cassie

Well, it can be but it's obviously a concept beyond your reach. You might start to gain an insight by re-visiting your understanding of 'untrue'! Remind me, which question did you pose relevant to "Scotland - Independence Referendum moves closer"?

I have never claimed to answer ALL questions, especially those I regard as irrelevant and, even more so, when they are just plain silly! For example, Does my alleged failure to answer some of your questions get your goat? and Does that really make you feel hard-done-by?

You have a penchant, unfortunately shared by too many here, to digress and to reduce threads to trivia!
More generalisations! I suppose citing an authority is making it up out of thin air as far as you're concerned.

I note that you do not dispute my assertion: "I appreciate that, as a Scot, you are hostile to that view."
Can't be bothered. I've adopted your generalised approach - read up,
Can't be bothered, if you can't be bothered to re-state it. Ever heard of 'Copy & Paste'?
Agreed!
It's all in your mind, son!
In common with many others, you seem to approach the subject of referenda with a number of assumptions. Unless Parliament enacts particular provisions to the contrary, referenda are merely a means of attempting to ascertain collective opinions on particular important public issues, with which to inform its subsequent actions. The results are not binding on Parliament unless, as I have already stated, the legislative arrangements make them so in any respect. [One provision Parliament might make as a feature of such a referendum is that another would not be conducted on that issue for (say) twenty years.]

Consequently, it is a matter of political judgement as to how particular outcomes will be treated. One of the shortcomings in your question is the failure to postulate the turnout in each ballot which may well determine what Parliament would do. I can only respond to your theoretical question in general terms. I would expect any question concerning Scotland's position to be primarily affected by the ballot in Scotland. In the example you give, I would not expect Parliament to take any action if only because, although there have been numerous examples in history of annexation, I cannot recall one where a nation was expelled!

However, two things would flow from such a referendum: (1) Scotland would probably be left in no doubt about what England thought (this presupposes a clear cut result); and (2) England (and Wales, for it ought to be excluded either!) would have had equality of treatment. Were the question to be about England's position, I would expect both Scotland and Wales to be included in such a referendum.
Subtleties are not appropriate to such matters. Your analogy omitted to specify the kind of 'vote' France would have: whether it would be in the context of EU Ministers voting or the EU Parliament or a series of referenda throughout the EU. Obviously, you didn't think it through. As you said above (albeit it facetiously) I would make an excellent politician - well, not entirely, but certainly so in some respects, I believe!
Seems to be going OK to me! Why do you ask?
When you ask a question such as: "When did you stop beating your wife?" it misrepresents an individual's position. Accordingly, here are the quotes you demand: "Does that really get your goat Cassie? Does stuff like this really make you feel hard-done-by?" and " . . .your obsession (c.f. the Northern Irish 'rights' thing that you posted)."
If it pleases you!
You've shifted onto other ground now! Since you insist, I'll respond to your original accusations in kind. For convenience, here they are:(1) See above.
(2) In the absence of particulars, I dispute this!
(3) I dispute this, see the evidence above.
(4) My conclusions are based on what you post here.
You might care to take your own advice, instead of trying to send me on expeditions to discover what you are supposed to have said or meant!


------------------------------------------