No, I am saying that it is a constitutional requirement that a constitutional crisis precipitated by a breach of convention must be resolved.
Several questions begged. How do you define a constitutional crisis?
Very hard to define, but easy enough to recognise. Do you say that the break up of the UK would not be a bit of a crisis?
If it would be, then the threat of that breakup needs to be considered for risk. It is incumbent on the government to ask whether their intended course of action is likely to trigger a constitutional crisis and if it is, then it needs to avert that crisis before it happens.
The Sewel convention is clearly being breached and the potential break up of the union is a crisis that needs to be addressed before the Article 50 notice should be accepted.
What exactly is the breach?
They are passing relevant legislation without the agreement of the devolved nation.
Are you saying that the EU should decide that an article 50 notice is invalid because Miss S stamps her feet?
No, but because she stamps for Scotland and has a valid point.
Parliament were asked to consider the Sewel convention before they passed the referendum bill: they refused because the vote was advisory.
After the vote they have refused to consider the convention because the will of the people must be obeyed.
It is a clear and culpable breach of constitutional convention and the consequences need to be cleared up.
Take me to your lizard...