Talk:Scotland Act 1978

Contradiction
This article claims that the Scotland Act 1978 was repealed in July of the following year by order, apparently in accordance with this 40% amendment that's mentioned. It also claims that Parliament repealed it in March 1979. This would have been before the general election in May, and indeed the article claims the vote on repeal precipitated the collapse of the government, but the claim about repeal by order asserts that this took place after the election. This looks like a glaring error, Wikipedia, and if it isn't, it must be very poorly worded because I'm left very confused about when and how the repeal took place, and whether it had anything to do with the collapse of the government in 1979. Who adds this stuff to articles without bothering to even read what's written a couple of sentences away, and without bothering to cite a source? Can someone resolve the apparent contradiction? 86.136.94.95 02:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The order was tabelled in March 1979 following the vote results, but it was not voted on by Parliament until the July. See The Holyrood Inquiry Report for more information. I'll update the article to make this clear. Astrotrain 11:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Astrotrain. But what is the March vote referred to in the section you cut:
 * "' ==Collapse of the Labour government=='"
 * "'The Scotland Act 1978 was repealed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in March 1979, by a vote of 301-206 in the House of Commons, initiating the collapse of the Labour government in the subsequent vote of no-confidence.'"
 * --Mais oui! 12:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added back the vote of no confidence issue. I am not sure about the March vote refered to, it could be an error on the part of the original writer of that section. It is quite difficult to get sources on legislation etc in that period (at least on the web). Astrotrain 12:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Uniqueness of 40% rule
The 40% rule itself wasn't unique - Denmark has that exact rule for constitutional changes (see Danish Act of Succession referendum, 2009 for the most recent example) and other countries may have a minimum support level as well (and certainly quite a few have requirements for constitutional referendums that are more than "50%+1 of valid ballot papers"). Are there any sources from the time detailing the reasoning behind the rule? Timrollpickering (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)