Scotland Indyref 2

seosamh,
Oh come on;
Can you genuinely not see the relationship between brexitters saying “They need us more than we need them”, and you saying "Is rUK just going to give up on the £60bn on exports they send up here?"

Really? :O)

Is that because we will be in such a strong position in the negotiations that the rUK will roll over and give us what we want?
Is it because worldwide trade restrictions and rules [wether we are in the EU or out of it] will bend to our very will?

Also, Do you have no comment on whether brexit would have got off the ground if EU supported UK to the tune of 140Bn out of 772Bn spending a year in free money?
I mean you DO claim that scexit will get off the ground with the UK supporting scotland to the tune of 14Bn out of 77Bn spending a year (ish?) in free money?

What a great thread for a Friday.

Some thoughts. You can break down Brexit however you want to make your argument stick. 38% of people in Scotland voted to leave. London vote to remaim. It's not that simple and it not an England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland argument.

If Scotland were to break away from the UK they would have to stand along for a period of time before applying to join the EU. This would include meeting the economic criteria which is not certain they would. They would also have to establish their own independent currency. You cannot be linked to another (like the pound, dollar, Euro).

And let's not even talk about the exit negotiation. If you think Brexit has been complicated Scotland leaving would be much worse.

I think we all benefit from being together. I am British and only English when we play rugby. I even found myself at Twickenham chanting for Scotland when they sadly lost their final match of the 2015 rugby world cup. So I hope we all contunue to stick together through thick and thin.

Merry Christmas.

they would also have to establish their own independent currency. You cannot be linked to another (like the pound, dollar, Euro).

Aha, a man who knows. Perfect. Can you point us to the bit of the EU rules where that is made clear? We've been struggling to find it. TIA.

eat_the_pudding

Member

seosamh
Did you just say “They need us more than we need them” ..

Ah yeah, it's that thing when your argument is based entirely on just pretending the other guy said something he didn't.

Welcome scotroutes,
I see you're here to point out uncertainty (on the exact rules and future interpretation of EU policies on currency which may be unfavourable to your point of view),
But reluctant to deal with facts, on the deficit, the rate of growth required to avoid austerity in a future indy scotland, where the cuts would fall if required, and how long it would be before we could meet criteria to rejoin the EU?

Good job!

I'm probably away from this thread for the holidays unless I get bored.
Happy Solstice (and associated celebrations) everyone :O)
Do some of what makes you happy with the people who make you happy.
[coke/hookers]

Another few questions.

How much revenue did the UK get from oil over the last few years? (My understanding is there's no separation of the sources shown in govt figures)

Is any of that allocated to Scottish waters?

If you were running an independent Scotland would you stick to the current UK system of taxing it, or adopt the methods used by other countries? Possibly Norway, or a Middle East model.

seosamh,
You said;

Is rUK just going to give up on the £60bn on exports they send up here?

If you replace rUK with EU and you can't see that that sentence is similar to arguments made by brexiters, then I can't help you.

I realise you don't see yourself as a brexiter and I certainly don't see you as one, but you've just used a very similar argument (and one you could and would easily debunk yourself in an EU thread).

Have a Happy midwinter :O)

neilv
If Scotland were to break away from the UK they would have to stand along for a period of time before applying to join the EU.

Your source for that?

I mean you DO claim that scexit will get off the ground with the UK supporting scotland to the tune of 14Bn out of 77Bn spending a year (ish?) in free money?

You've read the growth commision, you base a lot of your arguments on it, so why are you still claiming that it can't get off the ground.

The suggested deficit reduction could take 5 to 10 years.

[img] [/img]

As for growth.

[img] [/img]

Once again, R&D example, but the UK and scotland are piss poor.. Still Better together eh, defo working. Scotland can't possibly be doing better than this..

One might call the attitude of Scotland can't possibly do better than us, British exceptionalism.. eh.. 😆

Anyhow, brexit just got done a minute ago, so I guess UK attitude to trade will be a known position long before any ref.

Anyhoo, have a good yin!

A key unknown is "How awkward is Westminster going to be over the financial divorce?

Share the assets, share the debt, co operate and a smooth pass thru a transition period where Scotland uses the pound.
Then the euro which would be IMO the only sensible choice long term

Or

Westminster has a tantrum, declares the bank of England belongs to it, Scotland takes none of the debt, Gets none of the assets. Euro immediately or Scottish pound backed by oil with no debt

The other is what party is in power in a post independence Scotland? These are decisions for a post independence Government to make. I could see Scotlands parties of the left make a resurgence perhaps with the left of the SNP

seosamh .. OK
I'm going after this one ...

oil revenue is in the graph I put on the previous page. I think those graphs from ("kevverages" blog) show all the oil revenue added to the scottish "non oil" revenue to show if the oil would get rid of the deficit. In the 80s oh yes, now, definitely not.
Overall black bit went to the UK, red bit came up to scotland, roughly equal areas (red beating black more as we go into the future).

Your comment about recovering from deficit. Two answers
a) thats the future so epi-nomics says we can't possibly know.
b) thats the bit of the report that a lot of people have issues with. The rate of growth required is not impossible but very unlikely. It's a trip back to the "celtic tiger" predictions, and failure to launch could have serious consequences for the finances of scotland, and more importantly its people.

That report has a lot of facts in it (for an SNP economic report meant to feed indy), but where exaggeration was possible, and benficial, it was used.
e.g. Nicola is fond of saying (repeatedly) that the economic guidance in there would have meant that scotland needed no austerity over the last X years. But it doesn't. It suggests pinning spending to growth (as I recall) and that would have required austerity. But she'll never ever say that.

Definitely off now.
Can I just say (because its christmas) that although we all get a bit heated now and again, that the tone and discussion here could teach other social media a lot.
Have a good one everyone.

why does Westminster want to keep Scotland if we cost so much money?

neilv

Subscriber

If Scotland were to break away from the UK they would have to stand along for a period of time before applying to join the EU.

Why do you think that?

neilv

This would include meeting the economic criteria which is not certain they would.

There isn't any real doubt. The economic criteria for joining the EU are pretty undemanding, it's the criteria for joining the euro which are trickier but these two things were kept intentionally separate.

In fact it's the rule-of-law and rights criteria which have caused almost all of the challenges for new and prospective members, and we start out aligned on that and are incredibly unlikely to want to diverge.

neilv

They would also have to establish their own independent currency. You cannot be linked to another (like the pound, dollar, Euro).

We've covered this at some length already but no, there is nothing in any of the EU rules or treaties that requires a new member country to have its own currency. It would be a difficulty if joining the euro but these are not the same. Using the pound certainly could become a specific issue, if the RUK decided to diverge massively from the EU or suffered a massive ecomomic collapse but tbf in those cases using the pound at all would be a terrible idea.

None of this stuff is mysterious- the rules for joining the EU are laid out, boringly and exhaustively, in treaties, and we can also see how they've worked in practice with all of the previous enlargements.

@poah - this is what I keep asking myself as an Englishman. Give the Scots their ref. If they want to stay, great, but then leave the independence stuff for a long time this time rather than demanding it again 5 years later (I accept with Brexit they should get another go as circumstances have changed since 2014). If they want to go l, also fine, it's their democratic right. I think it would be a shame, but there would be a silver lining as English taxpayers would almost certainly save a bit of money.

Only way to end the debate, have the indyref2!

Good Lordy! 109 pages.... have you lot not left yet? C’mon, spit spot. 😉

Tom Zesty Scotland does have a right to choose.

as English taxpayers would almost certainly save a bit of money.

Go on then, tell us how?

Don’t know why you guys are arguing about this. It’s a simple democratic right of a country to vote on its own future. If the Scottish parliament votes to have a referendum (which it did) then it should have the power to go ahead with that referendum.

It’s a joke that the Westminster government with 6 MPs in Scotland is saying no. Should be exactly the same for Wales and Northern Ireland being able to decide their own future.

If you are arguing against that is it because you reckon they are colonies and Westminster should make the big decisions? Perhaps then we should ditch the pretence of a union and call it what it is a little empire.

What do you think of this?

[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49249276048_8eb9f22e95_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49249276048_8eb9f22e95_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

Don’t know why you guys are arguing about this. It’s a simple democratic right of a country to vote on its own future.

Totally agree. And in the election last week around 55% of Scottish voters voted for parties opposed to a second referendum.

Therefore all Westminster is doing is respecting the wishes of the majority of Scots rather than giving in to a (admittedly very vocal) minority.

In the same way that Boris has no actual mandate for Brexit. Two examples of our absurd first past the post voting system.

I think it's exceptionalist rubbish, Scotland more social, more internationalist etc

It's reheating the "get the rUK wound up so they want to get rid of us " strategy

Anyway how long is a generation? Just trying to judge how long we are going to be debating for.

Second thoughts when does Alec go on trial, it would explain the SNP haste to get momentum in to the campaign before the dirty washing gets aired

Anyway how long is a generation?

It was once in a generation, unless there was a material change in circumstance, folk seem to conveniently forget this bit.

I'd say that taking us out of the EU fulfils that change in circumstance.

Should be exactly the same for Wales and Northern Ireland being able to decide their own future.

But not Northern England?

Last I checked northern England isn't a country.

That, and lots of it is a Tory heartland...

big_n_daft
...Second thoughts when does Alec go on trial, it would explain the SNP haste to get momentum in to the campaign before the dirty washing gets aired

Can you explain why that should change our views on independence?

Once in a generation? When does a casual remark become law?

Can you find it in the actual agreement?

[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47737132162_43c29cfb87_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47737132162_43c29cfb87_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

And it's not in the Smith Commission either...

kennyp

Totally agree. And in the election last week around 55% of Scottish voters voted for parties opposed to a second referendum.

I already showed you the manifestos proving that to be bull.

molgrips

But not Northern England?

If the north of england was sitting 50:50 for it's own state, we'd know all about it.

They, like wales, can speak for themselves.

You will have to post the bit where a material change is mentioned as a reason for yet another referendum

Can you explain why that should change our views on independence?

Depends on how many of the leading lights of the SNP are left in a year. Regardless of guilt it's going to be messy

The Conservative and Liberal manifestos said they were opposed to a second referendum. The Labour manifesto said they were opposed to one definitely in the first few years and not certain after that.

The majority of Scots voters opted for one of those parties. Therefore respecting the wishes of the Scottish people (as the SNP are very fond of saying) means respecting their desire not to have another decisive referendum.

big_n_daft

Member
You will have to post the bit where a material change is mentioned as a reason for yet another referendum

Do you have anything other than sound bytes to offer? Could be forgiven for thinking you're just out to get a rise...

kennyp

Subscriber
The Conservative and Liberal manifestos said they were opposed to a second referendum. The Labour manifesto said they were opposed to one definitely in the first few years and not certain after that.

So not a majority for absolute no then...

What you actually had was 46% yes to ref, 35.1% no. 18.6% sitting on the fence, but not for a couple of years.

Somewhat different to what you portray.

No but a majority for no referendum for at least the next few years. If the next Scottish election sees a change then fair enough but for now the voters do not want one.

Not gonny get one for a few years anyhow.

Indeed and I’m biking in the morning so off to bed. Have a happy Christmas whatever your views.

Aye aw the best. I'm done for now I think anyhow. 😆

@gordimhor - I literally said they have the democratic right to choose? I'm in favour of the ref.

@seosamh77 - as I understand it, and I may be wrong, Westminster sends more money to Scotland than Scotland pays back in taxes (much like most other areas of Britain other than SE). Therefore, if Scotland were independent Westminster would have more net money.

Peace on earth and goodwill to all men... Nah that'll never catch on

@seosamh77 – as I understand it, and I may be wrong, Westminster sends more money to Scotland than Scotland pays back in taxes (much like most other areas of Britain other than SE). Therefore, if Scotland were independent Westminster would have more net money.

I guess you've not read a thing I've been posting. 😆

Headline - It's all fired on the credit card..

ps there's only 3 area of the uk that don't run a deficit.

London, South East, and East of England.

But they get subsidised in other ways, ie 75% of private investment goes to their way. Which is government policy.

So it's a bit off to say they subsidise the rest of the uk when the system is rigged so they get the vast majority the private investment (considerably more than a population share.)..

@tom Zesty. Yes I understood that and considered not posting, however its the language used. If a person or group have a right, that right cannot be "given" or taken away by others..

Anyway peace and goodwill to all.

big_n_daft

Member

I think it’s exceptionalist rubbish, Scotland more social, more internationalist etc

Aye, there's no evidence for that at all, I mean it's not like we voted against brexit while every other part of the UK voted for, or anything, or voted once again for a left of centre party while everyone else votes for another Tory government which we haven't voted for here since 1959.

TBH I'm not convinced you even know what exceptionalist means. Which is weird, because it really does mean exactly what it sounds like- thinking that you are exceptional. And frankly most of the independence movement is about saying actually, we're not at all exceptional, we just want the same perfectly normal things loads of other countries have.

We're not the ones talking about being "unshackled from the EU" "unleashing our potential". Or thinking there's something wrong with only being the 5th biggest economy in the world. Or for that matter, thinking that there's something exceptionally bad about us that means we can't compete with other similar economies and that we have to slash corporation taxes to attract investment. Or that we can't run our own trains, but the Dutch, French, German and Italian governments should do it for us.

Or that we can’t run our own trains, but the Dutch, French, German and Italian governments should do it for us.

Turns out they’re **** at running them for us too 😉

Some of you guys are misunderstanding this completely. The Scottish Parliament should be able to decide on a referendum. If they want to have one every year they should be able to do that.

My point was Westminster should not be able to veto that. The Scots should be able to decide their own future.

All this stuff about once in a generation and what do the people of northern England want is absolute bullshit.

big_n_daft
Depends on how many of the leading lights of the SNP are left in a year. Regardless of guilt it’s going to be messy

Ah, you think the "leading lights" of the independence movement are the motivators behind independence, do you?

Mow them down if you like, there's plenty more where they came from.

aberdeenlune
Some of you guys are misunderstanding this completely. The Scottish Parliament should be able to decide on a referendum. If they want to have one every year they should be able to do that.

My point was Westminster should not be able to veto that. The Scots should be able to decide their own future.

That would never do, it sounds dangerously like actual democracy, not the pretendy version of Her Majesty's "United Kingdom".

Ah, you think the “leading lights” of the independence movement are the motivators behind independence, do you?

Mow them down if you like, there’s plenty more where they came from.

Absolutely. As I told a lot of SNP haters in 2014, the only way to get rid of them is to vote yes.

Scottish Labour would be as well changing tact too, Indy will happen sooner or later, unless they want left on the outside again as they are in Westminster.

Or they could continue up here to be a complete irrelevance.

Smith and Dewar must be turning in their graves.

@gordimhor - sorry, didn't mean it to come across that way. I genuinely feel Scotland should have the choice and have the right to choose, and you should get your ref. I was just basically saying, I want Scotland to have it and make their choice so that we can move on either way.

@seosamh77 - 'ps there’s only 3 area of the uk that don’t run a deficit' I know that, i said so in my last post? I'm not from the SE by the way, I wasn't trying to say I'm rich and I subsidise you. Apologies if it came across that way, I meant no offence or disrespect. I have read your arguments, but I have also read other people's. As usual in politics and economics, people spin figures to suit their argument. For example, you and eat the pudding are saying quite different things from genuine sources. It brings me back to my earlier point: have a referendum and your say and see how everyone else feels.

Happy Christmas to all!!

I wasn’t trying to say I’m rich and I subsidise you. Apologies if it came across that way, I meant no offence or disrespect

I never took it that way so no worries. It's just worth pointing out that there's no subsidies in the uk, it's just getting put on the credit for everyone. It's even got £3.5bn allocated in GERS toward the interest payments.

Which incidently.

Given the uk debt for 17/18(the latest we get numbers for the uk) was £2564.4bn. Constisting of £2,013.8bn in assets, and £4,579.2bn in liabilities.

For the same period, Scotlands interest payments were £3.688bn, according to gers.

Which if you take a direct population share of all that basically means Scotland pays this roughly £3.5bn yearly to maintain an asset and liability balance of around.

£165bn assets. £375.5bn in liabilities. So the net debt is about £210bn.

So about a 1.7% yearly interest rate, to maintain Sotlands chunk of the interest. (The debt is never getting paid off!)

So there is no subsidy, Scotland maintains it's own debt. I'd imagine it'll be similar for other regions.

This is the state of Scotlands finances within the UK

Tbh, I don't particularly think me and ETP disagree on the figures all the much. Where we disagree is really just a case of what comes next. I think the UK hinders Scotland and he thinks it helps.

And just to support my last statement... Comparing it to the 5 similar sized EU nations...

[img] [/img]

I want Scotland to have it and make their choice so that we can move on either way.

The independence campaign won't stop until "yes", the only question is how often the vote is done. "No" is only a postponement pending yet another vote.

And that is the core logic behind the scenes. There isn't a killer argument, there is the wearing down of opposition to tip the scales to 50%+1 vote

Hopefully the iS campaign will be more "civic" than the last iteration.

big_n_daft
...Hopefully the iS campaign will be more “civic” than the last iteration.

Yes, the behaviour of the Unionists was abominable.

It would be nice if there was a balanced media too, instead of about 95% anti-independence.

And no Magic Postal Votes...

Yes, the behaviour of the Unionists was abominable.

Dressing as snowmen?

It would be nice if there was a balanced media too, instead of about 95% anti-independence

Surely the fervent iS supporters are more than happy to buy multiple newspapers, magazines, and subscribe to other pro independence outlets? They must realise the need to sustain pro iS media buy actually buying it?

Or does everyone rely on BBC and Channel 4 for everything?

And no Magic Postal Votes…

electoral fraud???

I'm surprised that the establishment managed to get away with it, better start tAking your own pens in to mark the ballot paper
https://wingsoverscotland.com/our-man-on-the-scene/

But still it's better to keep the conspiracy theories going

I agree the postal votes thing is just a conspiracy theory.

aberdeenlune
I agree the postal votes thing is just a conspiracy theory.

I really do hope you're right because we're stuffed if not.

epicyclo

I really do hope you’re right because we’re stuffed if not.

Paranoid nonsense, you should give the conspiracy stuff a wide berth, it's not good for the argument. People like big and daft will just taunt you and the argument turns to shit.

GERS supporters, can you confirm, deny or explain this. It's not a leading question, I'm genuinely interested.

Saw something elsewhere about tax revenue from Scottish whisky, Vs the amount raised in RoI from whiskey. They do tax the arse out of booze in Ireland, but even accounting for that, Ireland makes much more in tax revenue from whiskey Vs Scotland's revenue in GERS despite much, much less turnover

The explanation was the GERS numbers are "reallocated". For example, if Scottish whisky was ultimately exported from an English port etc, then that tax revenue would be allocated to England. They also mentioned Scotland produces a disproportionate amount of the world's gin but again tax is handled in a similar way to whisky

Is that true or false?

The explanation was the GERS numbers are “reallocated”. For example, if Scottish whisky was ultimately exported from an English port etc, then that tax revenue would be allocated to England.

Don't really see how that could be the case, there's no export duty, so a company will just get taxed on it's profits surely same as any company?

I don't know, I'm guessing. I'd guess the ultimate decider is where a particularly companies head office is located for tax purposes on whether the tax revenue is allocated to scotland? Which isn't any different for any company?

Quick google would suggest there's 2 sides to the argument.

Internal sales and exports.

On Exports, there's no special tax, so the companies will just get taxed on their profits like a normal company, so I guess just depends on the head office location no doubt. (whisky exports are worth about £4.7bn for 17/18, but obviously government receipts are just a percentage of profits a company makes, I've no idea if that export number equates total yearly profits for the whisky industy, if it does corporation tax is 19%, so tax collected probably amounts to about £893m on those. )
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-47211794

On the internal sales, it really just comes under the way theres extra tax put on domestic sales of alcohol as a whole. Similar to duty in cigarettes

Quick google suggests:

So that's worth about £10.5billion. So taking a straight geographical share, you'd imagine scotland's share is about x .082, so about £861m.

If Scotland was independent, it couldn't claim the £9.6bn from the rUK, that would be a rUK tax and nothing to do with Scotland.

I really do hope you’re right because we’re stuffed if not.

I think you are alledging the ballots were stuffed not the people

But say anything as long as you think it gets you closer to 50%+1

Westminster has no incentive to agree to Indy ref2 if no-one can say when Indy ref3 or 4 or 5 will be. Agreeing to one on a sub 20 year timeline sets the precedent for repeating the pain every 4-6 years

whisky exports are worth about £4.7bn for 17/18, but obviously government receipts are just a percentage of profits a company makes,

A lot of the distilleries are foreign owned, I imagine they will be paying corporation tax abroad eg Louis Vuitton

Good points re foreign ownership

Does GERS get that granular? Or does it simply say turnover x 19%?

There will be tax over and above duty for alcohol sales btw, as the companies will still get tax on their profits.

No idea how to figure that out.

BoardinBob

Subscriber
Good points re foreign ownership

Does GERS get that granular? Or does it simply say turnover x 19%?

About as detailed as it gets.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

There will be tax over and above duty for alcohol sales btw, as the companies will still get tax on their profits.

They do get taxed on profits but the large foreign owned companies tend to shift it to their head office jurisdiction using group overheads to move the profit to where they want it . Essentially the Starbucks/Amazon/Apple/Guardian Media Group problem. Higher tax rates increases the incentives to do this.

big_n_daft
Westminster has no incentive to agree to Indy ref2 if no-one can say when Indy ref3 or 4 or 5 will be. Agreeing to one on a sub 20 year timeline sets the precedent for repeating the pain every 4-6 years

And the problem with that is?

Premier Icon
kennyp

Subscriber
No but a majority for no referendum for at least the next few years. If the next Scottish election sees a change then fair enough but for now the voters do not want one.

So you are telling us that anybody who didn’t vote SNP was voting purely on preserving the union? Hahahaha

And the problem with that is?

Ok t devalues a "no" vote, if every time you vote no you get asked again within a short period, but if 50%+1 vote "yes" once that is it forever. Which vote is worth more, "no" or "yes"?

I suppose the argument would be it's preparation for future EU membership where referendums are repeated until the "right" answer is achieved.

big_n_daft
if every time you vote no you get asked again within a short period, but if 50%+1 vote “yes” once that is it forever. Which vote is worth more, “no” or “yes”?

Democracy is so inconvenient isn't it?

You are assuming the Unionists would be denied their democratic right to organise for a referendum to engage in a treaty with the UK.

Democracy is so inconvenient isn’t it?

This response to a nuanced issue (equivilence of yes and no votes and the repetition of referenda) shows the real strategy, keep asking until you get what you want then batten down the hatches and shout "democratic will of the people"

big_n_daft
..., keep asking until you get what you want then batten down the hatches and shout “democratic will of the people”

Really?
What evidence do you have that an independent Scotland would remove the right of its citizens to pursue democracy?

I'm not in favour of a neverendum but if the electorate keep voting for a party with a referendum in its manifesto then that really is democracy in action.

Exactly, those arguing against a referendum are the anti democracy ones. If the Scottish parliaments votes for a referendum then we should have one. If it’s a no in a 2020 referendum then surely the pro union parties will do well in the 2021 Scottish parliamentary elections and that will be it for a while.

Use your vote and have an influence on it.

big_n_daft

Would you agree to one of it was written into the section 30 order that it's not to be asked again for another 25 years?

A parliament cannot bind its successors.

In any case the whole Section 30 order question needs to be put to bed. It should not be for any UK government to subvert the will of the Scottish people. If there is a mandate in Scotland for a referendum then a referendum should be held.

"This House endorses the principles of the Claim of Right for Scotland, agreed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in 1989 and by the Scottish Parliament in 2012, and therefore acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs."

House of Commons, 4th July 2018.

Ye, but the the 1989 claim of right has no force in law. Despite commons endorsement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_of_Right_1989

Legal significance
The Claim of Right has never had or claimed any legal force. On 4 July 2018, the House of Commons officially endorsed the principles of the Claim of Right, agreeing that the people of Scotland are sovereign and that they have the right to determine the best form of government for Scotland's needs. However this was a non-binding endorsement and did not create any legal recognition of the Claim of Right.[4]

It's obviously SNP policy to give it legal force, it's half their argument at the minute, don't fancy their chances though.

In any case the whole Section 30 order question needs to be put to bed. It should not be for any UK government to subvert the will of the Scottish people. If there is a mandate in Scotland for a referendum then a referendum should be held.

we did have a vote recently mind. Surely you can see big_n_daft’s point about holding frequent referenda until 50%+1 is achieved. The last referendum was so acrimonious, it’s not something I’d be keen to go through again. However, maybe sufficient change has taken place to warrant another - I’d sooner wait until we’ve seen what can be learned from Brexit.

Really?
What evidence do you have that an independent Scotland would remove the right of its citizens to pursue democracy?

Seriously, do you think the people arguing for another referendum, will be as keen to have a referendum looking to rejoin rUK in 5 years time? I for one cannot see it!

acrimonious

It really wasn't.

Seriously, do you think the people arguing for another referendum, will be as keen to have a referendum looking to rejoin rUK in 5 years time?

If Scotland leaves the UK, then rejoining it at a future date will not be Scotlands decision alone to make.