|
Nov 2022
10:22pm, 20 Nov 2022
44,670 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Sorry, I dint understand ehat that refers to.  G
|
|
Nov 2022
10:02am, 23 Nov 2022
13,839 posts
|
jda
Good morning subjugated minions.
|
|
Nov 2022
11:19am, 23 Nov 2022
44,723 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Not that surprising. Good to get it clarified. Would have had to have convinced courts that a referendum about constitution wasn't to make a change to the constitution. Pretty hard one!
So now SNP will go ahead and say that electoral mandate allows them to hold it anyway (assuming they win next elections in Scotland). Sep / Oct 2023 is going to be interesting! G
|
|
Nov 2022
11:28am, 23 Nov 2022
13,843 posts
|
jda
Well it seems an odd argument that an advisory ref is illegal because it might have political impact (clearly, it has no direct legislative impact).
I mean, any speech by any politician may have political impact too. Is that illegal too?
I haven't read any proper summaries tho so am probably talking out my arse. I'll go and do that now
|
|
Nov 2022
1:24pm, 23 Nov 2022
1,967 posts
|
Zorba
Back to the drawing board for the Dunblane Diva .
|
|
Nov 2022
1:25pm, 23 Nov 2022
10,330 posts
|
57.5 Degrees of Pain
Seems like the SNP may have to play this very cannily or lose their chance. Currently they are up against a UK PM with no legitimate mandate at all, while their mandate remains strong. But their legal avenue for action has been closed and the economic outlook is hardly conducive to more upheaval.
If Labour continue their resurgence they may lose votes among the many Labour supporters who have backed the SNP in recent years. If the Tories recover and win the next UK General Election they'll have a PM with a mandate and implacably against another referendum.
Do they hope to hold the balance of power in a hung UK parliament? Go for a divisive indicative referendum? Adopt UDI?
|
|
Nov 2022
1:52pm, 23 Nov 2022
44,726 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
jda, that is what I understand too. There is no such thing as an advisory referendum vs a compulsory referendum. I guess the interpretation is that a referendum implies a question to the people that is likely to be result in implementation. More so than a speech. But I haven't read the detail either.
I suppose the obvious test is "We're having a referendum about the constitution. But obviously we won't be using it to change the constitution." Errr, yeah right!
As I understand it the justification from Supreme Court was that even a referendum "affects" the constitution e.g. creating instability. Interesting judgement. G
|
|
Nov 2022
2:55pm, 23 Nov 2022
13,844 posts
|
jda
Yes there is HG, there can be legally binding referenda that directly enact an existing piece of legislation.
|
|
Nov 2022
4:16pm, 23 Nov 2022
44,730 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
OK jda, I didn't know that.
But in this situation, the supreme court decided that an advisory or consultative referendum still has an effect on the constitution, and therefore, in this legal context, in their view, both are in the same boat of not being permitted. So same effect as far as a referendum on Scottish independence is concerned! G
|
|
Nov 2022
7:58pm, 23 Nov 2022
23,978 posts
|
Bazoaxe
It is pretty clear to anyone who is paying attention that an advisory referendum that votes yes, even by one vote, would be immediately used to have a political impact and demand independence.
Todays outcome was predicative, but as I said on the politics thread I would like Westminster to be clear on the parameters when a referendum can be held.
I would also like the snp to think about how they influence current no voters. That is the key to this. Either that or they wait for the older no voters to fall off the electoral roll
|
