Scotland Indyref 2

So how come you originally stated “the vast majority

Because the last time I saw any polling on this it was the vast majority

Who made the rule? I don’t think it was this government.

Rules, not ‘ruling’. The UK gov have been fairly clear that they won’t allow another indyref.

To use the time-worn analogy of a marriage, this is a bit like one party in a marriage being told by the other ‘sorry, you can only leave when I say so.’ Telling the people of Scotland, ‘No, you can’t make this decision for yourselves’ is not going to make this issue go away. It’s going to breed anger and resentment, and that’s not a healthy thing in any relationship.

Because the last time I saw any polling on this it was the vast majority

When? Where?

I have not believed the UK was a union of equals for a long long time. Still disturbing to hear it layed out in plain language.

Broad brush comment: treating Scotland as a prisoner not a partner might play well with certain “unionist through strength” voters both sides of the border, but it will only strengthen support for independence more generally north of the border.

Rules, not ‘ruling’. The UK gov have been fairly clear that they won’t allow another indyref.

I’m not talking about todays ruling, I was meaning when was the rule written that Scotland needed UK government approval for a referendum. Was it 10, 20, 50 or hundreds of years ago?

Its part of the scotland act that set up holyrood

constitutional matters are reserved for westminster

1988.

Of course, this question could have been put to the courts any time since 2014. That’s eight years of the SNP sitting on their hands, but it’s given them power over that period so not a total loss for them. I’m sure they can milk a few more election wins out of this latest ruling too.

Oh dear you have become cynical 🙂

Become?

So in law terms it’s recent legislation not some archaic centuries old agreement.

When there was no distinct Scottish Government there was no one who could call a referendum. All the 1988 act says is that while setting up a Scottish Government, the UK government reserved certain (most) powers for itself.

However, it still doesn’t change the fact that the majority did vote for Brexit

The majority of Brits did not. You live in Britain. So by your own logic you have to suck it up like the rest of us, no?

I’m trying to provoke a debate about nationalism, but failing again. Because so many nats (here and in Scotland) are starting on the premise that they are fundamentally different from other Brits and that they are being oppressed in some different way to English people whose views are also being ignored by Westminster.

I mean, I have some ideas on the psychology behind why you might think that way. I also have to think about the same issues here in Wales.

Wasn’t independence support much lower in the past?

I’m trying to provoke a debate about nationalism

Nope, you’re trying to wind people up by saying that Scotland is just another region like any other English region.

Which it’s not.

Because so many nats (here and in Scotland) are starting on the premise that they are fundamentally different from other Brits and that they are being oppressed in some different way to English people whose views are also being ignored by Westminster.

literally no one is saying this here at all

The difference is that Scotland is a separate country and we have a path ( even if difficult) to independence and we elected a scottish government on the basis of having another referendum

When Yorkshire votes for a yorkshire independence party and gains a majority for that party they can do the same thing

I know you do not mean it but by continually making this false assertation on the basis of incomplete understanding its actually pretty offensive

we elected a scottish government on the basis of having another referendum

Despite being told you couldn’t have one?

Yup – thats the democratic deficit

the people of Scotland have voted to have another referendum and we are being denied one by Westminster. so much for democracy

literally no one is saying this here at all

Yes you are, without meaning to:

The difference is that Scotland is a separate country

That’s what that ^^ actually means.

Scotland isn’t a separate country at all. It’s part of the UK. It was a separate country 300 years ago, then they joined. It’s a country, but not a separate one self-evidently otherwise you wouldn’t need an independence referendum!

Despite being told you couldn’t have one?

To be fair, we were also told this was a voluntary union.

Moley – when in a hole stop digging

I don’t comment on Welsh politics because I know I do not know enough

You have misunderstood a basic proposition here and following that misunderstanding reach erroneous conclusions which are highly offensive

It was a separate country 300 years ago, then they joined.

So Scotland is just another region? No different from any other English region?

Despite being told you couldn’t have one?

So Scotland is just another region? No different from any other English region?

You tell me. Is it? I think it’s a country within a country. A country, but not a separate one clearly.

This isn’t about Scottish politics at this point it’s about history and humanity.

As I said before I am rather sympathetic to the cause, but for different reasons than many on here seem to be.

I’m not a paid-up member of the independence cause but to me Brexit counts as enough of a material change to what the UK is that I think that another referendum is justifiable. I do somewhat feel that if it weren’t for Brexit, holding another referendum relatively soon after the last one would be harder to justify.

When a reasonable argument for a referendum was first made a Tory (well coalition) government accepted the argument and allowed for a referendum. But now a Tory government won’t accept what seems to be a reasonable argument for a second one. It seems like another case where the UK’s constitutional affairs rely on the “good chap” theory (in this case that a UK government will accept a request to hold an independence referendum if there is good cause) and that principle is hitting against a distinct lack of “good chaps” in the current government.

You tell me. Is it?

Scotland is a small European country. Whether that’s as a full EU member, EFTA member, or stuck outside against it’s will forevermore only time will tell.

You consider yourself British first. That’s fine. I consider myself to be European first. That is also fine and doesn’t make me ‘just like a Brexiteer’ as you always like to imply.

This isn’t about Scottish politics at this point it’s about history and humanity.

Nope, getting hung up on history and nostagia is not the way to go about this. It’s about the future.

Just have an advisory referendum & if Westminster complains about the result just refer them to the 2016 event 🤣

This ruling is that they can’t hold an advisory referendum.

It’s the choice of the UK gov, not the Scottish one… which could mean that there may never be a legal case for an independance referendum if the rUK keeps voting in governments that deny Scotland one, no matter how people in Scotland vote. All legally sound, but it’s not democracy.

Jesus, I didn’t realise that, this country* really has gone to the dogs.

*UK but mostly I blame England ☹️

It’s the choice of the UK gov, not the Scottish one… which could mean that there may never be a legal case for an independance referendum if the rUK keeps voting in governments that deny Scotland one, no matter how people in Scotland vote

I think realistically once there is an overwhelming pro-Independence sentiment in Scotland the UK govt would concede that a referendum was inevitable. You could argue that what the UK government is doing is preventing the Scottish govt from cherry picking its moment enabling it to get Independence even if it’s only by a 50.1% majority. Like Brexit, Indie is pretty much irreversible & I personally think you need to demonstrate that it isn’t something that a majority is going to regret a couple of years down the line (like you know what)

it isn’t something that a majority is going to regret a couple of years down the line

No country that’s gained independence from the UK has ever asked to come back. If all those countries don’t regret it, why would Scotland?

why would Scotland?

Dunno. Perhaps if it turned out to be a complete shambles & all the supposed benefits of Independence didn’t live up to expectations & all the warnings of the problems it would cause which were dismissed as Project Fear turned out to be accurate? (Like you know what)

I think realistically once there is an overwhelming pro-Independence sentiment in Scotland the UK govt would concede that a referendum was inevitable.

I get what your saying and I’m sure if it wasn’t for the fact that the central point of the No campaign was that the only way for Scotland to remain in the EU was to vote No then I’d agree with you. Maybe it’s not the best way but Brexit has set the precedent and holding Yes to a higher standard is not really justifiable, imo.

You could argue that what the UK government is doing is preventing the Scottish govt from cherry picking its moment enabling it to get Independence even if it’s only by a 50.1% majority.

Another way of arguing it would be that the UK government is cherry picking it’s moment.

Like Brexit, Indie is pretty much irreversible & I personally think you need to demonstrate that it isn’t something that a majority is going to regret a couple of years down the line (like you know what)

As much as the tories like to say the got brexit done, they haven’t. It’s still an ongoing process and we don’t know what it’s going to look like in the end. The longer it goes on the harder it will be and the longer it will take for Scotland to rebuild ties with the EU post-independence.

The car is still heading towards the cliff and not giving Scotland the chance to jump out before the car is mid-air is a bit unfair, imo.

the people of Scotland have voted to have another referendum

When was that, I must have missed it?

When was that, I must have missed it?

Any election where the majority of MPs or MSPs returned represent parties who are pro-independence.

It’s not really up to the SNP to stop working towards independence. The clue is in the name. It’s up to Unionist parties to come up with a more attractive alternative so that people stop voting for pro-indy parties.

The ‘problem’ is not the SNP or any other pro-indy party. It’s the Scottish voters.

Any election where the majority of MPs or MSPs returned represent parties who are pro-independence.

But at the last election, those two parties combined still got less than 50% of the vote, so are you saying that a minority of voters represents the “the people of scotland”?

So all these folk who tell us that Scotland isn’t a separate country, just a country/region within the UK & NI, are they also demanding that England & Wales immediately leave the World Cup and for the next one we’ll play as the United Kingdom (and Northern Ireland)?

Any election where the majority of MPs or MSPs returned represent parties who are pro-independence.

I don’t think you can conclude that represents a vote for independence, because that’s not the only issue on the table.

So all these folk who tell us that Scotland isn’t a separate country

The problem is, like species, country is a bit of a vague term with multiple different definitions.
Under some Scotland isnt a country (neither is England) and under others it is (under most of these its more a “special cases are…”).
Hence why in the Olympics we have one team vs football where there are the four.

Just say that Westminster say yes to another indy referendum, the votes are cast and counted and again the Scots vote against independence.

What happens then?

Do the same vocal pro-independence people just carry on shouting the odds about how unfair it is? Do we just keep having referendums on it every few years until the vocal few get what they want?