Call for Scots Referendum

[miner]

... with it being only an advisory referendum, Scotland could vote resoundingly to leave, in the full expectation that their vote would be ignored.

Then ...:

The fundamental basis of our constitution is that the will of the people trumps everything.

Make up your mind which it is!

Or are you just trolling with your customary nonsensical "arguments"?

[Hairyloon]

...the Sewel convention requires that Scotland be consulted on such matters. The Supreme Court has ruled that that is only a convention and does not have the force of law, but in the same way, it is only convention that the Queen gives Royal Assent to bills passed by both houses: there is no legal obligation to do so.

The Sewel Convention is written into statute law.

May I press you for a reference? I have been unable to find it.

It is a matter, therefore, for the Supreme Court to interpret. The Supreme Court has set out why the convention does not apply in these circumstances.

Do you recall which section it sets that out in?

Looking at this, I read it to mean that it is a convention, which is politics and therefore none of their business.

[Hairyloon]

Can we pin down exactly what a convention actually is?
The nature of them is that they cannot be enforced, in which case, what purpose do they serve?
If nothing else, surely they mean that one should give thorough consideration before breaching one?
Doesn't a breach of a constitutional convention usually trigger a constitutional crisis?
Isn't the break up of the union a bit of a crisis?

Is it not a constitutional requirement that constitutional crises cause by breaches of constitutional conventions need to be resolved?
Is it really not?
Wow.

[Smouldering Stoat]

...the Sewel convention requires that Scotland be consulted on such matters. The Supreme Court has ruled that that is only a convention and does not have the force of law, but in the same way, it is only convention that the Queen gives Royal Assent to bills passed by both houses: there is no legal obligation to do so.

The Sewel Convention is written into statute law.

May I press you for a reference? I have been unable to find it.

Section 2 of the Scotland Act 2016.

[Hairyloon]

The Sewel Convention is written into statute law.

May I press you for a reference? I have been unable to find it.

Section 2 of the Scotland Act 2016.

At first glance, it seems an odd thing to write into a ststute:

2The Sewel convention

In section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 (Acts of the Scottish Parliament) at the end add—

“(8)But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”

But how else are we supposed to establish a convention other than doing it for a few hundred years?

The Sewel Convention is written into statute law. It is a matter, therefore, for the Supreme Court to interpret. The Supreme Court has set out why the convention does not apply in these circumstances.

I a going to have to press you for a reference because the bits I read were very clear that the court's interpretation of the statute was that there exists a convention, and being in the nature of conventions, the convention is a convention, which is politics and not a matter for courts to dabble in.

[Smouldering Stoat]

I think that is something of a distinction without a difference. The Supreme Court ruled on the applicability of the convention to these circumstances because that was the question before them.

I honestly don't know what you are trying to do with this argument. You seem to be trying to argue that the Article 50 notification is a breach of a constitutional convention and therefore invalid, while simultaneously arguing that constitutional conventions are not enforceable.

[Hairyloon]

I think that is something of a distinction without a difference. The Supreme Court ruled on the applicability of the convention to these circumstances because that was the question before them.

No, the court ruled on the question put before them which was whether the PM has the legal right to invoke Article 50. They cannot and did not rule on the politics of the question and they were very clear that the interpretation of convention is a question of politics.

I honestly don't know what you are trying to do with this argument. You seem to be trying to argue that the Article 50 notification is a breach of a constitutional convention and therefore invalid, while simultaneously arguing that constitutional conventions are not enforceable.

No, I am saying that it is a constitutional requirement that a constitutional crisis precipitated by a breach of convention must be resolved.
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.

[dls]

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? Someone has said that they may in a few weeks ask, as part of the standard process, the Scottish parliament to call for a referendum. If (and only if and when) the parliament makes that request, it goes over to the UK parliament who in turn consider it and decide upon the terms of its response. No crisi yet.

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? Are you saying that the EU should decide that an article 50 notice is invalid because Miss S stamps her feet?

[Hairyloon]

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.

[dls]

No, but because she stamps for Scotland and has a valid point.

Not admitted.
When the Scottish Parliament was creaed it was given many powers. Many other powers were specifically reserved to the UK parliament. Included among them are the power to hold a referendum. Believing thst because she stamps her feet London must jump entirely begs the question. On this point, among others, the constitutions of teh uk and of scotland both say that calling such a vote is for the UK parliament.

And again, no question has been put, and you cannot assume a constitutional crisis because a question whch has not yet been put has not been answered in a way you think it might be if indeed it is put.

A constitutional crisi might of course occur, but your land of maybe's has haunted your arguments before.