
Could the Scottish Parliament Stop the UK from Leaving the EU? - YeGoblynQueenne
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36635012
======
Nursie
There's a lot of clutching at straws going on at the moment. People coming out
with political or legal theories, trying to interpret David Cameron's failure
to immediately declare leaving under article 50 as kicking the whole issue
into the long grass etc etc.

This is the latest, like others it's more of an exercise in denial than it is
in reality. Many of these things _could_ come to pass, it's true, but each one
carries with it the implication that a direct democratic mandate, to leave the
EU, is ignored.

If this occurs we can expect politics in the UK to become dangerously divided
and unsettled, and the likes of UKIP to become a seriously large party in the
next parliament, not to mention civil unrest in various forms.

The people that voted leave already feel left behind and ignored by the state.
Explicitly ignoring them and finding a way to work around their democratically
expressed opinion is likely to be a really BAD idea.

\--edit-- I notice the points attached to this post going up and down. To
those downvoting, can you tell me where/why you disagree?

~~~
antouank
Around 4 million EU nationals that live in the UK, were not eligible to vote,
and they are directly affected by his decision, while they pay taxes and they
contribute to the economy as much as the ones who could vote ( if not more...
). Also, a significant percentage of those who voted "Leave", around 10% at
least, now would certainly change their vote since they saw that "scare
tactics" was basically people telling them how economy works. So a false 2%
margin is "democracy"? Not really. And this decision is way to big to rely on
that typical and false margin. The circumstances do matter.

Oh, by the way, "The referendum was non-binding, it's advisory".

~~~
throwaway049
Nobody ever offered a say on UK national issues to EU nationals resident here.
They cannot vote in elections to the UK parliament.[0]

There have been a number of EU nationals quoted in the media as being
aggrieved by this, but in many cases they have lived here more than long
enough to become citizens and not chosen to do so.

[0] [http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-
registr...](http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-
registration/who-is-eligible-to-vote-at-a-uk-general-election)

~~~
toyg
The whole citizenship process costs around £1.5k, assuming you pass all
hurdles at the first attempt, so for many is not a decision you can take
lightly; prices increased 10x in the last decade explicitly to keep us Euro-
rabble out. EU residents can still vote at local levels so we do get a say in
matters directly relevant. I personally thought I'd leave national politics to
the "indigenous" mostly as a sign of respect for history and traditions I may
not be a part of and might not fully comprehend. That was probably a mistake.

Last year I started citizenship proceedings for me and my wife, aggrieved by
the darkening mood, but tbh at this point I think I'll save the money for a
visa elsewhere. It's clear I'm not welcome anymore, despite paying more taxes
and using less services than most beleavers; and it's clear the country as a
whole wants to go back to the bad old days of Thatcher, with all its urban
decay, racism, violence and permanent Tory majorities. I think my children
might get a better chance elsewhere.

~~~
throwaway049
"despite paying more taxes and using less services than most beleavers" This
line of argument leads to a Poll Tax or other arrangement that ties voting
rights to personal wealth.

~~~
toyg
Please don't look for strawmen were none were intended. I just pointed out how
contributing to the country more than most people is clearly not enough to be
welcomed, these days.

------
robhu
_Clause 28 of the 1998 Act notes at sub-clause 7, in dry terms, with regard to
legislative competence that "this section does not affect the power of the
Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland." In that single
little line is the subordinate nature of devolution. Generally, Westminster
will let the Scottish Parliament get on with devolved legislation. Carry on
governing. But it is also made clear that Westminster's ultimate sovereignty
over the UK, the entire UK, is unaffected._

So in other words, no. The UK Parliament is sovereign over the Scottish one,
although by convention they do not usually override it.

~~~
simonh
You're right, but I think they could make it very difficult for Westminster if
they wanted to. It's not a fight they can legally win, but it could still be
in their interests to fight it anyway.

There's a joke going around here in London that we should devolve with them
forming Scotlondon and set up immigration controls at M25 junctions. It's
becoming pretty clear that a lot of exit voters never imagined it could
actually happen and are suffering buyer's remorse.

~~~
codecamper
Sounds funny, but maybe closer to the reality of the modern age? So much of
GDP now comes from cities & information workers, I'd imagine.

Is it just London that wanted to remain? What about the other cities?

I haven't followed the race closely, but I'm guessing it was the country
bumpkins mostly in favor of leaving?

~~~
mhw
> Is it just London that wanted to remain? What about the other cities?

Despite much of the media describing this as the north voting to leave,
Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle upon Tyne, Harrogate and York all
voted to remain. Further south there's also Bristol, Cardiff, Cambridge,
Oxford.

There are cities and urban areas that voted to leave, but generally speaking
it does seem to be that the areas with lower population density voted to
leave. I'd be interested to see a visualisation which examined this
correlation.

~~~
gmac
And Brighton. Lots of university towns.

------
alkonaut
Legally, as far as I understand no. But politically? Almost certainly.

If Scotland could remain in the EU (By _remaining_ , not re-joining, which
Madrid would oppose) then they almost certainly would. This means that
"brexit" would imply the end of the "United" in the UK and I believe that
would be enough of a change in circumstances that a) leave politicians could
hold off invoking Article 50 without losing face or b) a referendum for the
new conditions could be held.

So the Scottish Parliament don't really need to veto Brexit to stop it, they
just need to threaten to leave the UK and remain in the EU to d oso.

The new conditions of Brexit (which really were known before but likely not
phrased as such) are "Should England and Wales leave the UK and form the
United Kingdom of England and Wales, and _then_ leave the EU?". I doubt that's
a very popular idea.

~~~
broodbucket
Scotland can't leave the UK and remain in the EU. They would have to become
independent and then begin the application process, which could take years.
There's a real possibility that some EU members will oppose their application.

EDIT:

"UK Government could use Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty to apply for a treaty
change which would allow Scotland to become a member when it formally becomes
independent in 2016.

The Article 48 route has been dismissed by the UK Government and it would also
require unanimous approval of all the other 28 EU members. Instead the more
likely route is Article 49 which requires Scotland to apply for membership."

This is just from some light Googling, some more informed people may have more
details

from [http://www.scotsman.com/scottish-independence/key-
topic/euro...](http://www.scotsman.com/scottish-independence/key-
topic/european-union/)

~~~
fennecfoxen
I wonder if they could do something crazy and structure Brexit as as England,
Wales, and northern Ireland seceding from the UK, without ever actually
invoking the exit procedures.

It would probably never happen and would be incredibly silly but it's
interesting to think about if it could.

~~~
Tomte
That idea came up in an Economist article, but I just don't see it. Would
Scotland even want to keep the Queen?

------
seanalltogether
The UK has a mandate from the people to leave the EU. Attempting to block the
brexit over technicalities in Unionist agreements is a weak position for any
politician to take. If the SNP believes they can successfully build a new
mandate from the Scottish people to leave the UK, that would be a position of
strength and they should work with that.

~~~
tallanvor
The referendum was non-binding. While a majority of those who voted said
leave, the role of the government is to do what's best for their country and
their people, and that's not always going to correspond to what a majority
says should be done.

~~~
coldtea
It was also no joke.

------
lhnz
Will it matter to Scotland's goal of joining the EU after getting independence
from the UK that they would have the worst deficit in the developing world [0]
and have, in the past, only been a net contributor to the UK economy in three
of the last fifteen years [1]?

It seems to me that the EU might require Scotland to make huge cuts to public
spending. Would Scotland's independence be worth more to them than say free
university tuition? I guess the SNP would avoid making cuts to certain
nationally loved items, but something would surely have to give; either they
would get higher taxes, or public spending would have to fall.

Of course, the EU might agree to let them remain and also allow them their
deficit, but there looks to be an increasing strain on the EU's richest
members, so who knows whether that would be allowed.

[0] [http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/if-scotland-had-gone-
in...](http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/if-scotland-had-gone-independent-
today-it-would-be-facing-sado-austerity/)

[1] [http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/simple-
summary.html](http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/simple-summary.html)

------
pmontra
Seen from another EU country, saddened as I am by the UK leaving the Union, my
take on this is:

1) Even if the referendum is advisory, given the importance of the issue it
would be difficult to dismiss it and do as if it didn't happen. I'd be
embarrassed to make decisions with leaders that are willing to ignore such
address from their people.

2) It's better for the UK to leave as quickly as possible because uncertainty
is bad. It's bad for business and for anybody. See the hours we are wasting
writing about it ;-) Furthermore uncertainty could prompt unrest, especially
in the UK (you voted, you won, you're ignored, you get angrier and angrier).

3) There is no reason not to keep being friends, even if a little
disillusioned, and keep doing business together. There will be some extra
barriers and cross border exchanges will decrease, but IMHO the UK should
become as one of those other European countries that don't belong to the EU.
No need to be punitive.

4) If Scotland wants to stay in the EU they should either get independent or
make some clear deal with the UK, and the EU to accept them. I understand but
not approve the reason for Spain not liking the idea, but they'll be frowned
at quite a lot.

5) There are territories around the world, some virtually independent from the
country that claims rights on them. There are some of the especially in Asia,
maybe for face saving reasons. Could Scotland be the next one? Even London is
possible, but much more difficult to implement IHMO.

That said, we are human beings and we are used to bend the written words to
our wills. If we agree on the result any act or constitutional chart can be
interpreted to match it or changed.

~~~
kuschku
> No need to be punitive.

Except, to prevent other EU nations from leaving, brexit should be as painful
as possible. Ideally with the UK falling apart.

~~~
pmontra
If it falls apart it will be because of its internal divisions, not because of
external punishment. Actually, punishment often strengthens the bonds among
the punished especially if it's deemed to be unjust. And a feeling of
injustice could drive other countries to dislike the Union even more. It's a
double edged sword that I wouldn't wield.

------
pi-err
To quote a Tory MP: "Nicola Sturgeon seems to be the only one who knows what's
she's doing".

Warning of a constitutional crisis is good tactics. It probably will not lead
to canceling brexit, though it will probably break the 1998 devolution law and
change how Scotland can "sell" independence and its claim to stay in the EU.

So it looks like this is either to lay ground for a "fast track" EU access due
to special circumstances - OR getting special new rights within the UK to
compensate leaving the EU.

~~~
ck425
Definitely the former. That and possibly an attempt at a second indyref if the
current momentum doesn't die. I live in Edinburgh, one of the areas with the
highest No vote in the indyref, and pretty much everyone I talk to who voted
No would strongly consider a Yes vote. Depending how the situation in
westminster develops, this might calm down or it could get stronger.

~~~
sievebrain
They're mad now.

But a second referendum would force the situation to be analysed a lot more
carefully. And that situation would not be a strong argument for leaving, no
matter how much the Scots might like the _idea_ of the EU.

~~~
ck425
You presume the referendum will be based on sound analysis. If there's one
thing the EUref has shown it's that you don't need sound analysis. It also
depends heavily on how the UK does in the coming year. The UK needs to be
economically and politically powerful enough that it's not worth giving up for
self determination. It doesn't need to be a better deal, it has to be better
enough to defeat romantic notions of independence.

~~~
sievebrain
There you go: assuming the analysis of leave voters was not sound.

Many voters made a very straightforward analysis: "the EU means I compete
against an essentially infinite supply of labour, I can't do that, therefore
we should get out of the EU so we can restrict immigration again".

You may not agree with this reasoning or you may feel the various other
benefits of the EU outweigh them in your personal circumstances, but it's not
an illogical analysis: they think leaving will make them economically better
off and there are millions of such voters. It's actually quite difficult to
mount a robust economic argument against this idea: you have to argue that the
EU will erect such serious trade barriers that all the jobs disappear. But a
lot of these people are working in local service industries anyway, they
aren't selling to the EU, so you end up arguing a very indirect path to them
personally suffering which basically rests on "the EU will be such bastards
that the entire UK economy collapses", which then stirs up patriotic
sentiments very strongly (reminds people of the war). And you rapidly end up
in economic wonk territory because the details of the damage depend so much on
details of the final deal, etc. The public, quite rightly, does not trust
economists due to their track record of getting the big things wrong.

The economic rationale for Scotland leaving the UK and joining the EU is much
less clear. The big one is public spending. The Scots may not like it but
their country is subsidised by the UK to a huge degree. The spending deficit
alone is the same size as _ALL_ Scottish NHS spending. The economic argument
from "lose the subsidies from the English, public services are cut because oil
is cheap" is very direct and much more easily understood. Scotland does not
have a problem with massive immigration. People like the idea of the EU but
what _specific_ economic problem would it solve for them?

~~~
_Understated_
> The Scots may not like it but their country is subsidised by the UK to a
> huge degree.

^This!

I am a Scot, living in Scotland and I voted out (and against independence) but
a great many of my peers over the years wanted independence "because
Westminster/England".

It was the most childish of reasons.

The economic argument wasn't there the last time and it absolutely isn't there
this time but last time it wasn't pressed much... this time it will be but
once the Indy Propaganda machine gets going then all bets are off.

------
Tepix
The old rule applies: If the headline ends with a question mark, the answer is
"no".

~~~
paradite
I think this is a rather bad headline because it is effectively a clickbait,
i.e. you won't know the answer until you click on the title and read the
article.

Headline should summarize the main points in the news article as a statement,
rather than posing a question to the reader.

------
sambeau
Hidden in the same discussion paper is the fact that the Northern Ireland (and
Welsh) parliaments would also have to ratify the new laws required to remove
EU law from their legal systems.

The Northern Ireland parliament would be incompetent if they voted for it.
Removing the EU from Northern Ireland would break the Good Friday agreement
and has the real potential to throw them back into war.

------
abpavel
Any outcome other than UK leaving the EU would go against democratically
elected decision, in essence suspending democracy.

~~~
vkou
The public isn't ever asked to vote on wars, trade deals, etc. When it is
asked to shoot itself in the foot with a non-binding referendum, overturning
it would be no different.

In a representative democracy, all you vote for is your representative. The
rest is politics.

~~~
arethuza
Exactly, if we had a consultative democracy we'd probably have the death
penalty!

~~~
dTal
You may want to lower your voice. If there's one thing this referendum has
(re)demonstrated it's that things can go from wingnut to oh-my-god-its-
happening frighteningly quickly.

------
mhandley
About the only thing that might stop the UK leaving now would be for the new
conservative leader to call a snap general election, thinking that labour are
in serious disarray. Then labour campaign on not leaving the EU, and together
with the SNP, win. The new labour/SNP government would be able to claim a
mandate from the electorate to not leave.

I don't think it's going to happen though.

------
hollander
How to get out of this mess: quit with this government, call for new
elections. Then you make it an election subject: will we follow the referendum
or not?! The referendum is advisory, not legally binding. So they can ignore
it. If the new elections are clear and people vote 55% to stay in - it's a
clear cut case.

~~~
pluteoid
As things stand, Cameron will be replaced by a new Conservative leader in
October who will be under pressure to call a general election more or less
immediately (without the present mess we were not due another one until 2020).
The Liberal Democrats, our third largest party, have pledged to run an
election campaign based on nullifying the Brexit vote. So it seems what you
propose is going to happen, but unfortunately the "Illiberal Undemocrats" are
an unpopular choice for a wide variety of reasons...

~~~
alexbilbie
The PM can't call for a general election anymore due to the Fixed Term
Parliament Act 2011. Only a vote of no confidence in the Government by MPs or
a unilateral decision by two thirds of MPs can break the five year parliament
and result in a general election.

~~~
pluteoid
And that's exactly what we'll probably see here – 2/3 majority call for a
general election. Just read the current headlines.

------
ProfChronos
Obviously they won't force the UK into staying in the EU but that's definitely
not what's important here. They are just starting UK's internal discrepancies
which could seriously damage the union and Westminster won't be able to do
much about it. England is already a well developed country which can't accept
to be under the EU's power, while Scotland and others know that they're path
to economic prosperity leads to the EU and its package of regulations and
standards. As they France, Germany and the EU Commission likely to be tough on
the UK, they are doing everything they can to stop the future bleeding. All
this in one brilliant graphics:
[http://i64.tinypic.com/1zdu79u.jpg](http://i64.tinypic.com/1zdu79u.jpg)

------
kriro
I feel it is usually assumed somewhat nonchalantly that the Scots could split
off as an independent nation. One signal of the Brexit vote is that
nationalists (or empireists) will be represented stronger in future elections.
I can see a (neo-imperialistic) future where it is in the interest of England
to not let anyone split off and fight for that with all means. I think the
hardline will be Northern Ireland but strategically speaking it would make
sense to not allow precedent and keep Scotland in.

------
davidgerard
This is a lot of words to say "technically maybe, but they're not so stupid as
to try without a lot of public backing."

~~~
whiteandnerdy
I think the position is: technically no, practically almost certainly no, but
politically it might be a sensible move for the SNP to strengthen support from
Scottish voters.

~~~
davidgerard
Apparently it's now polling 59%
[https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/747320186433208321](https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/747320186433208321)

------
pja
No, but they can make thinks extremely awkward & almost certainly use it as
leverage to exit the UK if they really want to.

(Betteridge’s Law applies?)

------
zargay01
So in finest journalistic tradition, if a headline contains a question then
the answer to that question is no.

------
throwaway987611
No. Sturgeon is just playing up to her base.

Scotland is effectively a one party system, which is quite dangerous, never
mind that the common man/woman do not see this.

The consequences for leaving the UK are well known. Companies aren't going to
stay in because of Europe. They are going to move over the border.

Also. The UK rescued the Scottish banks. Scotland will have to take on half
this debt. Will the EU bail out Scotland? Will there be Greece style terms?

So with the debt, companies leaving, not getting much tax receipts. How will
Scotland pay for the FREE tuition, FREE healthcare, FREE this and FREE that,
they like to promise? Is the EU going to be sending them FREE monies?

Finally and this is where I tend to laugh the most. Once Scotland joins Europe
and the Euro. How is Scotland an independent state in Europe? How have
Scottish people not realised this? Go look at Greece!

Scotland won't be able to control her economy. The EU bureaucrats will not do
what's in her best interests. They'll do what's in THEIR best interests!

So what happens when Scotland no longer has control of her finances, can't pay
for the FREE stuff. Oh and then slips into recession and the UK is doing
better off? Yeah, that's the joke.

Oh and the UK won't let Scotland use the pound. I can tell you that now!

~~~
ubernostrum
_The consequences for leaving the UK are well known._

The consequences for leaving the EU were well-known and kicked in within
_hours_ of the votes being tallied last week, but didn't stop the English from
voting to do it anyway. And if we're going to allow the English to be that
reckless on the basis of a single simple-majority vote, I don't see why we
oughtn't let the Scots do the same.

~~~
cmdkeen
The consequences for Scotland leaving the UK are an order of magnitude worse,
and that is if they were guaranteed admission to the EU on a roughly similar
basis to to the UK's current status. In reality they would probably have to
adopt the Euro and thus have even less control over fiscal policy which would
mean dealing with the 9% budget deficit, higher than Greece's which would be
political suicide.

