If we are to believe some remainers this is the first UK election campaign ever where politicians have been creative with statistics or bent arguments to suit their point of view.

Some of us remember 2010 when Cameron and Clegg said we wouldn't need to make any cuts - looking at the nations finances we knew they were lying but they still got elected anyway as the alternative was even more dishonest.

If this was a reason to negate the result on 23 June then we might as well reverse every general election result for the last 30 years!

We did what we always do - weighed up the arguments and the BS and then cast our votes. Maybe the voters aren't as stupid as some remainers - but not most - think they are.

Good points.
My main concern is that acceptance of lies or BS as you call them is a pernicious route to take.
My view is that lies devalue the democratic process. We should demand better from our elected representatives.
Personally I would make them personally responsible for broken promises - "No top-down reorganisation of the NHS?"
I would also make it illegal to enact changes to public services unless there is proof that it will be for the better ...... but ignorant politicians acting out their whims is a whole other problem.

I think it will be a long. cold winter before the UK (including Scotland) will be given a referendum ever again.

This one has been so divisive, so badly prepared, so disgracefully fought, and so open to legal queries ..... I'm inclined to agree.

It was only ever held to appease a bunch of angry populists / protesters and in the (mistaken) belief there was zero chance of it being passed.

The referendum was not an election after which the result could be reversed after a few years. Is was a far-reaching decision based in a tissue of lies and deceipt. If you were content to accept that you must have been, sadly, either very naïve or just plain bonkers.

Well when you consider we never had any referendums during the 80's, 90's and 00's yet had 2 (3 if you are Scottish) in the space of 5 years. Infact according to wikipedia there have only been 3 UK wide referendums and 2 of them were on the membership of the EEC/EU.

Except those you win, eh?

How do you cost the uncostable? Sovereignty, security, influence, the desire (or not) to be amongst those many nations not part of a supranational quasi-sate like the EU? The list goes on and on. Many if not most of these things are subjective ... not quantifiable.
That's even before we get onto the simply unknowable costs or benefits of being in or out of the EU.

If the electorate can't be asked to make such a decision then by extension neither can those we elect. The logical conclusion of your position is that the UK electorate nor it's government should ever have been allowed to take us into the EU in the first place. In or out it was, is and always will be largely uncostable, and in the final analysis a political decision, subjective in nature whoever mad it - elected politicians or the electorate.

We had referendums to introduce the Scottish and Welsh devolved administrations and the Mayor of London in the 1990s

Fair point, but the idea being discussed is whether more policy decisions should be taken by referendum in the future, and what the EU referendum shows is that putting a major issue to the vote without having a clear idea of the possible outcomes causes problems. It could be that other propositions could be decided without the kind of acrimony that this one has generated, which is why I gave the legalisation of marijuana as an example. Would people on both sides of the debate spend months debating the issue after the vote if we voted to legalise weed?

Yes they might if the result of the vote was close and groups were able to raise legal objections to whichever way the vote went. Most especially as regards the controls that would be enforced if it was legalised.