SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Scottish nationals have two supra-national citizenships. One is UK citizenship, the second is EU citizenship. In democratic referenda over the past two years, Scots have voted clearly to retain both citizenships.
Unfortunately it is not possible to respect both democratic decisions of the Scottish people, due to a vote by other nationalities. So where you have democratic decisions which cannot both be implemented, which does democracy demand should take precedence?
It is not a simple question. The vote to retain EU citizenship was more recent and carried a much larger majority than the earlier vote. In addition it was made crystal clear during the campaign that it may require the overturning of the earlier vote. So on these grounds I believe the most recent vote must, as an exercise in democracy, have precedence.
In these circumstances the announcement by the First Minister that she is initiating the procedure on a new referendum for Scottish independence from the UK, in order to retain Scottish membership of the EU, is a sensible step.
Source: Craig Murray
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:28PM
I think the losers are particularly upset because this a big change and the score is 52-48. Not a big difference.
The petition you may be thinking of, https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215, [parliament.uk] where there are currently a million and a half signatures (I have no idea how much to trust this number, since we are talking about a website), specifically spells out that a score of 60-40 should be required if less than 75% of voters do vote.
Many countries say that in some cases referendums are invalid if less than 75% or less than 66% of voters show up, and many countries also require big majorities for some decisions (two-thirds majority rather than half+1); so the request is not at all ridiculous in terms of numbers.
However, they are talking about changing the rules after the game has finished. I honestly can't say if they are "right" or "wrong", since the whole situation is so vague anyway. In practice, the unsatisfied voters want out (the Scottish already said this, and now Londoners are saying it as well, see http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36629324 [bbc.com] for some comments on that).
(Score: 2) by rleigh on Saturday June 25 2016, @08:03PM
The actual difference of 3.8% is 1,269,501 votes in favour of leaving. Yes, 1.27 *million* more. We're not talking a tiny and insignificant amount here. It's clear cut and unambiguous.
As for changing the split to 60-40. No. It required a simple majority. It's done. The result is to leave.
We never got a democratic vote to *join* the EU. It was imposed upon us undemocratically, and that's been a point of contention from the start. Would you also be arguing for this if the same result was obtained to *join* the EU? Because it would never have happened if that was the case.
You might think the losers are upset, and they are. But that will pale into insignificance if the democratically determined majority view is not respected and actioned.
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Sunday June 26 2016, @01:00PM
The sad and/or funny thing about this, is that immediately before the vote it was the exit side that said that a margin this narrow should lead to a second referendum:
http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/24/remember-that-time-nigel-farage-said-52-48-votes-should-lead-to-second-referendum-5963900/ [metro.co.uk]
Quoth the farage:
It turns out the respect for a democratically determined majority view is very very flexible.