Keep in mind that the current UK government is led by Boris Johnson, who evidently perceives that hypocrisy is a virtue rather than a fault.
I rather confused about what “binding” and “non-binding” mean within the context of the UK constitution. The Brexit vote was non-binding, yet the government felt compelled to follow the results. Is it even possible to have a referendum in the UK that its government could ignore?
Parliament is the highest governing authority, so ultimately it can legislate whatever it wants, even if that means reversing prior legislation that it had previously passed. However they have to enact that reversal. Otherwise they, and the Government - meaning the Prime Minister, his cabinet and government ministers, and the other people with executive powers - are obligated to follow that legislation. There’s also a convention that Parliament will uphold the legislation it’s passed. That’s a small part of the furore over the proposed changes to the Withdrawal Act. Parliament passed the Withdrawal Act just a few months ago and the same Parliament is still in session. Are they saying they made a mistake with the earlier bill - which calls their competence into question - or were they being deceitful about their intentions, which is even worse?
Government pledges don’t have the same weight as Parliamentary legislation, but the Government is still expected to do as it’s pledged. That’s why Cameron felt that the Brexit referendum was binding and resigned when it voted Leave. Theoretically, he could have asked Parliament not to honour the result of the vote. However he rightfully felt that he could not go back on his pledge, and that his position was untenable to take Brexit forward. May, who was in Government under Cameron felt the same obligation, even if she didn’t feel she had the same responsibility to resign.
Regarding a Scottish referendum, if a UK prime minister commits that the Government will honour the referendum, then Parliament is obliged to either follow that pledge, or pass legislation against it at which point the prime minister should resign as he’s lost the confidence of Parliament. If Parliament enacts a pledge to honour the referendum, then that’s even more binding. Parliament could reverse itself, since it’s still the sovereign power, but under the conventions that make up the UK’s unwritten constitution, they shouldn’t. If neither the Government nor Parliament pledge to honour the hypothetical Scottish referendum, then there’s no obligation for them to do so, however much the SNP may disagree.
I rather confused about what “binding” and “non-binding” mean within the context of the UK constitution.
It’s the difference between legally binding, and moral/political consequences if not actually written into law as binding. Realistically, that’s a distinction without much of a difference.
If we’d actually had a written constitution, it probably wouldn’t have had a provision for referenda in the first place, what with parliamentary sovereignty being the overriding principle. The way they have been used in practice has been an improvisation to fit the political exigencies of each situation.
One thing that’s interesting is that there are Scottish pound notes issued by banks there. The exact same value as notes issued by the Bank Of England. Using English notes in Scotland is common, using Scottish notes in England might be tricky in smaller places especially as you head away from the north of England.
As long as the everendum remains on the table, then there’s a very good chance. The idea that the 2014 referendum could take place without a clause stating it would be the last-ever vote on the topic was a huge error. Scotland can vote to stay in the UK twenty times and if the 21st vote happens at a nadir of relations then it’s gone forever, and there won’t be a 22nd vote 5 years later asking about rejoining. The fact that no majority of Scottish voters has ever supported leaving to this point, even with everything going on right now, won’t stop the SNP fanatics - they believe that Scotland is too wee, too poor, and too stupid to be entrusted with deciding to stay in the UK through deliberative or democratic processes and will continue to push their anti-democratic vision of an isolated, nationalist Scotland no matter what.
The other problem is that a major faction within the Labour Party basically hates the UK and will do anything to harm its standing in relation to their Russian masters, and could easily join with the SNP to break up the country if they attain power.
Something that I found out a long time after I stopped living in Scotland is that Scottish banknotes aren’t actually ‘legal tender’
I would say that this is not widely understood in Scotland itself - the tendency of English retail establishments to turn up their noses at Scottish banknotes was usually held up as just one more example of ‘bloody English don’t even know Scotland exists’
The other problem is that a major faction within the Labour Party basically hates the UK and will do anything to harm its standing in relation to their Russian masters,
I think you haven’t quite caught up with events since 1991. The dubious Russian connections these days are with some of the other side (or any side the powers-that-be in Russia think close enough to power).
I’m glad that I waited until reading this paragraph, so I could save the time that would have been wasted composing a thoughtful response to this.
The question of whether something is legal tender is pretty well irrelevant to the question of whether it will be accepted in shops. Since people seeking to buy goods in shops are not settling a debt, the merchant is not obliged to accept legal tender if he doesn’t want to. Conversely, merchants routinely accept payment mechanism which are plainly not legal tender - credit and debit cards, for example.
English merchants are reluctant to accept Scottish and Northern Ireland banknotes because they are unfamiliar. There’s nothing more to it than that.
Mind
Blown
(seriously, I did not know that…)
Yeah, that’s why they can say “We accept no bills larger than $20,” for example.
A merchant can demand or accept payment in whatever form E likes. No one is obliged to enter into the transaction. If you offer pocket fluff and E says “okay, I’ll take it,” that’s a legal transaction.
But a debt must be repaid on schedule lest it go into default, so the law protects the debtor if E offers payment in legal tender.
Legal currency of a nation is legal currency. The question of what is legal tender usually isn’t critical.
Scottish banknotes are not legal tender in Scotland - but neither are English banknotes. Coins are. It’s not really relevant to this discussion, anyway. Nobody is going to vote to leave or stay in the UK on the basis of legal tender.
Some of the arguments about whether it would be sensible for Scotland to leave are not especially relevant, because they’re ignoring the emotional votes, and there are tons of those. Brexit wasn’t a sensible option, and it got narrowly voted in anyway, partly on the basis of “taking back control” and “sticking it to those Eurocrats.” The same issues drive some of the independence movement in Scotland. Sturgeon is also a very capable leader, both in public perception and in the way she performs her job. If she’s still the leader when a vote eventually takes place, I’d put hard money on yes to leave winning.
But there are logical reasons, too. WRT covid, Scotland has different rules for quarantine, and they tend to be a little stricter. They shut down schools earlier than England did, and they have a different test and trace app which is working better than the one Westminster paid a fortune for.
Rejoining the EU would take a while, but with the way the Westminster govt has been acting in the Brexit negitotations, the EU would probably fucking love to stick it to them and get Scotland in as soon as they vaguely meet the requirements. It would certainly be more likely than the UK being allowed to join again, even if it asked, which it won’t, so remain supporters would have a really strong reason to support leaving the UK.
The only obstacle, really, like a couple of you have said, is actually getting a referendum in the first place.
Down our way, there is a non-trivial number of shops that, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, have ceases accepting cash at all. It’s contactless payment, or you can take your custom elsewhere. Perfectly lawful.
Yes, that’s extremely common here too. I just never made the connection.
Yeah, I think this is a really important point. This is a hard time in which to be making the positive case for Union on an emotional level. As far as I can see, if we get a referendum following no-deal Brexit, the there’s a definite case to be made against independence (“One seismic upheaval at a time, thanks”) but you won’t find many people ready to listen to a case for the union (“Despite recent unpleasantness, in the long run it’s worked out well and probably will again once the current crop of clowns has copped it”).
It’s a real bind, as UDS said: the harder the Brexit, teh harder the border between an Eu-member Scotland and rUK which makes Independence a much more disruptive proposition; but the harder the Brexit, the more obvious the disparity between what Scotland wants and what it gets, which makes the emotional case stronger.
Emphasis added. Not in Massachusetts apparently. It’s a little known 1978 law that has apparently caught some retailers by surprise.
And there are moves afoot to make it unlawful more globally to protect the ‘unbanked’.
It’s more than just an emotional case. Current events illustrate in a practical way how badly Scotland can be imposed upon in the union. It’s entirely rational to conclude that, if it’s happening now, it can happen again, and to conclude that you don’t want to be in a position where such a thing can happen, and that the dislocation of the transition to independence is a price worth paying to get out of that situtuation.
Isn’t that pretty much what those in favor of Brexit said?
Edited to add: much thanks to Wrenching_Spanners and PatrickLondon for answering mine earlier question.
Most denied that there would be any price to pay for Brexit. It would be all global Britain and sunny uplands and having cake and eating it.
But some of the more thoughtful Brexiters did say this, yes.
But it can be said with much more validity in this instance. The UK as a member state of the EU had far more control over its own destiny, and over the destiny of the EU, than Scotland has as a country within the UK. As the Brexit process itself graphically illustrates.