You are reading a single comment by @andyp and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Scottish referendum of 1978, I think. Scots voted to devolve, Westminster had quietly put in a caveat about turnout, so could ignore the result. Civil unrest didn't happen.
andyp-
I'm a pessimist and hopefully wrong on the potential for civil unrest, but it feels a bit like a powder keg. We're discussing several remote possibilities anyway.
-
Also feel I missed an opportunity to make a joke about how old you are here. It's an interesting precedent that I wasn't aware of.
-
Scottish referendum of 1978, I think. Scots voted to devolve, Westminster had quietly put in a caveat about turnout, so could ignore the result. Civil unrest didn't happen.
Most of Scotland is still conducting a dirty protest.
deleted
kl
We have no precedent for dealing with the Commons directly opposing the democratically expressed will of the British people. Everyone would be improvising and the spectrum of outcomes would range from the Commons backing down, to a general election, to a second referendum, to the Queen acting in concert with a minority government and the armed forces to suspend the Commons and implement the 'will' of the British people. I can imagine the press cheerleading the last option from day 1. Being a sort of deferential, non-confrontational people, I imagine the Commons would quite quickly calculate the possibilities and decide that backing down was the best option. I freely concede I have no idea what would happen, and nor do you, which is the point.
On civil unrest, I'm not sure I go along with your assertion that everything causes 'civil unrest', but let's not quibble. In this instance I can see people tearing up town centers and government buildings, attacking immigrants and other minority groups. Most of them have been practicing in France for the last few weeks anyway. Who would order the police and armed forces onto the streets to prevent them and under what authority?