Sturgeon: Scotland might vote to block Brexit

Nicola Sturgeon has suggested that the Scottish parliament could block the passage of legislation necessary for the UK to leave the EU.

In an interview with the Sunday Politics Scotland, she said that “of course” she would consider asking the Scottish parliament to vote down the legislative consent motions required for the legislation.

In her fifth major political interview of the morning, Scotland’s first minister told the show’s host, Gordon Brewer: “If the Scottish parliament is judging this on the basis of what’s right for Scotland, then the option of saying we’re not going to vote for something that’s against Scotland’s interests, that’s got to be on the table. You’re not going to vote for something that is not in Scotland’s interests.”

Asked if she could imagine the fury of English people who voted for Brexit if Scotland tried to block the UK leaving the EU, she said: “I can, but it’s perhaps similar to the fury of many people in Scotland right now as we face the prospect of being taken out of the EU against their will. I didn’t create these situations. I’m trying to navigate the best way forward through them.”

Adam Tomkins, leading constitutional law expert and newly elected Conservative MSP, made the point that Sturgeon’s words should be interpreted carefully, given that there was a huge difference between withholding consent and having a veto.

“Holyrood has no power to block Brexit. It is not clear that a legislative consent motion would be triggered by Brexit, but withholding consent is not the same as having the power to block. The Scottish parliament does not hold the legal power to block [the UK exiting the EU].”

He added that the Holyrood parliament was not powerless – for example, it could refuse to give its consent to changes to the devolution settlement required by Brexit – but that its power simply does not extend to having a veto.

4EVER2 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
Yes, he is a nasty piece of work. It's awful that he's a moderator here, with the full backing of Ben and eddie.

So say's the sanctimonious - highly religious member that    's the community and dribbles her scathing mental dumps about members and is allowed the freedom to do that without ever getting her knuckles busted for her vile attcks    
Such a supreme example of proper behavior 

Raggamuffin wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
So say's the sanctimonious - highly religious member that    's the community and dribbles her scathing mental dumps about members and is allowed the freedom to do that without ever getting her knuckles busted for her vile attcks    
Such a supreme example of proper behavior 

What's wrong with being highly religious? Are you a bigot?

4EVER2 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What's wrong with being highly religious? Are you a bigot?

Absolutely nothing wrong with being a REAL FAITHFUL RELIGIOUS PERSON, I know many; it's the 'fake faithful' that enjoy touting their faith as a HAMMER OF JUSTICE while being - mean & spiteful - that is the hypocritical burr! 
Do You Know What A Bigot Is? 
   Is this another word usage lesson like 'Metaphor' that you kept messing up so horribly?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:cause now you get fucked harder, you will realise you were not gettign fucked at all before. you just had what every other non-super power had. now you are going to have less as super powers now want you to suffer.

And no Sympathy will be given the englishmen cause it is still so much nicer and less cruel than when you where a super power.

these are just the facts of life, you fucked with a bigger stronger beast then yourself, now you will pay the consequence.

And you wonder why people want out...!?


You really are a nasty piece of work...

Yes, he is a nasty piece of work. It's awful that he's a moderator here, with the full backing of Ben and eddie.

Excuse me? I'm not the forum owner.
And for some reason people seem to assume I run the site with Ben? We are not married you know!

eddie wrote:

eddie wrote:

Excuse me? I'm not the forum owner.
And for some reason people seem to assume I run the site with Ben? We are not married you know!

Rags? Are you going to explain your remark about Veya?

nicko wrote:Yes they do Eddie, but he starts it,   For some reason [and I wish he'd tell us]  he hates us.  

eddie wrote:I don't support his views about the British no, but people reply to him in the same vein, about Australia, don't they?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:cause now you get fucked harder, you will realise you were not gettign fucked at all before. you just had what every other non-super power had. now you are going to have less as super powers now want you to suffer.

And no Sympathy will be given the englishmen cause it is still so much nicer and less cruel than when you where a super power.

these are just the facts of life, you fucked with a bigger stronger beast then yourself, now you will pay the consequence.

And you wonder why people want out...!?


You really are a nasty piece of work...

Yes, he is a nasty piece of work. It's awful that he's a moderator here, with the full backing of Ben and eddie.

Excuse me? I'm not the forum owner.
And for some reason people seem to assume I run the site with Ben? We are not married you know!

nicko wrote:Yes they do Eddie, but he starts it,   For some reason [and I wish he'd tell us]  he hates us.  

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:cause now you get fucked harder, you will realise you were not gettign fucked at all before. you just had what every other non-super power had. now you are going to have less as super powers now want you to suffer.

And no Sympathy will be given the englishmen cause it is still so much nicer and less cruel than when you where a super power.

these are just the facts of life, you fucked with a bigger stronger beast then yourself, now you will pay the consequence.

And you wonder why people want out...!?


You really are a nasty piece of work...

Yes, he is a nasty piece of work. It's awful that he's a moderator here, with the full backing of Ben and eddie.

Excuse me? I'm not the forum owner.
And for some reason people seem to assume I run the site with Ben? We are not married you know!

Which is pretty stupid ....

I was a Mod here Before Any of you were members

The Devil, You Know wrote:and there's more



French president Francois Hollande: "The negotiations will be conducted with the United Kingdom, not with a part of the United Kingdom"

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:

Excuse me? I'm not the forum owner.
And for some reason people seem to assume I run the site with Ben? We are not married you know!

Which is pretty stupid ....

I was a Mod here Before Any of you were members

Ben Reilly wrote:I don't think it's going to happen at all -- something along the lines of a second referendum, or parliament might just ignore it! It's not legally binding anyway.

eddie wrote:I think it unfair that they are making those assumptions about Scotland.
If Scotland want to join the European Union then why shouldn't they be allowed to?

Fucking EU. Bunch of bully boys.

eddie wrote:I know they can't "just join" but why make it so bloody hard for them before Scotland have even asked?

I don't care much for meaningless words and trick mirrors when it comes to this kind of thing,  it's basically, striped back to its bones, a big gang telling a much smaller gang  that they haven't got enough marbles to join, and even if they did, the marbles wouldn't be big enough.