark is an EU member.

I expect that only the state of Denmark is a member, not the Kingdom of Denmark. Similar to the Kingdom of the Netherlands is made up of the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten but only the Netherlands is part of the EU.

France has overseas departments where the Euro is the legal currency such as Mayotte which is an island in the Indian Ocean and a part of Africa.

Gibraltar is not part of the UK, not an EU member state, but still part of the EU (as a dependent territory of the UK.) Jersey is a Crown dependency of the UK, and also within the EU.

Nothing is simple when you talk about the EU!!

The EU has 28 member states, but there are also many special cases. Search for "Special member state territories and the European Union" in wikipedia if you want to read more.

 

[DownSouth]

Back to the original issue. I kind of understand the SNP's suggestion that all member states of the UK should agree to withdrawal.

But it's blatant hypocrisy, wouldn't you agree?

The SNP's secession referendum last year simply used an absolute majority (50% +1), with no area-based veto like Sturgeon wants Scotland to have in a UK-wide plebiscite on the EU. If the government of the UK actually wants their referendum to succeed (more on that later) they could easily make the case that if an absolute majority is democratic enough for Scotland it's also democratic enough for the whole of the UK.

On the other hand, it is entirely undemocratic to need each of the four member states of the UK to agree to withdrawal. 75% of the vote would lie with the three smaller countries, which combined have less than a fifth of the population of England! That can hardly be considered democratic.

Perhaps you should consider the supermajority rule used in Australia for a Constitutional Referendum (different to the consultative plebiscites called referenda in the UK which are not binding on the Parliament) which is one of the aspects of our Constitution that was inspired by Swiss practice.

To succeed, a referendum must achieve an absolute majority of the total vote across the nation, and an absolute majority vote in a majority (four out of six) of the States.

Applied to the UK, it would require that three out of the four constituent countries would need to vote in favour for it to succeed, along with achieving a national absolute majority. It would ensure that one of the four couldn't push it through on their own, but neither could one of the four veto it on their own.

Even if Wales/NI/Scotland all supported the proposal (achieving the majority of constituent countries voting to approve), a strong vote against in England would ensure there would be a national majority against and therefore the referendum would fail - which if a national majority was against would be the more democratic option.

A successful result would still be possible even if England voted no by a slim margin, by all three of the smaller countries voting yes (achieving the majority of countries) in large enough numbers to overcome the slim margin in England and achieve a national majority.

Perhaps a slightly better solution would be that each EU constituency in the UK needs to agree (which would again be in line with EU constitutional practices, but would give stronger power to England), ...

That would indeed give people in some parts of England an equal amount of power as the people in Scotland/Wales/NI would have - but that's only the power to make the referendum fail, not to make it succeed.

If the people of Scotland really do love the EU as much as the SNP thinks they do, then it won't be a problem because they would veto it for the whole of the UK - but this is not to be assumed. If the opposite were proven to be true when Sturgeon's bluster stopped and the Scottish people went to vote (just like in the rejected secession referendum last year) there would be an outcry in Scotland if the people there voted to approve leaving the EU, only for it to be vetoed by a smaller constituency somewhere in England, perhaps the North-East which has three MEPs compared to Scotland's six.

It would, however, be a good way to hold a referendum and rig it to fail - which is why it would actually be the perfect method for the UK's Conservative government to use, since we know that they don't really want to leave the EU (it would be ridiculously bad for business) but they've been trapped into promising a referendum to avoid their vote being split with UKIP.

If there was a better electoral system (i.e. IRV/AV for single member divisions) then the Conservatives would not have needed to offer the referendum as a way of chasing potential UKIP voters when they would benefit from most UKIP voters giving the Conservative candidate their second preference anyway.

The "Better Together" campaign used (I would argue, unfounded) fears that an independent Scotland might not be accepted into the EU as a key part of their campaign.

But it was not unfounded that Scotland would almost certainly be offered only the full package if they sought EU membership after seceding, and not the 'no sauce, please' deal that the UK enjoys on the basis of having rejected new items (e.g. the Euro, Schengen) which have come along while they were already members.

A veto of Scottish EU membership from Spain, France and possibly some Eastern European countries would be quite probable if Scotland was seeking to enter the EU with a conditional membership (e.g. without Schengen, which would cause the Scotland-UK border to become an external Schengen Zone border, or without the Euro) but much less likely if they were willing to accept the full package.

 

[Dave1987]

The Polish govt are against any treaty changes if it means Britain can stop Polish nationals claiming benefits in Britain. How typical is that!!

 

[TheKnightWho]

And precedent dictates that a party that has won a majority will form a government .

I don't disagree, but because precedent isn't binding it's a mess as to whether that's a formal mandate or not. Plus many complained about the system long before the election - I certainly did. The notable newcomers are UKIP.

Metrailway - that is the PM's mandate to be PM, not the government's mandate to govern that is granted by the monarch. Precedent dictates the practice around it, but nothing more.

I'm not saying all this out of some bitterness or because I think the Tories have no right to govern - I'm merely making sure we're discussing things as they are, rather than bringing in any binding constitutional elements, of which those cited are merely acts of parliament (apart from the mostly repealed Magna Carta), and so aren't the sort of document I was referring to.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Polish govt are against any treaty changes if it means Britain can stop Polish nationals claiming benefits in Britain. How typical is that!!

I'm sure the UK government is against restrictions on UK citizens in Spain and France (all 1.3m of them) too. Governments look out for their own people - shocker.

 

[me123]

But it's blatant hypocrisy, wouldn't you agree?

The SNP's secession referendum last year simply used an absolute majority (50% +1), with no area-based veto like Sturgeon wants Scotland to have in a UK-wide plebiscite on the EU. If the government of the UK actually wants their referendum to succeed (more on that later) they could easily make the case that if an absolute majority is democratic enough for Scotland it's also democratic enough for the whole of the UK.

It's not blatant hypocrisy from me. Because I went on to say that whilst I have some sympathy for the viewpoint I don't agree with it. If you've read my post (and I can see that you have, as you have quoted most of it in your own well constructed post), you would have seen the point where I said that a simple majority across the UK is the best possible option, but does leave Scotland and Northern Ireland with a potential constitutional issue in the event of withdrawal from the EU. My discussions relating to constituency voting etc were really to analyse the benefits of these systems, and there are benefits. But it's not the most constitutional in my opinion.

I'll reinforce my view again - this referendum should be a simple majority of the UK-wide electorate. However, it will alter the constitution so dramatically that the devolved nations in particular

I disagree with Sturgeon's opinion that Scotland should have a veto, but I don't think it's "blatantly" hypocritical. In the Scottish referendum, each of the electoral constituencies had the same constitutional set up, however in this referendum we're combining the votes of four countries with four very different constitutional set ups and binding all of them to a "one size fits all" notion, which will be almost certainly decided in England given that the majority of the electorate reside there. It's difficult to compare the two on a like-for-like basis.