Originally Posted by
NutLoose
As I believe a referendum can only be held if Parliament sanction it, as happened the last time, she is as per usual is just blowing hot air.
This is probably one of those things that is both true and false at the same time.
It is probably true to say that the Sherrif of Scotchville can't hold a referendum which would inherently have the same legal significance to Westminster as the last one (although given that even that was only "advisory" that point is moot).
But she probably CAN choose to stage a referendum using all the same processes and rules, funded entirely from Scottish Parliament money. If THAT referendum came out with a substantial turn-out and (say) a 75% majority for seperation I suggest it would be very difficult for Westminster to ignore it.
PDR