IndyRef2 ?

[Hope]

Scotland voted to remain in the EU, Gonners.

So did London, and the Vale of Glamorgan, Cardiff and Gwynedd.  Unfortunately, the referendum was a UK referendum, meaning that those who took part in it would be bound by its outcome.  OK, the government could have chosen to treat it as advisory, but it would still have been advisory for exit, and we would all have had to accept that advisory for what it was.

Whilst Indyref 2 is an option, it isn't the only one - allowing Scotland to remain in tghe single market and retain ECHR would stop any second referendum in its tracks.

Not sure that the UK government have the powwer to make that play, Jim.  After all, it was agreed by all involved - long before the result was known - that the result would be deemed to be binding, so the exit is either for the whole of the UK or for none of it.  Cherry-picking isn't permitted.

You know as well as I do that the NO campaign spouted the lie that the only way Scotland could remain an EU member was by remaining part of the disunited kingdom and voting NO in 2014 We did. ...

Except that was the common understanding of the time - remember that back then, the fledgling Leave campaign was doing a Trump and complaining that their voice was being ignored.  If Nicola and co had been rather less vocal in their opposition to staying in the UK, I wonder whether the BrExit referendum result might have been different.

Now we are being removed against our will,   ...

So, if the Brexit referendum result had been 'to stay' would you be arguing that you were being made to stay by a third-party? 

so much for Westminster. In 2014 the Tories spouted stuff about us being an equal partner in the union....well, if we cannot play our part as an equal partner and have a say in the brexit negotiations, the blame for the constitutional disaster which will follow will not be ours. We are not the ones who broke our promises.

I'm not sure that anyone has broken any promises, Jim.  By agreeing to take part in a UK-wide referendum, you promised to abide by its result - whether that was on a binding or advisory basis. 

As things stand, I don't expect even the staunchest of Brexiteers to accept any agreement thatn comes to pass - either it will be too hard for them, or too soft.

[Anchorman]

What Cardiff, or anywhere else, voted, is irrelevent. They are not, with respect, nations; Scotland is, and will not be treated as a county, a region or a parliamentary constituency. Apparently the Lord Advocate (senior Scottish Law officer) is seriously contemplating prosecuting Westminster for contravening the Act of Union of 1707 - which was supposedly an 'equal and incorporating union' - and patently is not.

[jeremyp]

What Cardiff, or anywhere else, voted, is irrelevent. They are not, with respect, nations; Scotland is, and will not be treated as a county, a region or a parliamentary constituency. Apparently the Lord Advocate (senior Scottish Law officer) is seriously contemplating prosecuting Westminster for contravening the Act of Union of 1707 - which was supposedly an 'equal and incorporating union' - and patently is not.

Citizens in Scotland were treated in exactly the same way as citizens in any other part of the UK. You each got exactly one vote.

[Hope]

What Cardiff, or anywhere else, voted, is irrelevent. They are not, with respect, nations; Scotland is, and will not be treated as a county, a region or a parliamentary constituency. Apparently the Lord Advocate (senior Scottish Law officer) is seriously contemplating prosecuting Westminster for contravening the Act of Union of 1707 - which was supposedly an 'equal and incorporating union' - and patently is not.

Yet, in the spirit of that Act of 1707, the Scottish people are being treated perfectly equally by the British Government.  The LA might need to consider prosecuting the Leave Campaign, or perhaps the leadership of the EU.

I wonder whether - if the Lord Advocate does prosecute Westminster - there might not be a counter-prosecution based on the inequality of many years-worth of Barnett Formula, which has benefited Scotland more than it has Wales or England.

[Anchorman]

Yet, in the spirit of that Act of 1707, the Scottish people are being treated perfectly equally by the British Government.  The LA might need to consider prosecuting the Leave Campaign, or perhaps the leadership of the EU.

I wonder whether - if the Lord Advocate does prosecute Westminster - there might not be a counter-prosecution based on the inequality of many years-worth of Barnett Formula, which has benefited Scotland more than it has Wales or England.

The ultimate irony is that Jim Wallace, former leader of the Lib Dems in Scotland (and Deputy First Minister in the Lab/Lib Dem administration) believes there may actually be a case for citing the 1707 Act....and that it may be necessary to test it in the highest court....that of the ECHR!

[Anchorman]

Here's another spanner in the works, courtesy of the University of Aberdeen - and worth a read. https://aberdeenunilaw.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/article-50-the-articles-of-union-and-using-the-royal-prerogative-to-end-the-union-between-scotland-and-england/

[jeremyp]

Here's another spanner in the works, courtesy of the University of Aberdeen - and worth a read. https://aberdeenunilaw.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/article-50-the-articles-of-union-and-using-the-royal-prerogative-to-end-the-union-between-scotland-and-england/

Nice wishful thinking. I don't see how the Royal prerogative could be used by anybody except the monarch's choice of UK prime minister. That's assuming that the supreme court rules in favour of the government in the Brexit case.