Worth noting that the Scottish First Minister has just described Scenario 1 from this article - that the Scottish Parliament could veto the Brexit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-3663...

what the Scottish National Party really wants, as the name suggests, is an independent Scotland inside the shelter of the EU.

Unlike the Brexit camp, Nicola Sturgeon seems seem to be calm, collected and have a plan. Not to mention, they have a loaded gun: "You want Scotland to stay? We'll veto the brexit". "You want us to honour your democratic wishes? Then let Scotland go first."

Aka a how to manual on how to irreversibly damage British democracy...

Well, but which do you prefer, that or irreversibly damaging British economy?

Also, Scenario 1 (or any other way that involves showing that the UK can't leave) doesn't really damage democracy, it just destroys Cameron's credibility for making a promise he can't fulfil. The Scotland Act problem makes me think that Scotland really will be able to stay in the EU, either by independence from the UK or by derailing the whole process.

Damaging an economy is reversible. Damaging democracy is unforgivable.

To all the angry young British people: you now have a choice as to the future of the UK in Europe. Perhaps you'll become politically active and campaign to rejoin. That's fine. But a 'remain' vote last week would have deprived you and your children of any choice for the next 40 years.

I see this as a 'Vietnam moment' for British young people, that opens their eyes to how politics affects their lives and hopefully invigorates them to take part.

But trying to short circuit democracy with lawyer-style technical trickery is not the course to take.

I find it interesting that despite all the angst, I can't imagine any politician or party actively campaigning to rejoin. Especially on the Full Ticket (Schengen and the Euro). Maybe that will change with future generations of politicians as you've mentioned, but it's hard to imagine right now when the whole project seems to lurch from crisis to crisis (economic stagnation, youth unemployment, impoverished Southern member states, migration crises, etc.)

Lib Dems are campaigning on not leaving (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-refe...). However I'm fairly sure even they wouldn't be stupid enough to campaign to rejoin after leaving, since that would mean joining the Euro which no one wants.

Given that the leave camp completely torpedoed there entire argument for leaving inside 24hrs of the vote and that large parts of the electorate are now wondering what the hell they voted for I could see the argument for waiting to see if the situation materially changes and then running another referendum.

It's quite possible that when the dust settles that the UK and EU might reach terms for something that would be palatable to more people in which case another referendum would be reasonable.

I don't think anyone really knows what the hell is going to happen next since not even leave expected to win.

British democracy is screwed either way.

Either you have to break the Scotland Act of 1998 to Brexit or you use the Scotland Act of 1998 as an excuse not to Brexit.

Considering that British democracy has been using 1984 as a manual for a few years now and this referendum was more mob rule than a case study in direct democracy I would say it's actually the opposite.

Democracy isn't about the majority forcing their will on minorities it's also not about a shifting slim majority blocking everything for the other side just because they can.