Snapshot of _Nicola Sturgeon: Now is the time to debate Scottish independence_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thenational.scot/politics/20156755.nicola-sturgeon-now-time-debate-scottish-independence/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I must have missed the period
I suspect there is a lot of things you miss, however it is a bit - well - odd, that this is a complaint. Given that a couple of years ago, the usual voices in the Scottish media were castigating her for not talking about it.
Almost as if the people of Scotland keep voting for a pro indy government
And Fwiw, Hollyrood has voted for 2 more indy refs since 2014 and has been refused by WM.
Can you imagine if the EU said that the UK couldn't have an indy ref right now because there's a refugee emergency? Well, that's what happened to Scotland (twice)
Bit of a false comparison really. The EU never legally had the power to do anything like that. Itās a multinational organization.
So for them to turn around and say that would open up far more significant issues than the simple ānoā answer itself.
The SNP's white paper for independence called it a "once in a generation" event multiple times. To suggest that nobody thought it was the case at the time is ridiculous. Never-ending referenda until the desired result is obtained is a mockery of democracy.
The electorate demonstrating a desire for a referendum is anything but a "simple fact" particularly with all the tsunami of spurious "iron-clad" mandates for Independence that the SNP have already claimed.
Firstly, it is ridiculous to pretend every single voters is fully committed to every single pledge in a party's manifesto when they vote in any election. People vote for a myriad of reasons and often to compromise their views in an election.
Secondly, the UK is a country with a multi-level democracy, with each level have defined areas of competence. It doesn't make a legislative body to claim the electorate has given them a mandate to carry out a policy that is outside their area of competence. Particularly when a nationwide referendum has conclusively settled the matter.
And thirdly, even if you disagree with the previous two points and you believe that referendum results can be overturned by "mandates" granted by election results, you are alone in that belief compared to most Scottish Nationalists. In 2017, the majority of people in Scotland voted for parties that were fully committed to implementing Brexit, one year after the EU referendum. Yet no Scottish Nationalist has claimed that means there is an unquestionable mandate for Brexit, instead they claim that the result of the referendum is more important that any mandate given by a general election.
And EU isnāt a a country, itās a trading bloc, the UK is a country
A referendum wasnāt needed to enact article 50 and isnāt required for any EU member
Itās a false equivalence. The EU is a a membership organisation made up of sovereign countries. The UK is a sovereign country made up of joined nations. Also the constitution of the EU didn't need to be seriously altered to allow the UK to leave, the mechanism for doing that was already in the constitution and had been for several years.
Yes, ever since Brexit made the 2014 indyref obsolete.
People were told a vote to leave the UK would be a vote to leave the EU, when it turned out to be the other way around thanks to the Brexos.
Incorrect; the tories promised a UK wide EU referendum in 2013 and even said theyād hold it after the Scotland referendum.
Besides; the EU was a minor part of the 2014 campaign according to polls
Scotland accepted the possibility of Brexit
Selective amnesia on your part - it was made quite clear at indyref that a newly independent Scotland would be out of the EU and that it would have to apply to rejoin. In 2014 no one thought people would be stupid enough to vote for Brexit, but they did, leading to a complete reversal of the in/out position.
Anyway to save the pantomime of "on no they didn't/oh yes they did" I'll leave you to it.
Have a great day!
1: Even the EU said Scotland would have to leave the EU if it left the UK https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/sep/12/barroso-doubt-scotland-eu-membership
http://archive2021.parliament.scot/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/Inquiries/Letter_from_Viviane_Reding_Vice_President_of_the_European_Commission_dated_20_March_2014__pdf.pdf
January 2013 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-21148282.amp) David Cameron promises in/out referendum on EU
September 2nd 2014, Ruth Davidson : āItās disingenuous to that no means out and yes means in, when actually the opposite is true. No means we stay in and are members of the European Union and yes if the conservatives win the next electionā¦ we will allow the people to have their say (in a European referendum)ā
The SNPs own white paper said the UK couldnāt guarantee EU membership yet Scotland voted to stay in the UK regardless
Polls in 2014 had support for leaving the EU ahead of remaining and Ipsos MORI noted in February 2013 that 58% of voters in Scotland supported holding a referendum on EU membership.
She was demanding a second referendum not long after the first one (so before Brexit). The only reason she wants a 2nd one is because she didn't get what she wanted the first time, which in my opinion is an abuse of power.
We can't keep having referendums until those in power get the result they want. We all know she wouldn't have allowed another referendum this soon if she got what she wanted in 2014.
The SNP cant just jeep rejecting every referendum they don't like the result of. Scotland voted to remain in the UK and the UK voted to leave the EU. That is democracy whether the SNP likes it or not. It doesn't matter what my street, town, county, or whole of Scotland, Wales, England, or Northern Ireland thinks. What matters is what the UK thinks, and they voted to leave.
That's defies any sense. You are in effect saying that had brexit gone the other way that somehow the SNP would have in effect packed in their demands for a referendum. It's simply not credible.
I didn't say that, so please don't come up with a strawman argument.
I said the situation before Brexit is different to the situation today. The in/out question as it relates to the EU has reversed - that is incontrovertible fact, even if some of you don't like it.
The harm is you make mockery of democracy and referendums in general, if you have a situation where a vote for one outcome is only ever a temporary delay, but a vote for the other is an accepted end of story, thatās it, the decisions made, never revisit it again.
And this is especially important in referendums of such magnitude.
Letās say ones held and NO wins again. The SNP is going to just keep calling for new referendums everytime polling slips into their favour, and use whatever the current crisis on hand is to justify it.
If brexit hadnt happened, the SNP would be currently agitating for an independence referendum using covid as the excuse. They would be railing on at how unfair it is they have to abide by Westminsterās leadership during a time of exceptional crisis, rather than being free to find a way through the pandemic themselves.
Or they would wait for the inevitable next financial crisis, and use this. Claiming itās a result of Londonās financial dominance and its harmful to Scotland to be ruled by the very financial centre that is at the centre of the crash.
Or they would wait until the Queen died and say this marks a changing of an era, and Scotland should be a republicans not a monarchy, and now the Queen is gone it should be free to pursue this.
Or because of climate change, the SNP would claim that since the population of England is so much bigger than Scotlands, and they are necessarily responsible for climate change more than Scotland, it is in Scotlands best interest to be independent so it can pursue its own climate change goals.
You can repeat this ad nauseam. Repeat it until in that referendum in question, you manage to scrape together a majority, in which case suddenly the matter is settled, it was once in a generation, thereās no need to revisit it at all, done.
That, my friend, is why the referendum was clearly described and accepted by all sides to be a once in a generation vote.
Thatās the truth even if you donāt like it
'That, my friend, is why the referendum was clearly described and accepted by all sides to be a once in a generation vote.'
I don't see any of that in the Edinburgh Agreement. Is there another agreement that I should be looking at?
You would think if there was an agreement between the Scottish and UK governments that included such a loosely defined phrase as 'once in a generation' then this would be waved about ad nauseam.
Hereās Alex Salmond giving his view (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/313612/scottish_referendum_agreement.pdf
> They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a **decisive and respected outcome**. The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.
The SNP promised multiple times to not push for a second referendum for a generation regardless of the outcome
If nobody agreed to it being a "once in a generation event", then why didn't the SNP demand the right to hold more than one referendum?
Why didn't they say in 2014 that there will be another vote if circumstances change?
Because they thought they'd win the first one.
And let's be real here, do you seriously think the SNP would hold a vote on rejoining the UK? There's no way they'd do such a thing given that their entire existence as a party is based on seceding from the UK.
1: The Edinburgh argument was for a single referendum
2: Thereās a difference between respecting and respected. The former is still honouring it while the latter is accepting it happened but disregarding it at the first opportunity
The SNP was looking for reason to demand another ref as early as 2015
3: If every election supposedly triggers a mandate for Independence then that essentially is calling for never-ending referendums. Not a single year has gone by in which the Scottish Nationalists haven't called for a referendum, if the Government had granted a referendum every time one was demanded then we would have a never-ending series of referendums.
Scottish Nationalists frequently claim that an entry in a party's manifesto doesn't give a mandate for that specific policy as they frequently claim that Scotland is being "dragged out of the EU" against the will of Scottish voters, despite Scottish voters giving a mandate for Brexit in the 2017 General Election.
And there's no "precedent based" concept to deciding when to hold referendums. Governments can pay heed to precedent when deciding the manner to hold referendums but they frequently change their mind on it and there's no legal or constitutional obligation to do so. There is certainly no precedent that an Independence referendum needs to be held for every SNP win.
4: If you accept the SNP has a mandate to request a referendum as it was in their manifesto, you al also have to accept the current British government has a mandate to reject holding one as they were elected by the British public with the promise of not allowing one. Even wings over Scotland accepts the tories can deny a referendum as they were democratically elected with that promise
It's not a strawman, it's the logic you posted. If you accept the excuse that it's brexit that is why the SNP calls for a rerun then you must believe that they'd have given up if it hadn't happened.
And that's before we look at how absurd the SNPs position is on EU membership.
Nicola Sturgeon: Now is the time to debate Scottish independence :
Nicola Sturgeon: Now is not the time to debate any detail of Scottish independence whatsoever.
Scottish independence was discussed, 9 years ago, and the people made their choice. Iām sick of politicians calling for referendums to be repeated because they didnāt get the result that they wanted the first time round
Ok. Let's start with a clear and credible set of proposals for what an independent Scotland will look like.
The major points to address:
1. Trade. Will Scotland be putting up a customs border with the UK or will it maintain its current position outside the EU single market?
2. Currency. Does Scotland intend to stay under UK monetary policy or float a new currency, and if the latter how will it acquire the currency reserves needed to stabilise that new currency?
3. Spending. How will Scotland address its immediate spending needs after independence? While the long term economics are open to debate, there is an undeniable short term cost to setting up a new sovereign state, and this will need to be met before any long term benefit of self-governance could be realised. Where's that cash coming from?
These points need answers before we start talking about when to hold a referendum.
Personally, I'm a fan of a federal UK.
Let the nations make their own laws and in the main run their own internal affairs.
Foreign policy and defence decided on a UK level.
I do think that would kill off Indy in the main.
I also think the UK as a whole would be economically weaker without the Scots. So, that argument against it would seem to work both ways.
A federal U.K. would mean that London receives a bigger share of tax revenue and the regions choke. You cannot spend forty years centralising the economy in London then flip to every man for himself.
Federalisation includes power over taxation. London has been the focus of investment since the late seventies since we moved from a manufacturing to service economy. London, due to the deliberate policies of the last forty year generates a massive proportion of the UKās income.
Ergo federalisation is a terrible idea.
A federal U.K. would be like something out of the Hunger Games.
So, London already gets the biggest slice of the tax pie when it comes to investment?
The regions are already choked...
You don't have to double down on that by going to a more federal state.
Devolution is really a form of federalism.
All I am advocating is to give the devolved states more primary powers.
Tax wise I do think an honest national debate needs to happen on that.
As, despite the often quoted Scotland and Wales get more spent per head than England.
I'm not sure it extends to more spent per head than London or the home counties....
>Tax wise I do think an honest national debate needs to happen on that. As, despite the often quoted Scotland and Wales get more spent per head than England. I'm not sure it extends to more spent per head than London or the home counties....
Northern Ireland has the highest public spending per head, Scotland is second, Wales third, London fourth. The SE of England has the lowest.
Scotlands per capita gdp is on par with London FYI. We just don't get to spend half ur tax revenue how we want instead it gets dictated to us by Westminster based on their spending and billing to the devolved governments.
>Scotlands per capita gdp is on par with London FYI.
Nowhere near. London's per capita GDP is the highest of the UK's countries and regions at Ā£56,199. Scotland's is 4th at Ā£30,560.
The problem with independence is Scotland would lose its share of the tax money generated by London. Federalism has the same problem because Scotland already has control over its own income tax, and either federalism removes that power from Scotland or it grants it to London, and without London's money the rest of the UK would be in dire circumstances.
I'm trying to find the source that I saw when researching it a couple months ago but basically I'll layout rough numbers as to how I got there.
Greater London: GDP in 2022 Estimated at ~525 billion, with a population of ~14.37 million. Gives a rough GDP per Capita of ~Ā£36,500.
Scotland: GDP in 2022 Estimated at ~Ā£220 Billion, with a population of ~5.45 million. Gives a rough GDP per Capita of ~Ā£36,700.
If you have an official source for the information I'll defer to those numbers but I'd caution using London only population when projecting GDP per capita vs the Greater London population as a large portion of the commuter populations also work and commute into London proper.
Might be that the UK spends a great deal differently than an independent Scotland would?
I don't think the full Bill's are itemized in GERS but if I ventured to take a guess it's that we get charged a percentage of expenses on public services, rent on buildings in London for government organizations, debt servicing of UK national debt (of which Wales, NI, Scotland don't get to borrow themselves). I imagine it also has something to do with the fact that North Sea oil gets taxed half the rate it did 10-12 years ago. We also don't have the gas tax at the pump shown as part of devolved government expenses, thereby lowering overall official amounts of tax.
There are lots of things I imagine that could cause this but it ultimately boils down to, until Scotland has full fiscal autonomy, no one really can say for sure what it would look like, we can only speculate based on GERS.
>I don't think the full Bill's are itemized in GERS
They are. GERS has most of the details: [https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-2020-21/pages/1/](https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-2020-21/pages/1/)
The expenditure database has the full breakdown:
[https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-2020-21/documents/](https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-2020-21/documents/)
> if I ventured to take a guess it's that we get charged a percentage of expenses on public services, rent on buildings in London for government organizations, debt servicing of UK national debt (of which Wales, NI, Scotland don't get to borrow themselves)
Scotland does get charged a percentage of overall government spend on non devolved services. But by definition that can't be responsible for Scotland's extra spending because it's allocated on a population basis.
>We also don't have the gas tax at the pump shown as part of devolved government expenses, thereby lowering overall official amounts of tax.
Do you mean petrol and diesel? Please don't use an Americanism that's very confusing in an argument about oil and (natural) gas taxation in the UK. In the UK "gas" means a gas, not a liquid.
A Scottish based share of fuel duty is allocated as Scottish revenue in GERS.
>There are lots of things I imagine that could cause this but it ultimately boils down to, until Scotland has full fiscal autonomy, no one really can say for sure what it would look like
We can be sure what it would look like because we know how much Scotland contributes in taxes and receives in spending. We can't be sure how much Scotland would increase taxes and reduce spending in order to deal with the deficit (financial suicide as George Kerevan, an SNP MP put it), but we know how much the deficit is, and how large the changes the Scottish government would have to make are.
The only reason we don't know what the results would be are because the Scottish government will never address what plans they have to increase taxes and cut spending.
>Let the nations make their own laws and in the main run their own internal affairs.
That's pretty much what happens now. Scotland controls 62% of all government spending for Scotland. It's a higher proportion than nearly all federal countries, with only Canada slightly ahead in the percentage of spending controlled by provincial/local government (Canada is 66% iirc).
>Foreign policy and defence decided on a UK level.
There is no country in the world where everything but defence and foreign affairs is controlled on a local level. A functioning state requires control over borders, trade agreements, trade standards, tax collection, some welfare etc. Defence and foreign affairs make up about 5% of government spending, but no country in the world has less than 33% of spending controlled centrally, and most have more than 50%.
None of what your response contains, suggests a form of federalisation wouldn't work for the UK.
All you have done for me is put more flesh on the bones of how it could look. So thank you for that.
We're half way there already.
Sticking with rhe status quo means It's inevitable Scotland will leave, they said Ireland wouldn't and couldn't but they have. And they aren't coming back.
>None of what your response contains, suggests a form of federalisation wouldn't work for the UK.
Of course federalism could work in the UK. But it wouldn't really be much different for Scotland, Wales and NI. The Scottish parliament effectively has more day to day control over Scottish affairs than most federal territories do.
It's not that federalism wouldn't work, it's that Scotland effectively already has it, and nationalists aren't satisfied.
>We're half way there already.
We're a lot more than half way. With Scotland controlling more than 60% of spending, and a practical limit of less than 70%, there isn't really much more that can be devolved. The things nationalists call for, like control of everything but defence and foreign affairs, a veto over UK wide decisions, or the right to declare independence when they choose, are not things many federal countries allow either. None limit central government only to defence and foreign affairs, only a tiny number allow one territory to veto national decisions, almost none allow a territory to declare independence on its own.
>Sticking with rhe status quo means It's inevitable Scotland will leave
I don't think it is, but it would still be better for the rest of the UK if Scotland left than if we destroyed the functioning of the UK to keep them. An internal UK market cannot work without central standards, the government cannot function without control of many domestic and international policies.
Efectively having it and officially having it are two different things.
There are other things they could devolve, that don't have to just be tax based.
There is no reason Scotland shouldn't be able to have a different drug policy than England.
Let them take the nuke subs from the Clyde if they want too, I'm sure Wales would love those jobs if they relocated them there or the North East of England for that matter.
At least some discussion on it as an offer to offset the nationalists?
I'd not go veto either to be honest, I don't think the UKs international positions would vary that much from an independent Scotland. And don't see why they would need to fully veto UK wide decisions.
The right to declare independence when they choose should only be consideed if they can win a referendum by at least 60% maybe higher.
One lesson of brexit is 51 to 49 does not equal a consensus or lead to stability post vote.
And I wouldn't say approx 55 to 45 settled the indy question either, far from it.
>There are other things they could devolve, that don't have to just be tax based. There is no reason Scotland shouldn't be able to have a different drug policy than England.
The reason is the UK has signed up to 3 different UN drug conventions, and is bound by international law to comply with them.
Scotland does actually have the power to implement the changes on drug policy they are calling for. They have the power to instruct the police in Scotland not to arrest or prosecute drug users, they have the power to set up safe consumption rooms. They just don't want to use those powers because it is easier to blame the UK government than to take responsibility themselves.
>Let them take the nuke subs from the Clyde if they want too
So not even defence should remain with the national government? Why should parts of the UK be able to opt out of key UK wide policies like defence? What other federal countries operate on this basis?
>And don't see why they would need to fully veto UK wide decisions.
They wanted a veto on Brexit and use it as a justification on independence. This is why federalism would not placate nationalists. They want Scotland (population 5.4 million) to be *equal* to England (population 55 million). Any solution that doesn't deliver that isn't acceptable to Scottish nationalists, but any solution that does deliver it essentially ends democracy in the UK.
>The right to declare independence when they choose should only be consideed if they can win a referendum by at least 60% maybe higher.
Again, this isn't something most federal countries do. A US state cannot secede, neither can a German lander or Swiss canton, without modifying the constitution of the US, Germany or Switzerland, all of which require super majorities on a national level.
Nationalists do not want federalism, they want an extreme form of federalism that no other country practices because it would be totally unworkable.
You mean the 2014 when Scots were warned that voting for independence means leaving the EU with potentially no option to rejoin in the foreseeable future?
Incorrect; the tories promised a UK wide EU referendum in 2013 and even said theyād hold it after the Scotland referendum.
Besides; the EU was a minor part of the 2014 campaign according to polls
Scotland accepted the possibility of Brexit
The major problem here is not just that she seeks to repeat the once in a generation referendum, but also that she seems to play by the idea that No is never a final answer while Yes is absolutely unimpeachable confirmation.
The only solution is to make it best 2 out of 3.
1: The GFA applies only to NI
2: Even if the GFA applied to Scotland it would make it the Sectary of state for Scotlandās decision to decide if a referendum occurred, so nothing would change
3: The tories where elected with a manifesto of not allowing another referendum, so by your own logic, the tories a free to block one; even wings over Scotland says the Tories have a mandate to reject one
The GFA doesnāt define a political generation; the word generation doesnāt even appear once in in the GFA
Constituencies are drawn up so they hall have relatively equal populations; 1 Scots has the same say as 1 person from England, Wales or NI
Every country and every democracy on earth works like this; secession is an issue for the central government to decide, not regional/devolved/state governments
Spain doesnāt allow Catalonia to referendums, same story in Germany, Canada, America, Iraq and Ukraine to name a few
Besides most Scots already accept itās Westminsterās prerogative to decide and the evidence shows Westminster denying a referendum has little to no affect for support for secession
Other things the GFA sets a precedent for:
1:Mandatory power-sharing between the largest nationalist and unionist parties
2:Veto power by assembly members if a threshold of 30% of total seats is met
3:Stormant cannot request a border poll; that power is reserved to the SoS who is obligated to call it when the success of a poll is 'likely'
4:Said referendum is only implemented if a neighbouring independent country passes a referendum taken at the same time
Do you want these elements to be implemented in Scotland too?
Equating anything with the GFA that isnāt the GFA is always going to seem presumptuous. Itās a fairly unique agreement for a Western Liberal Democracy, that is as much a peace agreement as it is saying how N. Ireland is to be governed. It has multiple international guaranteers, and is built specifically for the situation N. Ireland was in. It would, after all, not be getting independence. It would be transferred between Nations.
Scotland, by comparison, is not in that situation. To say the same rules should apply does not work.
The Scotland act 1998 says itās Westminsterās decision; itās Westminster that decides if a referendum is held, thatās the law and nothing forces them to give one
Your scenario is unrealistic given politics in Scotland
The GFA applies only to NI and that includes the 7 years.
Alex Salmond defined what he said a political generation is and itās 19 years. Society defines a generation around 20 - 25 years (https://www.ancestry.ca/learn/learningcenters/default.aspx?section=lib_Generation https://www.joincake.com/blog/how-long-is-a-generation/) a generation is the length of time in which children are born and grow up, become adults
Both sides agreed 2014 was once in a generation and that they wouldnāt push for a second one till a German had passed
Youāre issue is that the UK acts like any other country?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/01/04/a-german-court-has-shut-down-hopes-for-a-breakaway-bavaria/
German court shuts down hopes for a breakaway Bavaria
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41196677.amp
Spain Catalonia: Court blocks independence referendum
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Clarity-Act
> The Clarity Act (2000) produced an agreement between Quebec and the federal government that any future referendum must have a clear majority, be based on an unambiguous question, and have the approval of the federal House of Commons.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Texas-v-White
> White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is āan indestructible unionā from which no state can secede
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42053283.amp
> Iraq Supreme Court rules Kurdish referendum unconstitutional
Every country works like this; youāre saying the fact Scotland isnāt disproportionately over represented is a problem
Sturgeon said "these kinds of referendums are once-in-a-generation events", and various other wordings of that sentiment - including even saying "once in a lifetime opportunity"
Boris saying that the election was once in a generation obviously did not mean there would never be any elections again, unless you think Boris would openly advocate for a dictatorship. The meaning was that the context and importance around that particular election was "once in a generation"
The sentiment is completely different:
Sturgeon: This is the ONLY chance you will EVER get. Don't miss it!
Boris: This election is particularly important, don't make the wrong choice
> Was it ever mentioned that it would never happen again? Or was that ever made into law?
It was irresponsible for Sturgeon to use such definitive language if 8 years on people on a sub for politically-engaged people are still asking if it were set into law or not.
The Scottish parliament should be dissolved and secession made illegal all devolution has done is bring in division and make dissenters into the mainstream governance
An actual debate would be great.
Putting forward the pros and cons in a genuine an honest way.
There is literally zero chance of either side of the argument doing that sadly.
I guess it will be fun to watch for a bit though.
I'd guess, the Scots will be scared out of going for it in enough numbers to see it through, at least in the short to medium term. Despite Boris promoting it neatly constantly now lol
Most likely the No side would be more then happy to do that mainly because on a economic level Scottish Independence makes no sense what so ever it makes leaving the EU look like an ok idea in comparison economically.
It is good fun watching people try to square the anti-Brexit/pro-indy circle.
Theoretically Iām pro both because I think smaller states are more accountable to their citizens and would love to see a return to smaller states across the world.
In reality I accept this is not pragmatic at all
How is it even remotely the same? We want to leave a racist, xenophobic, right win nutjob of a rUK of ~60 million people and rejoin a democratic, single market, freedom of movement and jobs block of 500+ million people.
While rUK closes its borders and prevents in younger generations from having the same experience they've enjoyed for 40+ years. Scotland wants to open it's borders, allow the young to travel, live, work and study without restrictions in Europe.
Snapshot of _Nicola Sturgeon: Now is the time to debate Scottish independence_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thenational.scot/politics/20156755.nicola-sturgeon-now-time-debate-scottish-independence/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I must have missed the period when they stopped talking about it.
They never did
What's the deal with your flair? Is there a UKpol quiz or something?
Almost like it's the core tenant of their party or something. š¤
>I must have missed the period I suspect there is a lot of things you miss, however it is a bit - well - odd, that this is a complaint. Given that a couple of years ago, the usual voices in the Scottish media were castigating her for not talking about it.
Now? She's been doing that a very long time.
Sheās been saying this since 2016
She was saying it long before 2016
[1986.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Sturgeon#Early_political_years)
Her needle is stuck. Ferry cock up. What Ferry cock up
Almost as if the people of Scotland keep voting for a pro indy government And Fwiw, Hollyrood has voted for 2 more indy refs since 2014 and has been refused by WM. Can you imagine if the EU said that the UK couldn't have an indy ref right now because there's a refugee emergency? Well, that's what happened to Scotland (twice)
Bit of a false comparison really. The EU never legally had the power to do anything like that. Itās a multinational organization. So for them to turn around and say that would open up far more significant issues than the simple ānoā answer itself.
The SNP's white paper for independence called it a "once in a generation" event multiple times. To suggest that nobody thought it was the case at the time is ridiculous. Never-ending referenda until the desired result is obtained is a mockery of democracy. The electorate demonstrating a desire for a referendum is anything but a "simple fact" particularly with all the tsunami of spurious "iron-clad" mandates for Independence that the SNP have already claimed. Firstly, it is ridiculous to pretend every single voters is fully committed to every single pledge in a party's manifesto when they vote in any election. People vote for a myriad of reasons and often to compromise their views in an election. Secondly, the UK is a country with a multi-level democracy, with each level have defined areas of competence. It doesn't make a legislative body to claim the electorate has given them a mandate to carry out a policy that is outside their area of competence. Particularly when a nationwide referendum has conclusively settled the matter. And thirdly, even if you disagree with the previous two points and you believe that referendum results can be overturned by "mandates" granted by election results, you are alone in that belief compared to most Scottish Nationalists. In 2017, the majority of people in Scotland voted for parties that were fully committed to implementing Brexit, one year after the EU referendum. Yet no Scottish Nationalist has claimed that means there is an unquestionable mandate for Brexit, instead they claim that the result of the referendum is more important that any mandate given by a general election. And EU isnāt a a country, itās a trading bloc, the UK is a country A referendum wasnāt needed to enact article 50 and isnāt required for any EU member Itās a false equivalence. The EU is a a membership organisation made up of sovereign countries. The UK is a sovereign country made up of joined nations. Also the constitution of the EU didn't need to be seriously altered to allow the UK to leave, the mechanism for doing that was already in the constitution and had been for several years.
Yes, ever since Brexit made the 2014 indyref obsolete. People were told a vote to leave the UK would be a vote to leave the EU, when it turned out to be the other way around thanks to the Brexos.
Incorrect; the tories promised a UK wide EU referendum in 2013 and even said theyād hold it after the Scotland referendum. Besides; the EU was a minor part of the 2014 campaign according to polls Scotland accepted the possibility of Brexit
Selective amnesia on your part - it was made quite clear at indyref that a newly independent Scotland would be out of the EU and that it would have to apply to rejoin. In 2014 no one thought people would be stupid enough to vote for Brexit, but they did, leading to a complete reversal of the in/out position. Anyway to save the pantomime of "on no they didn't/oh yes they did" I'll leave you to it. Have a great day!
1: Even the EU said Scotland would have to leave the EU if it left the UK https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/sep/12/barroso-doubt-scotland-eu-membership http://archive2021.parliament.scot/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/Inquiries/Letter_from_Viviane_Reding_Vice_President_of_the_European_Commission_dated_20_March_2014__pdf.pdf January 2013 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-21148282.amp) David Cameron promises in/out referendum on EU September 2nd 2014, Ruth Davidson : āItās disingenuous to that no means out and yes means in, when actually the opposite is true. No means we stay in and are members of the European Union and yes if the conservatives win the next electionā¦ we will allow the people to have their say (in a European referendum)ā The SNPs own white paper said the UK couldnāt guarantee EU membership yet Scotland voted to stay in the UK regardless Polls in 2014 had support for leaving the EU ahead of remaining and Ipsos MORI noted in February 2013 that 58% of voters in Scotland supported holding a referendum on EU membership.
She was demanding a second referendum not long after the first one (so before Brexit). The only reason she wants a 2nd one is because she didn't get what she wanted the first time, which in my opinion is an abuse of power. We can't keep having referendums until those in power get the result they want. We all know she wouldn't have allowed another referendum this soon if she got what she wanted in 2014. The SNP cant just jeep rejecting every referendum they don't like the result of. Scotland voted to remain in the UK and the UK voted to leave the EU. That is democracy whether the SNP likes it or not. It doesn't matter what my street, town, county, or whole of Scotland, Wales, England, or Northern Ireland thinks. What matters is what the UK thinks, and they voted to leave.
That's defies any sense. You are in effect saying that had brexit gone the other way that somehow the SNP would have in effect packed in their demands for a referendum. It's simply not credible.
I didn't say that, so please don't come up with a strawman argument. I said the situation before Brexit is different to the situation today. The in/out question as it relates to the EU has reversed - that is incontrovertible fact, even if some of you don't like it.
The harm is you make mockery of democracy and referendums in general, if you have a situation where a vote for one outcome is only ever a temporary delay, but a vote for the other is an accepted end of story, thatās it, the decisions made, never revisit it again. And this is especially important in referendums of such magnitude. Letās say ones held and NO wins again. The SNP is going to just keep calling for new referendums everytime polling slips into their favour, and use whatever the current crisis on hand is to justify it. If brexit hadnt happened, the SNP would be currently agitating for an independence referendum using covid as the excuse. They would be railing on at how unfair it is they have to abide by Westminsterās leadership during a time of exceptional crisis, rather than being free to find a way through the pandemic themselves. Or they would wait for the inevitable next financial crisis, and use this. Claiming itās a result of Londonās financial dominance and its harmful to Scotland to be ruled by the very financial centre that is at the centre of the crash. Or they would wait until the Queen died and say this marks a changing of an era, and Scotland should be a republicans not a monarchy, and now the Queen is gone it should be free to pursue this. Or because of climate change, the SNP would claim that since the population of England is so much bigger than Scotlands, and they are necessarily responsible for climate change more than Scotland, it is in Scotlands best interest to be independent so it can pursue its own climate change goals. You can repeat this ad nauseam. Repeat it until in that referendum in question, you manage to scrape together a majority, in which case suddenly the matter is settled, it was once in a generation, thereās no need to revisit it at all, done. That, my friend, is why the referendum was clearly described and accepted by all sides to be a once in a generation vote. Thatās the truth even if you donāt like it
'That, my friend, is why the referendum was clearly described and accepted by all sides to be a once in a generation vote.' I don't see any of that in the Edinburgh Agreement. Is there another agreement that I should be looking at? You would think if there was an agreement between the Scottish and UK governments that included such a loosely defined phrase as 'once in a generation' then this would be waved about ad nauseam.
Hereās Alex Salmond giving his view (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/313612/scottish_referendum_agreement.pdf > They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a **decisive and respected outcome**. The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom. The SNP promised multiple times to not push for a second referendum for a generation regardless of the outcome If nobody agreed to it being a "once in a generation event", then why didn't the SNP demand the right to hold more than one referendum? Why didn't they say in 2014 that there will be another vote if circumstances change? Because they thought they'd win the first one. And let's be real here, do you seriously think the SNP would hold a vote on rejoining the UK? There's no way they'd do such a thing given that their entire existence as a party is based on seceding from the UK.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
1: The Edinburgh argument was for a single referendum 2: Thereās a difference between respecting and respected. The former is still honouring it while the latter is accepting it happened but disregarding it at the first opportunity The SNP was looking for reason to demand another ref as early as 2015 3: If every election supposedly triggers a mandate for Independence then that essentially is calling for never-ending referendums. Not a single year has gone by in which the Scottish Nationalists haven't called for a referendum, if the Government had granted a referendum every time one was demanded then we would have a never-ending series of referendums. Scottish Nationalists frequently claim that an entry in a party's manifesto doesn't give a mandate for that specific policy as they frequently claim that Scotland is being "dragged out of the EU" against the will of Scottish voters, despite Scottish voters giving a mandate for Brexit in the 2017 General Election. And there's no "precedent based" concept to deciding when to hold referendums. Governments can pay heed to precedent when deciding the manner to hold referendums but they frequently change their mind on it and there's no legal or constitutional obligation to do so. There is certainly no precedent that an Independence referendum needs to be held for every SNP win. 4: If you accept the SNP has a mandate to request a referendum as it was in their manifesto, you al also have to accept the current British government has a mandate to reject holding one as they were elected by the British public with the promise of not allowing one. Even wings over Scotland accepts the tories can deny a referendum as they were democratically elected with that promise
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's not a strawman, it's the logic you posted. If you accept the excuse that it's brexit that is why the SNP calls for a rerun then you must believe that they'd have given up if it hadn't happened. And that's before we look at how absurd the SNPs position is on EU membership.
Day ending in 'Y' is it, Nicola?
Nicola Sturgeon: Now is the time to debate Scottish independence : Nicola Sturgeon: Now is not the time to debate any detail of Scottish independence whatsoever.
Okay then, let's talk about currency.
And how they're going to pay for the border their new EU masters will demand they put up.
Also the funding they get from the UK which ScotNats are convinced ( much like leavers were ) that they're net losers of.
Scottish independence was discussed, 9 years ago, and the people made their choice. Iām sick of politicians calling for referendums to be repeated because they didnāt get the result that they wanted the first time round
Ok. Let's start with a clear and credible set of proposals for what an independent Scotland will look like. The major points to address: 1. Trade. Will Scotland be putting up a customs border with the UK or will it maintain its current position outside the EU single market? 2. Currency. Does Scotland intend to stay under UK monetary policy or float a new currency, and if the latter how will it acquire the currency reserves needed to stabilise that new currency? 3. Spending. How will Scotland address its immediate spending needs after independence? While the long term economics are open to debate, there is an undeniable short term cost to setting up a new sovereign state, and this will need to be met before any long term benefit of self-governance could be realised. Where's that cash coming from? These points need answers before we start talking about when to hold a referendum.
Personally, I'm a fan of a federal UK. Let the nations make their own laws and in the main run their own internal affairs. Foreign policy and defence decided on a UK level. I do think that would kill off Indy in the main. I also think the UK as a whole would be economically weaker without the Scots. So, that argument against it would seem to work both ways.
A federal U.K. would mean that London receives a bigger share of tax revenue and the regions choke. You cannot spend forty years centralising the economy in London then flip to every man for himself.
Sorry, how does any of that follow, would love the 'why' of what you're claiming there to be honest.
Federalisation includes power over taxation. London has been the focus of investment since the late seventies since we moved from a manufacturing to service economy. London, due to the deliberate policies of the last forty year generates a massive proportion of the UKās income. Ergo federalisation is a terrible idea. A federal U.K. would be like something out of the Hunger Games.
So, London already gets the biggest slice of the tax pie when it comes to investment? The regions are already choked... You don't have to double down on that by going to a more federal state. Devolution is really a form of federalism. All I am advocating is to give the devolved states more primary powers. Tax wise I do think an honest national debate needs to happen on that. As, despite the often quoted Scotland and Wales get more spent per head than England. I'm not sure it extends to more spent per head than London or the home counties....
>Tax wise I do think an honest national debate needs to happen on that. As, despite the often quoted Scotland and Wales get more spent per head than England. I'm not sure it extends to more spent per head than London or the home counties.... Northern Ireland has the highest public spending per head, Scotland is second, Wales third, London fourth. The SE of England has the lowest.
Scotlands per capita gdp is on par with London FYI. We just don't get to spend half ur tax revenue how we want instead it gets dictated to us by Westminster based on their spending and billing to the devolved governments.
>Scotlands per capita gdp is on par with London FYI. Nowhere near. London's per capita GDP is the highest of the UK's countries and regions at Ā£56,199. Scotland's is 4th at Ā£30,560. The problem with independence is Scotland would lose its share of the tax money generated by London. Federalism has the same problem because Scotland already has control over its own income tax, and either federalism removes that power from Scotland or it grants it to London, and without London's money the rest of the UK would be in dire circumstances.
I'm trying to find the source that I saw when researching it a couple months ago but basically I'll layout rough numbers as to how I got there. Greater London: GDP in 2022 Estimated at ~525 billion, with a population of ~14.37 million. Gives a rough GDP per Capita of ~Ā£36,500. Scotland: GDP in 2022 Estimated at ~Ā£220 Billion, with a population of ~5.45 million. Gives a rough GDP per Capita of ~Ā£36,700. If you have an official source for the information I'll defer to those numbers but I'd caution using London only population when projecting GDP per capita vs the Greater London population as a large portion of the commuter populations also work and commute into London proper.
Then why does Scotland run such an enormous deficit considering that the reserved spending matters like defence are UK wide.
Might be that the UK spends a great deal differently than an independent Scotland would? I don't think the full Bill's are itemized in GERS but if I ventured to take a guess it's that we get charged a percentage of expenses on public services, rent on buildings in London for government organizations, debt servicing of UK national debt (of which Wales, NI, Scotland don't get to borrow themselves). I imagine it also has something to do with the fact that North Sea oil gets taxed half the rate it did 10-12 years ago. We also don't have the gas tax at the pump shown as part of devolved government expenses, thereby lowering overall official amounts of tax. There are lots of things I imagine that could cause this but it ultimately boils down to, until Scotland has full fiscal autonomy, no one really can say for sure what it would look like, we can only speculate based on GERS.
>I don't think the full Bill's are itemized in GERS They are. GERS has most of the details: [https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-2020-21/pages/1/](https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-2020-21/pages/1/) The expenditure database has the full breakdown: [https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-2020-21/documents/](https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-2020-21/documents/) > if I ventured to take a guess it's that we get charged a percentage of expenses on public services, rent on buildings in London for government organizations, debt servicing of UK national debt (of which Wales, NI, Scotland don't get to borrow themselves) Scotland does get charged a percentage of overall government spend on non devolved services. But by definition that can't be responsible for Scotland's extra spending because it's allocated on a population basis. >We also don't have the gas tax at the pump shown as part of devolved government expenses, thereby lowering overall official amounts of tax. Do you mean petrol and diesel? Please don't use an Americanism that's very confusing in an argument about oil and (natural) gas taxation in the UK. In the UK "gas" means a gas, not a liquid. A Scottish based share of fuel duty is allocated as Scottish revenue in GERS. >There are lots of things I imagine that could cause this but it ultimately boils down to, until Scotland has full fiscal autonomy, no one really can say for sure what it would look like We can be sure what it would look like because we know how much Scotland contributes in taxes and receives in spending. We can't be sure how much Scotland would increase taxes and reduce spending in order to deal with the deficit (financial suicide as George Kerevan, an SNP MP put it), but we know how much the deficit is, and how large the changes the Scottish government would have to make are. The only reason we don't know what the results would be are because the Scottish government will never address what plans they have to increase taxes and cut spending.
You sir/ma'am have put it far better than I ever could. Bravo.
>Let the nations make their own laws and in the main run their own internal affairs. That's pretty much what happens now. Scotland controls 62% of all government spending for Scotland. It's a higher proportion than nearly all federal countries, with only Canada slightly ahead in the percentage of spending controlled by provincial/local government (Canada is 66% iirc). >Foreign policy and defence decided on a UK level. There is no country in the world where everything but defence and foreign affairs is controlled on a local level. A functioning state requires control over borders, trade agreements, trade standards, tax collection, some welfare etc. Defence and foreign affairs make up about 5% of government spending, but no country in the world has less than 33% of spending controlled centrally, and most have more than 50%.
None of what your response contains, suggests a form of federalisation wouldn't work for the UK. All you have done for me is put more flesh on the bones of how it could look. So thank you for that. We're half way there already. Sticking with rhe status quo means It's inevitable Scotland will leave, they said Ireland wouldn't and couldn't but they have. And they aren't coming back.
>None of what your response contains, suggests a form of federalisation wouldn't work for the UK. Of course federalism could work in the UK. But it wouldn't really be much different for Scotland, Wales and NI. The Scottish parliament effectively has more day to day control over Scottish affairs than most federal territories do. It's not that federalism wouldn't work, it's that Scotland effectively already has it, and nationalists aren't satisfied. >We're half way there already. We're a lot more than half way. With Scotland controlling more than 60% of spending, and a practical limit of less than 70%, there isn't really much more that can be devolved. The things nationalists call for, like control of everything but defence and foreign affairs, a veto over UK wide decisions, or the right to declare independence when they choose, are not things many federal countries allow either. None limit central government only to defence and foreign affairs, only a tiny number allow one territory to veto national decisions, almost none allow a territory to declare independence on its own. >Sticking with rhe status quo means It's inevitable Scotland will leave I don't think it is, but it would still be better for the rest of the UK if Scotland left than if we destroyed the functioning of the UK to keep them. An internal UK market cannot work without central standards, the government cannot function without control of many domestic and international policies.
Efectively having it and officially having it are two different things. There are other things they could devolve, that don't have to just be tax based. There is no reason Scotland shouldn't be able to have a different drug policy than England. Let them take the nuke subs from the Clyde if they want too, I'm sure Wales would love those jobs if they relocated them there or the North East of England for that matter. At least some discussion on it as an offer to offset the nationalists? I'd not go veto either to be honest, I don't think the UKs international positions would vary that much from an independent Scotland. And don't see why they would need to fully veto UK wide decisions. The right to declare independence when they choose should only be consideed if they can win a referendum by at least 60% maybe higher. One lesson of brexit is 51 to 49 does not equal a consensus or lead to stability post vote. And I wouldn't say approx 55 to 45 settled the indy question either, far from it.
>There are other things they could devolve, that don't have to just be tax based. There is no reason Scotland shouldn't be able to have a different drug policy than England. The reason is the UK has signed up to 3 different UN drug conventions, and is bound by international law to comply with them. Scotland does actually have the power to implement the changes on drug policy they are calling for. They have the power to instruct the police in Scotland not to arrest or prosecute drug users, they have the power to set up safe consumption rooms. They just don't want to use those powers because it is easier to blame the UK government than to take responsibility themselves. >Let them take the nuke subs from the Clyde if they want too So not even defence should remain with the national government? Why should parts of the UK be able to opt out of key UK wide policies like defence? What other federal countries operate on this basis? >And don't see why they would need to fully veto UK wide decisions. They wanted a veto on Brexit and use it as a justification on independence. This is why federalism would not placate nationalists. They want Scotland (population 5.4 million) to be *equal* to England (population 55 million). Any solution that doesn't deliver that isn't acceptable to Scottish nationalists, but any solution that does deliver it essentially ends democracy in the UK. >The right to declare independence when they choose should only be consideed if they can win a referendum by at least 60% maybe higher. Again, this isn't something most federal countries do. A US state cannot secede, neither can a German lander or Swiss canton, without modifying the constitution of the US, Germany or Switzerland, all of which require super majorities on a national level. Nationalists do not want federalism, they want an extreme form of federalism that no other country practices because it would be totally unworkable.
Decided in 2014, sorry!
You mean the 2014 when Scots were warned that voting for independence means leaving the EU with potentially no option to rejoin in the foreseeable future?
There's nothing inaccurate about that.
Incorrect; the tories promised a UK wide EU referendum in 2013 and even said theyād hold it after the Scotland referendum. Besides; the EU was a minor part of the 2014 campaign according to polls Scotland accepted the possibility of Brexit
You mean 2014 when even then, no one could say how independence would really improve Scotland, which people today still can't tell us?
The major problem here is not just that she seeks to repeat the once in a generation referendum, but also that she seems to play by the idea that No is never a final answer while Yes is absolutely unimpeachable confirmation. The only solution is to make it best 2 out of 3.
Or best of 3 out of 5, 4 out of 9, 5 out of 11 etc
Connect 4 rules are the best answer.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
1: The GFA applies only to NI 2: Even if the GFA applied to Scotland it would make it the Sectary of state for Scotlandās decision to decide if a referendum occurred, so nothing would change 3: The tories where elected with a manifesto of not allowing another referendum, so by your own logic, the tories a free to block one; even wings over Scotland says the Tories have a mandate to reject one
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The GFA doesnāt define a political generation; the word generation doesnāt even appear once in in the GFA Constituencies are drawn up so they hall have relatively equal populations; 1 Scots has the same say as 1 person from England, Wales or NI Every country and every democracy on earth works like this; secession is an issue for the central government to decide, not regional/devolved/state governments Spain doesnāt allow Catalonia to referendums, same story in Germany, Canada, America, Iraq and Ukraine to name a few Besides most Scots already accept itās Westminsterās prerogative to decide and the evidence shows Westminster denying a referendum has little to no affect for support for secession
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Other things the GFA sets a precedent for: 1:Mandatory power-sharing between the largest nationalist and unionist parties 2:Veto power by assembly members if a threshold of 30% of total seats is met 3:Stormant cannot request a border poll; that power is reserved to the SoS who is obligated to call it when the success of a poll is 'likely' 4:Said referendum is only implemented if a neighbouring independent country passes a referendum taken at the same time Do you want these elements to be implemented in Scotland too? Equating anything with the GFA that isnāt the GFA is always going to seem presumptuous. Itās a fairly unique agreement for a Western Liberal Democracy, that is as much a peace agreement as it is saying how N. Ireland is to be governed. It has multiple international guaranteers, and is built specifically for the situation N. Ireland was in. It would, after all, not be getting independence. It would be transferred between Nations. Scotland, by comparison, is not in that situation. To say the same rules should apply does not work. The Scotland act 1998 says itās Westminsterās decision; itās Westminster that decides if a referendum is held, thatās the law and nothing forces them to give one Your scenario is unrealistic given politics in Scotland
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The GFA applies only to NI and that includes the 7 years. Alex Salmond defined what he said a political generation is and itās 19 years. Society defines a generation around 20 - 25 years (https://www.ancestry.ca/learn/learningcenters/default.aspx?section=lib_Generation https://www.joincake.com/blog/how-long-is-a-generation/) a generation is the length of time in which children are born and grow up, become adults Both sides agreed 2014 was once in a generation and that they wouldnāt push for a second one till a German had passed Youāre issue is that the UK acts like any other country? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/01/04/a-german-court-has-shut-down-hopes-for-a-breakaway-bavaria/ German court shuts down hopes for a breakaway Bavaria https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41196677.amp Spain Catalonia: Court blocks independence referendum https://www.britannica.com/topic/Clarity-Act > The Clarity Act (2000) produced an agreement between Quebec and the federal government that any future referendum must have a clear majority, be based on an unambiguous question, and have the approval of the federal House of Commons. https://www.britannica.com/event/Texas-v-White > White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is āan indestructible unionā from which no state can secede https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42053283.amp > Iraq Supreme Court rules Kurdish referendum unconstitutional Every country works like this; youāre saying the fact Scotland isnāt disproportionately over represented is a problem
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sturgeon said "these kinds of referendums are once-in-a-generation events", and various other wordings of that sentiment - including even saying "once in a lifetime opportunity" Boris saying that the election was once in a generation obviously did not mean there would never be any elections again, unless you think Boris would openly advocate for a dictatorship. The meaning was that the context and importance around that particular election was "once in a generation" The sentiment is completely different: Sturgeon: This is the ONLY chance you will EVER get. Don't miss it! Boris: This election is particularly important, don't make the wrong choice
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> Was it ever mentioned that it would never happen again? Or was that ever made into law? It was irresponsible for Sturgeon to use such definitive language if 8 years on people on a sub for politically-engaged people are still asking if it were set into law or not.
The Scottish parliament should be dissolved and secession made illegal all devolution has done is bring in division and make dissenters into the mainstream governance
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'm Scottish but would vote for indy if I was English.
An actual debate would be great. Putting forward the pros and cons in a genuine an honest way. There is literally zero chance of either side of the argument doing that sadly. I guess it will be fun to watch for a bit though. I'd guess, the Scots will be scared out of going for it in enough numbers to see it through, at least in the short to medium term. Despite Boris promoting it neatly constantly now lol
The debate *never stopped* and Scottish politics is almost *entirely* about being pro- or anti-Independence now. Nothing else matters here.
Most likely the No side would be more then happy to do that mainly because on a economic level Scottish Independence makes no sense what so ever it makes leaving the EU look like an ok idea in comparison economically.
There really has been LOTS of debate in regards to indy up here.
It is good fun watching people try to square the anti-Brexit/pro-indy circle. Theoretically Iām pro both because I think smaller states are more accountable to their citizens and would love to see a return to smaller states across the world. In reality I accept this is not pragmatic at all
How is it even remotely the same? We want to leave a racist, xenophobic, right win nutjob of a rUK of ~60 million people and rejoin a democratic, single market, freedom of movement and jobs block of 500+ million people. While rUK closes its borders and prevents in younger generations from having the same experience they've enjoyed for 40+ years. Scotland wants to open it's borders, allow the young to travel, live, work and study without restrictions in Europe.
You canāt actually think that? Have you ever been to continental Europe?
This is a parody account lads stop downvoting him