UKH

Once again Scotland has chosen a fundamentally different political path from England. The results from the election in England have been brutal. But Scotland has voted for decency, inclusion and democracy. The mandate for self determination has been confirmed once again. Scotland and Scottish voters must have the chance to determine our own future. 

Certainly seems that way. But my goodness, Brexit has shown how hard it is to get out of an economic union of <50 years standing. How much harder and more bitter will it be to extract Scotland from a political, economic and fiscal union of >300 years. 

The vote share for the SNP is 45%, which suggest there probably isn't a majority favouring independence.

This is like saying "vote for your favourite food" and then when the results come in saying "only 30% of people like lasagna" because 30% picked that as their favourite food. "favourite food" and "like a food" are different (though related) things. Voting SNP and voting for Scottish independence are similarly related but also different things. Your logic does not follow.

I'd probably still go for Scottish independence as things stand but with a conservative majority there is a snowballs chance in hell of getting Westminster to agree a vote, so the only real question is whether Nicola wants to carry out an unsanctioned referendum and I can't see that happening. I'm resigned to our fate.

There's a cast iron mandate for holding an independence referendum.   All the unionist parties campaigned on 'no to indyref2'  and they got destroyed.  We will find out whether there is a majority for independence when we hold the referendum.  

after this election and some thought i really think Scotland could make a go of it independently (assuming they don't hit the same issues as Brexit has.  but they have the luxury of learning from brexit's mistakes).

like her or not Nicola Sturgeon has shown herself to be a truly competent politician with clear views and a willingness to be honest and uphold her views, in my opinion she's the most able leader in uk politics.

if Scotland go independant they could poach a lot of young professionals away from england and wales. the promise of opportunity, to crate a better country with a more modern less entrenched political system would be appealing to many and with that enthusiasm would come industry and jobs. an opportunity to start afresh with something new and full of potential all whilst still being within driving (a long) distance of family etc.

right now that seems tempting to me.

sure it wont all be roses but it would be amazing for a lot of people if they can pull it off and make a success of it. 

As I said against your post on the other thread, no it's not. Having a strong Scottish voice in Westminster is not the same as independence. Nor is getting less than half the vote a strong mandate. Yes, they've got the majority of Scottish seats but not of votes. In much the way that the pro-Brexit vote galvanised behind Boris with the Pro-EU vote split among other parties, the pro-Indy vote is virtually all going to the SNP with other votes split across the remaining parties. This is not a mandate for independence, far from it. Unfortunately Nicola has already started shouting loudly about another referendum despite it generating further divisive animosity.

And the divorce bill from rUK is how much, and how will it be paid for?

will there be a points system for English European immigrants coming into resettlement camps?

You had a referendum 5 years ago and lost. Same as Brexit was voted for 3.5 years ago and won. The Scottish people asked for Scotland to remain. The British people voted for Brexit. The democratic thing to do is accept the result and move on. 

The irony of people like you shouting for independence from the UK yet wanting ever closer union with the EU where your voice will be drowned out completely is laughable.

A vote for the snp isn't always a vote for independence. Many were just voting against Labour and the Tories, wanting an independent voice in Westminster, not necessarily wanting to leave it. 

If it was about the eu, the lib dems and swinson would have faired better. 

It's a given that regardless of the outcome the snp would claim a mandate for indef2. 

I remember when they used to come out with the same old rubbish about Alex Salmond. 

I agree the only way to really find out is another referendum, but I suspect it will be a narrow no if tried.  Very few lab/lib/con voters will support independence, and they had a majority yesterday.  Of course it depends a lot on what Johnson and crew actually do next.

And when do you think that will be Tom?

Sturgeon will find out that those that shout loudest don't necessarily get what they want. Think back to Catalonia and their attempt at an unlawful vote. I don't remember that working out too well.

I don't think it matters to the die-hards.  Much like Brexit here in the UK, the economy is worth trashing if it gives people their narrow minded 'little Scotland' fantasy and frees them from the supposed tyranny of their Westminster oppressors. 

I would suggest that if the SNP actually want to do something for Scotland then they should drop the constant bleating about another referendum and instead focus their attention for a while on improving things in Scotland for the better (health, education, economy, transport, environment etc). 

But I guess that doesn't fit with their agenda?  After all, when their Scottish voters are happy they are far less likely to vote for independence.  Conversely all the time the Scottish people are oppressed or dissatisfied they can conveniently continue to blame their misfortune on Westminster - thus improving support for independence.  It's like Brexit in miniature all over again.

54% is not 'getting destroyed', beaten, because of FPTP, but not destroyed.

Is there a mandate? Looks better than on Wednesday. Doesn't look perfect. Personally I think there probably should be an indyref but not until we have a clearer idea of what we are voting about.

What will brexit look like? What will the time scale for negotiations to leave be? Currency? Time scale for joining the EU? What kind of border would there be with rUK?

I don't think we will have realistic answers to any of those questions in 2020.

why would there need to be a divorce bill?

that would be a discussion between the 2 countries but the concept of the divorce bill with the EU was a Brexit thing. Scotland leaving the union is a different scenario.

(Plus if we crash out of the EU am right in thinking we don't pay the divorce bill anyway?)

genuine question: if you had a crystal ball and could look into the future and see Scotland making a success of independence would you still oppose it? 

as an observer i was opposed to the first indyref but a lot has changed since then.

As a democrat I'm all in favour of the Scots having indyref2, if that's what they want. 

But please can it be after an outline deal has been constructed? (And that inevitably means after we have a good idea of the future relation between rUK and the EU.)

Would Scotland keep the pound, or join the euro? What sort of deal would the EU offer?  Would there be free trade (or customs posts?) across the England/Scotland border? Etc.

Once in a generation.

No there in no mandate.  I would suggest the strong SNP showing is more a protest against the Tory government and a reflection of the shambolic Labour party.  The referendum in 2014 was a 'once in a generation opportunity' as confirmed here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661/salmond-referendum-is-on...

Also 'First Past the Post' has exaggerated the SNP victory who managed just 45% of the vote but have been awarded a hugely disproportionate 81% of seats.

The vote share for the SNP is actually 3.9%. But I do see what you're mean. It's unlikely there will be a second independence referendum inn the next 5 years so I guess that ship has sailed for the SNP. It may come steaming back in 2024.

It is totally ridiculous to claim winning 48 out of 59 seats is not a mandate.  All the unionist parties fought this election on 'no to indyref2'  and they got completely destroyed.  Now they have to accept that Scotland wants a second referendum. 

Maybe the unionists would win a second referendum.  They can make their arguments when we hold one.

The unionists are kidding themselves if they think Boris saying no will be the end of this.   The next step will be going to court.

Agreed. I voted SNP yesterday and I've no desire for an independent Scotland. ( My local Tory was elected by a sizeable majority notwithstanding.) Reading every SNP  vote as an Independence vote is far too simplistic.

Yesterday was like being asked which finger you wanted amputated when you had to pick one!

Your cast iron mandate seems quite malleable. Surely a vote share of over 50% would be cast iron? I seriously doubt that anyone who doesn't want independence voted SNP yesterday, well maybe a handful (including basemetal above )but not enough to make a deference. Your attitude is a bit like a kid stamping his feet in the supermarket because his mother  won't let him have the chocolate bar.

They still got more votes than your lot. 50% and I would go for a 2nd referendum. Below 50%, there is no mandate. Got to respect the voice of the people. All of them.

I suspect like a lot of other folk I lent the SNP my vote tactically, to stop the tories  (that went well didn’t it) so I’m far from clear this morning what their mandate is. I suspect scindependence  will be like Brexit x100 and with a much more awkward negotiating team from the U.K. side. Plus, the SNP had an easy ride this election, all they’ve had to do is run a vaguely clean proEurope administration and say “rise and be a nation again”. An independent Scotland won’t be a one party state, it’ll have a left party, a right party and who knows what else. We might not like the outcome as much as we think.

If the English experiment gets too frightful I may change my mind about that.....

What do you say about this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661/salmond-referendum-is-on... 

Not all votes for the SNP are from people supporting independence.  Back in 2011 only 60% of people who voted for the SNP were independence supporters, the rest voted SNP for other reasons. 

Sure, support for independence has increased a little since 2011 but one thing you can be fairly sure of is that almost all Scots who support independence would have voted SNP at this election.  But still, not all of the 45% of voters who did vote for the SNP support Scottish independence.

I actually think a 2nd referendum in Scotland is quite likely, but nothing to do with any respect whatsoever for the scots.

I can see Boris going for it as it helpfully gets rid of 50-odd MPs who are likely to vote against him and therefore consolidates his grip on power.

I think the situation now is very different from 2014; Brexit has now changed the landscape significantly. IF the EU look favourably on Scotland (and that is an IF given issues like Catalonia) then the currency issue is sorted, Scotland would take the Euro. The issue of custom posts is tricky but I'm not sure as tricky as N Ireland. There would be significant appetite for investing in an English speaking country, in the EU, with an experienced financial sector and manufacturing base. And I can't be the only person whose thinking of taking my bat and ball north of the border rather than living under the Tories and having to apologise for Johnson for the endless future.  

As much as I don't want to leave the UK the pull could seem irresistible as Scotland voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU which is a major factor that could decide it for most Scots. 

It has changed, but potentially leaving the EU was not seen as a big issue at all by the SNP at the last referendum, now suddenly it is.  Support for independence however, despite Brexit, has slightly fallen according to the current YouGov poll to just 44% now supporting independence.  See here:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/support-for-scottish-independence-ha...

Okay so polls are never completely accurate but the level of support for Scottish independence has not really changed very much, if at all, since the last referendum.  Sure if the polls were indicating that things were the other way round then maybe we ought to thing about another referendum if this support remains reliably and consistently high for a number of years. 

Right now though, with polls as they are there is no need to spend all that money and endure all the upheaval, disruption and division that another referendum would entail.  Far preferable instead to put the time, money and effort right now into making Scotland a better place for all those who live and work there.

There is a very significant difference in order of magnitude between a country choosing to leave a trading block of other nations (Leaving the EU), to actually breaking up the very nation/union/country or whatever the term is (UK), that you have lived in all of your life.

Boris didn't get 50%.  So I guess we should remain in the EU?

And not all of the 55% are against independence.  There were women active in the YES campaign saying they wouldn't vote SNP because it supported self-identification for trans and they were worried about trans-men getting into female toilets.

Scotland is not a child and England is not Scotland's mother.

The thing that worries me most about the current approach to referendums is the simple majority criterion. To be prepared to go against the wishes of either half of a near 50-50 distribution, when all have to bear the imposition of the burdens of uncertainty, change and cost should be hard to justify. It seems a recipe for unrest and ongoing claims of misrepresentation.

I'd like to see departure from any status quo require a very significant margin, even 2 to 1 for example, to establish deep popular political will for the enormous  costs of change.

Totally different things.  Boris's mandate is based on the result of the referendum.  I don't like that but I will have to accept it.  In Scotland the recent referendum did not support independence and public polls still reflect no great desire for independence.

When are you going to acknowledge this, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661/salmond-referendum-is-on... or do you continue to ignore because it goes against what you are arguing for?

Goodbye, you're welcome, keep the porridge and the rusting North Sea oil pipelines

Edit, Alastair, just a bad joke from a despairing post-election morning-after voter, not aimed at you personally

A handful of votes perhaps or was this a big picture issue for people who voted?

No.

First of all it needs to be done before Brexit goes so far it is almost impossible to reverse.

Second, the unfortunate fact is that the UK will never negotiate a reasonable outline deal in advance because putting a reasonable deal on the table would make losing the referendum more likely.   It will spout bullsh*t about what it will and will not allow like it did before and is still doing about the EU negotiation.  The only way you get past the bullsh*t and reach the final bottom line is to win the referendum and do the negotiation for real.   

All the SNP can do is set out their plans and intentions in a document like they did before the first indyref.  Which is a lot more than the Brexiteers did before the EU referendum.

Who do you think will be paying a divorce bill, Scotland or rUK?

That was an off the cuff remark by someone who is no longer SNP leader.  It's not official policy and it is not in the Edinburgh agreement under which indyref 1 was held. 

There are significant changes in circumstances - Brexit - and a three way mandate i.e. Holyrood election, Holyrood Parliament vote and now General Election for indyref2.

If people don't accept 48 out of 59 seats as a mandate they'll never accept anything.  What they are actually demanding is colonial rule.

Alex Salmond hasnt been First Minsiter since 2014.  Since then there has been 3 elections (all returning SNP majorities) and referendum (that Scotland voted in a substantially different way from England).  The SNP mandate for indyref2 is based on their manifesto's the last three elections (which they won)...  Something that Alex Salmond said half a decade ago is irrelevant.  The 'vow' also made then - what happened to that? (apart from its achitect now supporting Scottish independence...)  Scots were told voting no was the only way to stay in Europe... when are you going to acknoweledge that a change in circumstances from what existed and said 2014 has occured? Or do you continue to ignore because it goes against what you are arguing for?

Regardless to the above, read the current polls - what do they say regarding independence and the desire for another referendum?

Nicola Sturgeon's statement:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1205473522732146694

Presumably there would be a share of the national debt, and other off the balance liabilities like PFI and unfunded pensions liability. And if Scotland had sense they would arrange an alimony payment to compensate for the loss of the Barnett Formula ; )

You're assuming that the rUK would be as obstreperous as the EU! 

But there needs to be clarity over major issues such as whether Scotland would retain the pound or adopt the euro.   If there wasn't, there would then be clamours for indyref3 after the deal had actually been done. 

Thanks for answering.

Nor is holding another referendum in quick succession to the last one in the Edinburgh agreement.  The agreement was also signed by Nicola Sturgeon, then deputy first minister.  The agreement said that "deliver a fair test and decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect". 

Do you respect that result?

As said before people voted SNP for a variety of reasons.  The SNP result says as much about the appalling lameness and un-electability of the Labour party as it does about the benefits of the SNP.

It's not a mandate.  All the election result tells you is that people currently prefer the SNP over Labour and the Tories.  People voted SNP for a variety of reasons.  What do the latest polls say about Scottish independence and the desire for another referendum?

They are alot higher than they were when the Edinburgh agreement was signed.  Higher than most/all of the campaign too.  The desire for another referendum? The SNP just won 80+% of the seats in Scotland, with the desire to hold another independence referendum in their manifesto (again), while campaigning against parties either indifferent towards or extremely vocal against (to the point they didn't even bother producing any other policies). 

First past the post sucks but its been around for a while, people know how it works.

Fighting talk, but according to the polls regarding the support for another referendum she does not appear to have a mandate from the Scottish people to hold Indyref2 - only a mandate from her own party. 

Therefore you could say that she's being anti-democratic, or perhaps trying to put personal and party beliefs before those of the country she is supposed to represent.

dont think this can be right, there was a lot of talk during indyref1 about Scotland’s need to apply separately for EU membership after separation, as we weren’t identified separately as a country. So I don’t think we can keep the UK’s membership badge, as it were, just by timing everything right as the U.K. goes out the door.
Independence arrangements will be a huge nightmare to negotiate anyway.

Cancel Brexit then. After all people voted for a variety of reasons for a variety of different types of Brexit.

So Boris has no mandate then.

Conservative and SNP vote shares within UK and Scotland respectively are near enough the same.

Their mandates are different but you can't say one has a mandate but not the other.

The polls have remained fairly consistent.  What is even more consistent though is that almost every single poll shows no support for independence.  See here:

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

With just 45% of the vote?

This is not the only reason people voted SNP.  Again the polls (as you can see in the link above) do not support independence.

The Cons vote share was 43.6% does that mean there's no majority to "Get Brexit Done"?

I find it very odd that many English raise the point that Scottish (and Welsh) economies are not strong enough to go it alone. That suggests contentment to "prop-up" the Celtic countries with billions of £ each year - which could be spent on developing the north.

Would it not be to Englands benefit if it did not have the financial and political burden of Scotland, Wales and N.I.?

What's in it for England in maintaining the union?

Believe me, personally I would love to.  As a nation though if we cancelled Brexit then where would this leave the SNP regarding their demands for another referendum?

The conservatives are acting on the result of a referendum which was won, so they do have a mandate.  Nicola Sturgeon is trying to sat she has a mandate based on a referendum she lost.  Not everyone who voted Conservative supports Brexit, the same as not everyone who voted SNP supports independence.

No the mandate comes from the referendum result which was 52%.

Obviously the indyref1 result was respected.  That is why Scotland is not independent.

Equally obviously the unionist's 'vow' made the day before the referendum to sway the vote was not respected.  Moreover the principle of devolution has not been respected since then with Westminster removing powers from Holyrood without even having a debate in order to pursue its Brexit agenda.

During indyref 1 we were told that the only way to stay in the EU was to vote No to independence.  Many people, including EU citizens resident in Scotland believed that and got royally shafted as a result.   Brexit is sufficient change in circumstances to justify indyref2.  

Fundamentally holding an indyref is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.  The SNP stood for the Holyrood elections saying they'd hold an indyref.  They got elected.  The Scottish Parliament voted to hold an indyref.  That's the mandate.

Indyref1 cost us 15 million - with a population of 5 and a half million, that's less than three quid a head. 

Three quid a head is not a lot of money, to decide the direction of our country.

Whilst we remain in the UK, our direction will be decided largely by Westminster.

Labour stood in this election on a centre left manifesto virtually indistinguishable from those that have won the SNP election after election in Scotland.

England has resoundingly rejected that manifesto, in favour of the furthest right conservative party in my lifetime.

If we want to make Scotland a better place for all of us, we need to cut the ties that bind us to conservative England.

Quite possibly

Cultural, social, artistic, defence, historical, geographical etc etc links.

Really? 

Not everyone lives their life thinking "what's in it for me?" Sadly we seem to be entering a new period of populism and narcissism. Scots and English are running neck and neck in that race.

I don't know if you can consider a bawhair off half the country supporting the concept of Scottish independence "no support for independence"  Support was around 28-32% when the Edinburgh agreement was signed where it hovered until around 2 weeks before indyref1.  Since then its been mid to high 40's(%).  Ignoring the mandate for one, do you think a government with Boris at the helm with a good majority in England will increase or decrease support for indyref2?

You seem to be confusing concept of a mandate with some thing else - the authority to carry out a policy, regarded as given by the electorate to a party or candidate that wins an election

It is of course not the only reason people voted SNP, but likewise it wasn't their only policy in their manifesto.  Given the MSM and opposition focus, very unlikely that people who voted for SNP didnt know about their desire for scottish independence.  Both lib dems and labour party were not campaigning for indyref2, both stood in Scotland as alternatives to tory/brexit party. 

Yes but despite all of that the opinion polls consistently continue to not support either a second referendum or Scottish independence.

It's not because again the opinion polls show that she does not have the support of the Scottish people for either a second referendum or for Scottish independence.  She is going against the spirit of the Edinburgh agreement that she herself signed, and she is also trying to deliberately mislead the public into believing that a promise made in her own party manifesto, now somehow = a mandate from the Scottish people.  At the same time she has repeatedly failed to deliver other promises made in previous election manifestos as though they don't matter in any way.

Again look at the polls - do they support Scottish independence?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence 1

Why would any of those change without the union?

Norway, Sweden and Denmark share all those points while being independent nations. Norway became independent in 1905 after some 400 years of rule from Denmark and Sweden.

In isolation? A 1-10% lead is not much.  Remain in the BrexitRef1 had a bigger lead.

Considering there is more support now than before, during after the last independence campaign, we haven't had an indyref2 campaign but we do now have another London tory government - with Boris. We are getting dragged out of the EU then add 3 clear election wins to provide mandate.  Yeah I would say there is enough support for indyref2 - at least to pursure permissions, start planning and campaigning.

The SNP say in their 2019 manifesto regards the EU referendum result:

"This is unacceptable. Scotland voted to remain and so we should remain".

Yet they seem to be saying something completely different about the Scottish Independence referendum result:

"This is unacceptable. Scotland voted to remain and so we should leave".

Again the polls disagree with you.

Yes, and they are consequently much less closely linked.   Would you say Brexit will have no effect of relationships with the EU?  Indeed, why would the EU "want" Scotland if as you see things all that matters is cash?

Borders matter for lots of reasons and in general being connected and collaborative is a good thing, discouraged by borders.

There was an opinion poll a few ago which showed a narrow majority against independence if Brexit did not happen but a bigger majority for independence if Brexit did happen. It is possible that quite a large number voting for parties other than the SNP were both remainers and No voters who will now switch to Yes since Brexit is going to happen. I have one foot in this camp though I voted tactically for the SNP to (successfully) get rid of a tory MP.

Do they?  Support for leaving the EU in 2015 at the time of that election was 34%.  Tories won a mandate in the election to have the referendum.  That campaign won a majority for Brexit. 

Support for an independent scotland (from the polls in your link) is currently between 38-46%, rarely in the last 5 years has it been below 40%.   Add in a new campaign for it, attract some undecided voters, let Boris work his magic on those who oppose it and with the third (maybe fourth by then) consecutive mandate for indyref2 - Easily enough support to pursue permissions, start planning and campaigning.

And that was true. If we had voted for independence we would have voted ourselves out of the EU and, in your words, 'got royally shafted' when we discovered that. 

Where would you stand if brexit is followed by a relatively sane trade deal and an attempt maintain links in other ways with the EU?  I am being perhaps naively optimistic this may happen, supported  a bit by financial markets' reactions.

How can it be anti democratic to ask the people what they want to do?

If a group of us met in the pub one Tuesday, decided to head for the peak District at the weekend, then meet again on Thursday, saw the weather forecast looks a bit iffy and was better in the lakes, would you throw your toys out of the pram when someone suggested another show of hands?

Have you read it? It's pretty much an SNP manifesto, other than refusing to tackle our stockpile of weapons of mass destruction...

My message for Scotland: Push for independence like never before or stop voting for a party that only stands in Scotland.

The current situation helps no one but the Tories.

The polls showed that labour had narrowed the Tory lead to a potential hung parliament - the Tories won by a landslide.

Opinion polls are not accurate, to get an accurate assessment of how the people feel you need a referendum.

I don't see it as all about cash. Cash (or lack of it) is the first retort thrown at at me when I raise Scottish or Welsh indy.  "You need England, your economy isn't strong enough on it's own" is probably the most common response.  

I agree. I see Brexit as a very English problem, not a UK one.  If England want to be independant from the EU while Scotland and N.I. don't, why not just let them go? Let them maintain or negotiate their own borderless connections with Europe on their own terms. To drag them out of the EU, against their will, only to maintain borderless connections within the UK doesn't balance.   

Good debate but I'm now off to a meeting so I'll leave by asking a few pertinent questions:

1. The fact that Scotland would have left the EU seemed neither a concern or not for the SNP at the last referendum, so why should it matter so much now?

2. Why do current independence supporters seem to not respect either the result of the last referendum, nor respect the continued and overwhelming poll statistics that shows there is still no overall desire for Scottish Independence or another referendum?

3. The closeness of the Brexit referendum has resulted in 3 1/2 wasted years of bitter wrangling, division, disruption and uncertainty.  What makes you think a close Scottish victory for independence would be immune from these issues?

4. With the above point in mind should there be say a 55% or 60% finish line imposed on the result of any referendum to allow firstly for the very fickle nature of voters/politics these days and also to put the result beyond doubt?

5. If Indyref2 was won but subsequent negotiations with the UK and/or EU don't go in Scotland's favour or a planned, should there be a pre-planned confirmatory referendum once negotiations are concluded?

6. What would happen if Indyref2 was held next year and the result was the same as in 2014?  Would that be it?  If not then when should the next referendum be?

7. If Scotland did go independent should it either adopt the £GBP (and as a result still be under control of UK and Bank of England), or would it be better to adopt the Euro and be closely tied to Brussels and EU economic policy?

8. In what ways would you propose that Scotland would be better off economically as an independent country rather than as part of the UK?

There is no status quo for Scotland - it's currently a member of two political unions, and must choose between remaining in one or the other.

That the other members of one of those unions would deny it that choice speaks volumes about the nature of the two relationships.

It's not a question England "letting" anything happen.  It's a question of the UK making decisions.

In any case, that's a very one-dimensional view of the situation which ignores many, many other factors.  It may be Scotland votes to leave but I suspect in the end it won't, quite.  If NI does anything it will be join Eire, if Eire wants it.  Again, however, I suspect it won't happen, quite.

Nice analogy. I think we are still waiting for the weather forecast for the alternate destinations though.

It might well be iffy for the peak but really rubbish for the lakes. 

The Tory's were the same. ~45% of the vote.

I don't think we can make any argument that the country is against Brexit, likewise I can't say how we can Scotland doesn't want what the SNP want.

It's not anti democratic to ask the people, but we did that back in 2014.  It is however anti-democratic for the SNP to claim that everyone who voted for the SNP supports a second referendum.  It is also pretty anti-democratic and disrespectful to continue to force repeated referendums onto a population who clearly do not want it, whilst simultaneously failing to give enough attention to some of the other reasons why the SNP have been elected in (schools, hospitals, transport etc.)

To use your analogy, less than half of the group wants another show of hands, plans have already been made, accommodation is booked and the trip will be adapted accordingly to the weather.  It's basically a minority in the group trying to change the trip on behalf of the majority who have always been happy with it, ruining the trip and inconveniencing the group in the process.  Regardless a group of friends can do different things easily sure enough.  Two countries separating would be a protracted, drawn out and ultimately destructive process for all involved.

I think the political case for independence is overwhelming (PR, broadly social democrtatic consensus) while the economic implications are definitely worrying. I would be against independence unless a smooth route back into the EU were guaranteed. If the UK negotiates a relatively sane, softer Brexit (as some suggest Johnson might now do since his majority means he is no longer hostage to the ERG), that is obviously a good thing and would make things easier for an independent Scotland trading with England, so it would be both an argumnent for and against independence!

I can't believe I actually need to say this, but when you get 80% of the constituencies you have the support of the Scottish people.  

No. It is a member of one union, the UK, which is a member of another union the EU. It may choose to leave the union it is a member of, the UK, thereby leaving the EU and seek (probably but not certainly successfully) to join the EU. It may not simply remain. 

I don't think that will happen if a pro referendum majority is secured in 2021. 

80% of constituencies on 45% of the vote is not unequivocal support. It is a further reflection on the problems of FPTP. 

Conservative UK vote share 43%. SNP vote share 45%. Conservative UK share of seats 53%. SNP share of seats 81%. 

The trends are clear. in 2010 support for independence was around 30%. It's now 50% and growing. And support for independence in the younger and increasingly influential age groups is unequivocal. 

Unlike Brexit, when independence comes Scotland will have a plan, a process and institutions largely in place. I also suspect that politically there is declining support across England for the union.

The most encouraging thing about this election is that Scottish voters are now shrugging off mainstream media misrepresentation and bias, as well as the enduring scare stories about how difficult and damaging independence might be. 

Well, the status quo on one of them was EU membership and and I'm suggesting much of the present dissatisfaction with Brexit is due to the close simple majority referendum result forcing change against the wishes of half the country.

On Scottish nationalism, the status quo is UK member state. Do half the people want to change that too?

50-50 isn't a green light.

It's not a mandate for independence. Nobody has said that. But it is most certainly a rock hard mandate for the Scottish people getting to vote on independence and make up their own minds. This campaign in Scotland was fought very clearly on Indyref2. The three Westminster parties campaigned on nothing else. If you deny Scotland the right to make that choice you go down a very dangerous and anti democratic path.

Ha. We need immigrants in Scotland and welcome them. Wherever they come from. I hope more people will move up here from England to live, work, study and start businesses.....and vote for independence. 

Like every other independent country we'll be fine. Scotland is a wealthy and innovative nation with a strong economy. But weighed down by the debt from union that doesn't work for us and is actively antagonistic to Scottish economic development.

Comparing the push for Scottish independence with Brexit it just so wide of the mark I'm not sure whether the post is serious. Independence for a country like Scotland is normal. What is abnormal is being ruled from a parliament in another country.

It absolutely is, if Scotland or Wales want an indy ref they need Westminsters (Englands) approval.

Regardless of the outcome, if any nation wants to hold an indyref, they should not need approval from another nation, even if they want to repeat it periodically.   

My initial question or point I don't understand is why the English hold on to the union so hard?

You say you want to stay close to your neighbours, yet Brexit indicates otherwise. 

Each of the 4 nations in the UK have issues. Scotland and Wales with their relationship with Westminster/England. England seems to have an unresolved post-empire identity issue.  And NI...

Instead of having 4 families with issues forcefully living unhappily in one house, is it time we got our own homes and worked on our own individual issues? We can still be friendly neighbours.

What about the democratic right of the current majority of the Scottish population who don't want a Second Referendum?  Why can they not go about their lives free from the constant threat of their world being turned upside-down by disruption and uncertainty thrust upon them by those who continue to practice the most divisive of populist and nationalistic politics?

You've been reading the Daily Mail again. "Once in a generation" was a phrase used to describe how important and momentous the 2014 vote was. It was never part of any manifesto or part of the Edinburgh Agreement. The fact that the London based media don't correct that illustrates quite how distorted things have become. It was also made quite clear that "if circumstances changed materially" then all bets were off. To say "you've had your vote" now get back in your box is not a view that I hope any democrat would support. 

I don't know if you live and vote in Scotland? If you do then I'm surprised at your comment because you would understand the strength of feeling and momentum behind the push for democracy and self determination in Scotland. I don't think that will wait until 2024. But time is on the side of independence. Trends are on the side of independence and the demographic voting profiles are on the side of independence.

None taken.

That is a very unfair misrepresentation of the mainstream independence movement in Scotland.

A good wee debate....but I'm off now to celebrate no longer having to be embarrassed to admit Stirling has a Tory MP!

If staying in the UK wasn't sold as the only way to stay in the EU last time I don't think it would be as big an issue as it is now.  60%+ in Scotland voted to stay in EU vs support for indy (38-46%), would be crazy not to tap that disenfranchised demographic.  EU money (or money that went from UK to EU then back) has made some great projects happen from roads to grant funding for business, I don't think that Westminster/bojo is going to keep that cashflow happening nevermind £350 mil to the NHS.

As Tom said - we aren't independent now, it wasn't declared without permission.  There isn't any overall desire not to have another referendum or against independence... There is though enough has change in circumstances since the last one - the breaking of promises made, Brexit, EVEL, Boris Johnson - as many of the project fear scenarios are more likely in post brexit UK than they would have been in indy Scotland.   

I'm not sure Brexit is anywhere near the gold standard of how these things are supposed to happen.  Even just the white paper produced by SNP for indyref1 is a better start than possibly even where we are now with brexit.  Would love to see a scottish labour/tories/libdem/green paper on what they think an independent Scotland would look/work like. 

If its a question or campaign like the last ref or indyref1, I wouldn't like it but 50%+1 for consistantly (or whatever it was).  I do think that there should be an independent fact checking watchdog that can impose fines, withold the substantial MP salaries and issue custodial sentences for election campaign fraud, lies and misrepresentation - but that another thing...    

Once everything that can be known is known, and everybody knows it - confirmatory referendum for sure.  Would the EU speak to Scottish ministers or would they only speak in secret to the UK like last time?  Would labour/tories offer up manifestos for the governing of an indy scotland?  Would they even stand for election?  What would Scotlands relationship be with rUK if it went back into the UK fold (after a yes vote) would it be a union of "equal" nations as it is now? Or would the north/west coast become uninhabitable due to funding cuts to Holyrood?

I dont think it would be, but if it was when the next one would be would depend when the truths pronounced by either side to get us to vote either way were proven to be lies.  Or significant material change.

I have no issues going to Euro personally - not bothered either way tbh. As part the UK, £GBP is of course under the control of the UK and the Bank of England but surely its not set-up and operated in anyway for the benefit of Scotland?

Depends who gets elected, their policies.  No trident? Reduce defence spending?  No VAT for emergency services?  No high speed rail?  Increase immigration?  Keep the NHS? Maintain EU standards so we can still trade with them? Further develop tidal/renewable?   Sell freshwater and renewable energy to people who dont have any... Be in the EU?

I would have an independence day celebrations - host the two best annual parties in the world.  Have it in summer (6 months from hogmany).  £1billion for the NHS easy.

And there is the disconnect. From my perspective the UK parliament is within my country. I would prefer a different government but it is my government. 

I find it difficult to understand that you can't see the comparison between brexit and independence as valid. 

If reasonable people can have such different perceptions then there had better be some serious conversations so at least we don't descend into strife. 

Absolutely! The problem lies in seeing Westminster as being different. I don't and therefore have no problem with 'taking rule from them' as has been said, because we are not 'them' and 'us' but one and the same. As a Scot with various bits of European blood in me I'm more than happy to share rule of the UK with other parts of the UK and by extension of that happy to exist within European law. Sure, I am also happy that relevant elements are governed more locally but then isn't that how America is also governed? I think one of the issues with independence is that it's an emotive and ideological subject and therefore it's very difficult to counter it with any reasonable fact, much as the same is difficult to do with Brexit; you are either fundamentally for it, or against it. There does exist a portion in the middle who could swing either way, but the died in the wool voters are unlikely to change. I am yet to have anyone come up with a credible reason as to why Scotland would be better off because the emotive elements of it are against both my values and my beliefs, and I also do not think the figures work, but even if they did I would still be happy with what we have. I do not think we need independent governance because I do not see us as standalone. I have less difference with Tory voters and people of a similar socio-economic background south of the border than I do many independence and SNP voters who may live next door to me. The more you divide a population, the more you increase animosity to people of ever smaller differences to yourself.

You can say that as often as you want but it won't make it true. The government is a UK, not English, government.

I would have thought that the Tories would be keen to give Scotland independence as it would enable Boris to increase his majority by another 48 ensuring that Labour would never ever have a chance to govern in the future. Or maybe Boris just believes that it is best to all stick together. 

And a final thought. Didn't the SNP say that the BREXIT referendum should have had a 60% limit before "leave" was accepted. In the interest of fairness, if they get another referendum to split from the UK, shouldn't they also impose a 60% "leave" limit. 

No, thought not as it doesn't suit! 

As a half time resident of Scotland I don't see that much democracy in action. There's a lot of toothless talking shops but Scottish Government has, I seems to me, clawed a lot of power to itself and away from local councils. The freeze on raising council tax whilst splashing the cash pre Indyref is hitting services very hard and very quickly. All this despite council spending being 20℅ higher. The councils are made to take the blame for spending cuts which they have little choice but to make. If Scotland gets the opportunity to vote for independence voters should be aware that it will come at a cost. I hope they are willing the bare that.

Not harder because in the latter case one is dealing with idiots. As for bitterness, well, they're bitter now, which is costing them, and more of the same will keep costing them.

This is so simple even lawyers should be able to understand. Yesterday, England voted to be a c3nt. Yesterday, Scotland voted not to be.

No bigotry in the land that voted for 'decency, inclusion and democracy' then...

You're a disgusting offensive individual who doesn't deserve the freedoms afforded to you via these type of forums. I hope you get a permanent ban for that vile outburst.

​​​​Your elected leader Boris Johnson, 29 June 2019:

"I’m not convinced there is a case for an England-only parliament, we have an England-only parliament. It’s in Westminster.”

So because Johnson says it, it is true?

I'm disappointed with you lot this year, I was looking forward to this:
https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/11/ruth-davidson-vows-skinny-dip-loch-ness-snp-...

Listen to what he says not just the headline:

marr: if it’s a no, and I mean by a whisker, that’s it? Or will there be another ref in a few years. You have been heard saying this is a once in a generation opportunity 

salmon: well there was a constitutional referendum in 1979 and the next one was in 1997. That what I call a political generation. but in, my opinion, and it is MY opinion....

Look. This is getting really cold stuff. Salmon is not the leader. The « once in a generation opportunity » is an expression, a saying! Like once in a lifetime and people will do it twice if they can. Let’s not be stupidly stubborn about sound bites.

crucially, let’s see what Johnson and his ilk will do. I am only just pro independence, mainly because I have given up on rUK! Becoming independent would be painful, difficult and come at a cost. It offers me hope for things to get better. Johnson offers me an ideology I don’t believe in and which is now starting to show its consequences. I have no trust in him beyond actually damaging the most vulnerable in society to suit himself. 

I actually favour a referendum at the end of this parliament, 2024- 10 years after the initial one. Once, the direction of Dickensian / Victorian Britain is plain for all to see. Then we ask for it, and if it is refused we have an uprising if necessary ! ( must be the French in me). Let the xenophobic and egotistical selfish oaf make a misery of all our lives. Let him prove to us that we are different and we do not want, based with 5 years worth of evidence, to be associated with him, his policies, his ideology and the people who vote for him .

You elected him as your PM, he represents YOU.

650 seats in parliament, 533 o'r 82% are for England. 117 (18%) Scotland, Wales & NI combined. Hardly a balanced representation.

Did the EU say to Cameron 'Oh you don't have 50% of the votes cast in the UK general election so we aren't going to give permission for you to hold a referendum'.

The UK treats Scotland like a colony.   It doesn't accept that it is a voluntary union of nations under a treaty and Scotland can choose to leave.  

You are correct, Wales is relatively over represented.

A lot more than Cameron had when he held the EU referendum.

indyref2 wouldn't be held until autumn 2020.   That's plenty of time for Boris to become extremely unpopular even in England.  

They both seek to unpick a single market, freedom of movement and common regulation. The UK is more integrated than the EU. The proponents of both brexit and independence depict themselves as escaping from a restrictive sclerotic central power Westminster/Brussels and joining a wider grouping the EU/World. Both present themselves as internationalist but their agenda is domestic. None of the improvements in the lives of ordinary people they purport to desire are dependent on independence or brexit. Both consume resources, time and the intellect that would be better addressed to improving the well-being of people. Both talk of the rights of states not individuals. 

Scotland is part of the UK, no Scotland no UK. We had a referendum on that. I don't doubt that if independence supporting parties gain more than 50% of the vote with a specific manifesto commitment to an independence referendum in the Scottish Parliament election in 2021 then there will be a section 30 order and another referendum. If in that case it was refused I and many others would join you in protest. 

<eyeroll>

​​​

What does Holyrood actually do? Apart from costing Millions on repairs.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/cheaper-to-tear-down-scottish-parlia...

I'm English. Scottish independence at some time does seem inevitable. Scotland would almost certainly join the EU. The Scotland/rUK trade and border problems including movement/Schengen and trade/tariffs/regulations might well pose major difficulties to both sides as there is a mainland border where free movement of goods and people is of major importance. The N/S Ireland problems might be minor compared to this (the logical outcome here must surely be eventual Irish unification). Much depends on the results of  forthcoming UK/EU negotiations.....if Scotland joined the EU before these ended (very unlikely) then then the EU would obviously favour Scotland over rUK.

Obviously Scotland would be OK in the EU, I imagine many EU states were far worse off before they joined. Incidentally would Scotland be able to leave the UK without taking a portion of the UK national debt, quite possibly?

If the SNP got 100% of the vote the unionists would say best out of three.

If unionists want to define the criteria for an indyref there is a simple process:

1. Get elected to form a government at Holyrood

2. Draft a bill setting out indyref criteria

3. Get parliament to pass it.

The key part of that process is getting elected.

If you apply that logic, then the conservative vote share at 43%, isn't a majority in favour of brexit. But brexit it is now inevitable. You can't have it both ways. I not only voted remain, but strongly identify as european. Yet I am prepared to accept that England voted for brexit. The flip side is that unionists need to accept that Scotland has voted for a 2nd independence referendum. That's democracy.

What? And the conservatives with 43% of the vote haven't been awarded a hugely disproportionate share of the seats? 

Evidence for that? 

Quite. With an unequivocal commitment to a referendum or not. 2021 awaits. 

Correct, it isnt. 

Yep

No it hasnt. Its just voted in a UK general election. 

Perhaps the Irish will be an interesting factor that manipulates the situation to create first of all a second referendum on Brexit. How does a PM force Brexit on Ireland first of all? This is the first insurmountable problem because Irish reunification is far more potent  and toxic to Boris than Scottish question. It may be the achilles heal in the whole Brexit process that at the very least requires a pacification tactic  and legitimisation of a proper democratic referendum.

Maybe he has won the right for his deal definition but can he apply it?

I think it is pretty simple:

EITHER

Scotland takes an agreed portion of the debt AND a matching portion of the assets.  In which case Scotland starts off with reserves for a central bank, military equipment and so on.

OR

Scotland walks away without taking any of the debt.  In which case Scotland has a clean slate and can afford to borrow enough to get itself set up.

Some things, once seen, cannot be unseen.....

Nothing of importance has changed except that the economic case for independence gets progressively weaker as the oil and gas is exhausted. You can't keep having a new referendum ever few years. Whether it was part of any agreement or not, once in a generation is more than enough. And I don't read the Daily Mail!

We can have a referendum whenever we elect a government that has the votes to pass a law to hold one.

Agreed, Scotland should be inside the Schengen borders and able to benefit fully from freedom of movement of people, goods and services, connected to a whole continent for collaboration.

Err... From the link:

"No" continued to show a lead in opinion polls until July 2019, when one poll by Lord Ashcroft showed a narrow majority for "Yes".[16] Professor John Curtice said after this poll was released that there had recently been a swing towards "Yes", and that this was concentrated among people who had voted to "Remain" in the 2016 Brexit referendum.[16]

Seems like the UK's most popular poll analyst believes they do. 

Indeed, as with the British weather the forecasts are iffy. However the bus is already heading for the peak, so we need to make our minds up now...will be a long road to hitch back if the weather really craps out...

Fair point, but we still have to choose between remaining in the UK or leaving to rekindle tours with the EU - the sooner we choose to do that, the less we'll have diverged and the easier it will be to rejoin.

Why should it need yet another pro referendum majority? Why should we have to wait for permission?

Most Scottish independence supporters are pro-EU. The desire to leave a union of 4 Nations and be part of a union of 28 Nations, maintaining freedom of movement, is fundamentally different from the desire to leave a union of 28 Nations and go it alone... 

If 80% of the constituencies in England were won by an English Independence Party, we would not be having a conversation about whether England should be allowed to have a referendum on leaving the UK.

To have Westminster approval, Scotland must have England's approval. England does not need to seek ours.

This is not a federal union of equals.

Scotland didn't vote for a second referendum. 45% voted SNP after Nicola said vote SNP to keep the Tories out.

That means fewer voted for a second referendum than voted to Leave in 2014.

Nicola as usual, can't be trusted.

Yes but if BJ doesn't agree to it, it just becomes a big opinion poll which will be boycotted by many Scots.

 Wait, what? In the interests of fairness surely they should be required to meet the same standard the Brexiteers had to meet, 50%.  Unless you’re saying you’d prefer 60% for both, in which case the whole problem goes away anyway.

Do you have a pro referendum majority? The words on the SNP bus were, Stop Brexit, the SNP literature addressed to me at least, does not mention the words independence or referendum. Carefully worded allusions such as 'there is another way out of this mess-to give you the choice of future you want' are hardly explicit. That we can even have this discussion raises questions. 

In 2021 I assume the proposition will be vote SNP for indyref2. That if it results in victory in a proportional system will be an indisputable mandate. 

I think brexit people see it as going into the world. 'Out of Europe into the world' 

If offered the choice between the EU within the UK or independence outside of both which would you take?

Is the EU the main driver of the SNP or independence or is the former convenient clothing to expidite the latter? 

I think you are confusing things here by seeing England (sorry rest of UK), and Scotland as two separate nations.  At present they are not - we are the UK.  Scotland declared very clearly in 2014 that they wanted to remain in the UK.

The UK did vote for Brexit - not by voting for the Conservatives on Thursday, but by voting for it in the 2016 referendum. 

There was already mumblings about an EU referendum in 2013 when David Cameron promised an in/out EU referendum should they be re-elected in the 2015 election.  The Scottish people knew this was a strong possibility and that the outcome of such a referendum would be uncertain, yet chose to remain in the UK regardless.

The UK isn't a federal union anyway so irrelevant whether anything is "equal". In the federal unions of equals like Germany or the USA leaving the union isn't permitted in the constitution nor is holding a referendum on the subject.

I live in Scotland and did not vote for independence in 2014. However I believe in the principle that anyone has the right to walk away from an authoritarian relationship without asking that party committing the authoritarian act, permission.

No confirmatory referendum on the biggest economic, ecological shift constitutes that level of abuse of that relationship's trust.  Thus ,I agree with Sturgeon to seek ,in principle,that  the  right to have a referendum on independence resides with the Scottish Parliament and our voting patterns not with Westminter

I will not swop one form of authoritarianism for another. Any substantially changing agreement  should by default be subject to a confirmatory referendum on its detail. We are a long way from the next Scottish Parliament election and much water will have gone under the bridge before next Scottish Parliamentary election, but I agree Sturgeon should establish the principle now to give us choice.

If this election did one thing it was to underline that Scotland and England are quite separate countries. They have never been more politically and culturally divergent. Trying to hold a broken union together by saying "no" repeatedly to the valid demands of a democratically elected majority in Scotland won't work anymore. And demanding yet another mandate when Scotland has already voted four times for pro independence majorities is dodging the issue. Scotland has just elected independence supporting MP's in 81% of Scottish parliamentary seats. Ignoring that damages democracy and will only lead to pressure for independence gathering pace. Scotland is treated like a colony and a possession of Westminster. I'm afraid that may supporters of the union still seem to possess that colonial mindset. But any decision on the future constitutional arrangements for Scotland must lie in the hands of our parliament. Not in the hands of a government with no mandate in Scotland and no real interest in the future of our people, our economy or our future. 

Voting snp doesn't prove the motive of the voter was independence, they might have just thought Boris was a Muppet, Corbyn an incompetent old man and swinson even more shouty than sturgeon. 

Since when did voting motives become an issue and matter more than actual votes and seats? That really is clutching at straws. And is impossible to gauge or measure. The facts are clear. Scottish voters returned independence supporting MP's in 81% of constituencies in Scotland. In a democracy that is an overwhelming majority and a mandate for Scottish voters to have the opportunity to choose their own future. At a time of our choosing in our parliament.

The SNP being elected isn't the same as a referendum for a referendum. There was a referendum 5 years ago and referenda that have such a fundamental impact on a country should not be repeated every 5 years. We've seen the uncertainty and division it creates. 

Scotland could've stopped brexit but failed to turn up in sufficient numbers to do so and you also have those that voted to leave. That's not the fault of heavy remain voting areas like London which are cross subsidising other areas of the country with a 7% deficit.

Just like being in Europe, it's generally better to remain as a part of a large block than not. However, just like Europe you have a lot of nationalists blaming a foreign bogeyman for all of their ills. For UKIP it was Brussels and for SNP it was Westminster and both repeated so often to turn them into dirty words. Both downplay trade with their nearest neighbours to emphasise having a relationship with the wider world or Europe in the SNP's case.

I think the UK including Scotland needs to take a break from committing major acts of self-harm for a while. Brexit is bad and uncomfortable but with over 60% of Scotland's trade going to the rest of the UK and 1 in 4 jobs relying on UK exports independence would make Brexit look like a storm in a teacup for Scotland.

Another referendum? Most people have had enough of those.  

What you want to do is form an alliance with the Labour Party for 5 years time. 

Then win an election based on that. 

The snp should find another route to gain what they want.

My position was more nuanced than yours. My mindset has not been  Scottish nationalist hence my indication that to assume rather than prove  is a dangerous one - the very one thing I complain about the approach in England.

But, I can't disagee with you in recognising an essential political divergence in that 81%  vote which does give a  right to give a choice and avoid imposition. That canbe done by seeking, in principle that the decision to hold an independence referendum lies with the Scottish Parliament.To run away further to saying "different countries" and "the referendum was voted for" in this GE doesn't seem to have a basis in these election results  and is driven by enthusiasm.

What would be the time of your choosing? To win, you roughly need 1 in 10 of No voters from last time round to switch to Yes. That is quite a lot, given that a majority of them will be staunch Unionists who will never switch. So you've got to appeal to waiverers such as myself. To switch I would need to be convinced by a purely positive and realistic vision for an independent Scotland. Bashing a Union which, for all its political faults, still has some major appeals will not cut it and the kind of Jingoistic sometimes anti-English nastiness which too often pervades the stuff I see on social media simply repels me (Yes, I know the SNP Leadership is not in any way like that, but it is definitely there, simmering beneath the surface). To be convinced I would need to be absolutely sure that Scotland would get rapidly back into the EU and that we would also have a near frictionless border with England, so I think it is essential to wait at least until the rUK's future relationship with the EU is clear. I would love the lessons of Brexit to be learnt and to have an initial referendum and a later confirmatory referendum after negotiations with the rUK and the EU - to me this is a no-brainer, but seems, unfortunately, not to be on the agenda. My preferred option would be for Scotland to be in a properly federal UK, but, sadly, I just don't see this happening.

You either elected him (if you voted at all) or did not do anything to stop him (if you did not vote) as part of the UK electorate.   Certainly you are as complicit as anyone in England is.

NO ONE  represents me or my interests in the current state of affairs

please do not classify all of us south of the border as in the same boat.   England did not vote to become such.   The fact is the Leaver camp was much more ruthless than the Remainers and turnedcoat to get what had been implented in their lemming brains by serious information war in which the BBC was instrumental.

There is a chilling similarity in what every one of the hordes of public interviewed had to say about ~Brexit and Labour, almost as if they had somehow been subject to influence

When you claim a snp vote as a yes vote for indef2?

I don't think I'm the one clutching at straws. 

Absolutely. My vote for the SNP was primarily a tactical vote against the tories and therefore against the forces which are driving the Union apart.

I agree with much of what you say. I think the important principle is that the power to hold a referendum is now passed to the Scottish Parliament. The current position where such a choice is withheld for political reasons by a parliament and a government (with no mandate in Scotland) that we cannot realistically influence is intolerable. I think most of those that support the movement for independence recognise that we require a process that is thorough, convincing and has democratic integrity. That has to be balanced against maintaining momentum in an institutional environment that is hostile to independence and with a Conservative government and "establishment interests" that will almost certainly try to undermine and sabotage such a process. Or slow it down so that it loses that momentum I've referred to. So our parliament needs to create a realistic timetable and the context, with I hope the support of a large number of MSP's elected to Holyrood from all of the main parties....It's then up the independence movement to make the case and win the support required to move forward with domestic and international recognition of the new Scottish state. I am concerned that if the new Conservative government behaves to type and rejects the democratic demands of Scottish voters then it's clear that there is no point in Scottish MP's being elected or attending Westminster. It then becomes a civil rights issue with all that entails.

Obvious troll is obvious... I don't believe for a second you don't know how representative democracy and political mandates work. 

I think it is pretty simple as well:

In the succession talks Westminster will hold most of the power. The new Scottish government will have to accept most of rUK wishes, whether it is fair or not. And rUK will be responsible for the rUK interests, no longer the Scottish interests.

See the UK-EU brexit negotiations for an example of how this works out.

But you can't vote for x in a general election and imply y in a referendum. They are completely different.

Had Labour had a remotely decent candidate the snp could have easily been given a kicking. The snp did well because of Corbyn and Boris, not because of their track record in Scotland to date, nor their desire for indef2, or their manifesto. 

can you tell that to Boris? 

In indef1 the snp never gave a straight answer on currency, because they knew the reality would be unpalatable to their voters.

With respect to trade deals, yes. I have literally never heard a single person argue that leaving Europe could lead us to forming a bigger political Union and I'm not sure how that could even start. Brexit appears to be about competing more, not co-operating more.

I've long championed an independent Scotland within Europe - I always wanted Scotland to have a seat at the table, rather than relying on UK representation.

If Scotland has to become temporarily outside the EU to establish itself and rejoin I'd accept that - if there was no route back to the EU, I would certainly take the UK staying in the EU over Scotland being independent and outside. I'd still hope that one day Scotland and England could become partners in Europe though - I feel that the European Union is a much more useful one than the Union of the crowns.

That's not the choice we're facing right now though. The UK has voted to leave, and is showing no signs of changing its mind.

It's not the main driver, but it has certainly become an important issue since England and Wales voted to leave the EU. 

Do you think he'd listen!? 

I find this attitude astonishing. The SNP have had a dominance over a sustained period which other parties can only dream about. The right to hold another referendum, or the right to decide their own future as they have been talking about during this campaign, seems unarguable to me.

The SNP did well because people voted for them.  They released and stood by a manifesto saying what they would do if the were given a mandate.  It can't be a suprise that indyref2 was included, its kind of the SNP thing, all other parties are always very vocal about the fact that it is the SNP thing. 

People who voted for SNP - giving them their mandate - cant really complain they didnt want what they have just voted for.  They can, if they dont think Scotland should be an independent country, vote against that in the referendum (that they just voted for).

Why oppose Boris or Corbyn if track record and manifestos arent a concern? 

That was precisely my reasoning when casting my vote for the SNP.

To best honest I don't really care. I think it would be economic madness. You'd lose the pound, eventually have to take the euro, if you ever met the eu entry criteria. By the time you scexit the world be further down the carbon free path, so oil and gas industry would be in decline. It's easy to say you'd be free, but you wouldn't really be, you'd be tied to the euro, ecb and Brussels, the maths just doesn't stack up. 

I find it astonishing that after the debacle of the EU referendum people think that referendums are the right solution to complex issues. 

Voter turnout for an indépendance referendum is likely to be much higher than for  the general election. I suspect there are lots of people who would vote for independence who didn't vote in this general election. 

There is undeniably a mandate for a second referendum and I suspect the prospect of serious civil unrest if one isn't approved by the UK government. 

Civil unrest is not a feature of Uk politics. For all the talk of it , it remains just talk. Surely you should have learnt that by now. 

It's your vote to do with as you please.  You think it would be economic madness, I think thats your ideological position regardless of anything anyone says - which is fine, I don't agree but I dont have to... 

People shouldn’t assume everyone who voted SNP would vote for independence. I for one voted tactically for SNP to help stop the local Tory candidate - but am personally pro union.

That said, it’s hard to disagree with a recent report by the Institute for Government which concluded that it’s unsustainable to deny them a second independence referendum if Scots vote for a party supporting one. “If the union is to survive, it must be because a majority of people in all four parts of the UK are persuaded that its survival is for the best, not because Westminster wields the power… to hold the nations… together against their will.”

1.  -Scotland has consistently and overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU. The plan was always to rejoin the EU after leaving the uk.  This is easily achievable in contrary to the scaremongering of the no campaign. 

2. -Leaving the EU is a huge material change which has happened following the last referendum. The polls show a huge proportion of the Scottish population do want another referendum. Why don't you respect their wishes?

3. It almost certainly wouldn't be.  I believe a few years of uncertainly and potentially hardship are worth trading for a brighter and fairer longterm future. 

4. Thats not how democracy works. 

5. I suspect that wouldn't happen, but can see some benefit to a confirmatory referendum if there major unforeseen problems. 

6. A future referendum would be at the discretion of the scottish population and potentially at the discretion  of the rest of the UK...they might not want to reform the union. 

7. No easy answer to this.  Personally I would like us to join the euro. 

8. 

-Control over our oil and gas reserves which remain significant and likely to become more valuable as worldwide supplies become more finite.

-Export of clean energy

-Our tourism industry

-Export of whisky, fish and high quality agricultural produce

-Our universities and other higher education institutes supporting an educated workforce

If you had attended the National Economic Forum for Scotland last week and understood the depth, diversity and growth in key global sectors being experienced by the Scottish economy you might form a different view. You're entitled to your opinion,but to tell those of that live, work and vote in Scotland that our country Is uniquely unable to prosper as an independent state seems to lack any basis in fact. Whether you support independence or not. But the discussion is not about independence in isolation. It's about the right of Scottish voters to make that choice.

While I hope you are right, I'm not sure I agree. Remember the rioting in London? Independence is a very heartfelt issue and no-one like being denied something they believe they are entitled too. 

I wonder what the effect of balloting the whole UK on Scottish Independence would be.

Tongue-in-cheek I can imagine the reverse psychology of being 'voted out' more strongly than nationalists might think fitting leading to all sorts of complaints and grievances and the vocal assertion of our "rights" to stay in!

That's a recent thing.  I'm old enough to remember Thatcher vs the miners and the IRA.  We haven't had civil unrest for a generation because government has avoided the degree of provocation and confrontation which causes it.  I'm not sure the Johnson government has that wisdom.

The other thing that has changed is the state now has a much bigger technical advantage from monitoring communications, CCTV/cellphone footage and facial recognition. 

I find it astonishing that after the debacle of Brexit and the prospect of 5 years of Boris Johnson anyone in Scotland would not think that running our own affairs is the right solution to many complex problems.

It is up to Scotland whether it holds an independence referendum, just like it was up to the UK whether it held a Brexit referendum.  Scotland and England are nations which united their parliaments by a treaty and they can withdraw from that treaty.   

Westminster and the English in general have no say whatsoever on whether Scotland holds an independence referendum, or selects some other method of deciding the issue such as a vote in the Holyrood Parliament.   Leaving the UK is our right under UN law on self determination and the UK constitutional situation going back to the Treaty of Union.  

If unionists want to put constraints on the independence process then there is a referendum law going through the Holyrood Parliament.  They can get their MSPs to amend it or vote against it.  What they can't legitimately do is beg the English to block independence referendums because they didn't get elected.

I think the quoted sentence is something most would agree with but it's not actually the case. As far as we know the majority of Scottish people want to remain, as does the majority of people else where. 

i don't trust the SNP to determine when each referendum is held. It's likely to be after every point scored for the case of independence. Blue government in England, referendum, red government in England, wait it out. They are too partisan. The UK believes in self-determination and Scotland may end up with another vote in the future (if that's what they want at the time) the disagreement is about when.

Scottish Conservatives? 

The simple point is that it's up to us....Scottish voters. And our democratically elected representatives. Nobody else. If that ceases to be the case as I've said before, it becomes a civil rights issue with all that entails. There are no grey areas. You either believe in the democratic system in the UK and respect the outcome of elections or you don't. Regardless of whether you like the outcome or not. And if this new Johnson government chooses to ignore the mandate our elected representatives have won yet again then it sets a very dangerous precedent.....if government by democracy is to be upheld. 

No one knows this, and you could also justifiably say that there are lots of people who would vote against independence who who didn't vote in this general election.

You are claiming that a 45% vote for the SNP from the electorate is a mandate for an independence vote.  Therefore, following your same logic, a 55% vote for non-referendum or independance supporting parties from the rest of the Scottish electorate surely means that there is a far stronger mandate to not have another referendum.  You see how this works?

Well you are going to have to have very clear agreements on things like transfer of pensions etc before hand otherwise you are just weakening your hand. 

You are always banging on about how ill  thought out the Brexit vote was. You need to move away from nationalism to pragmatism to get the vote you want. You need to lay out in hard detail your plans and for the uk to agree to it. 

Otherwise voters on the margins will just stick with what they know and you will lose again. 

Your logic is flawed. By your logic the new Conservative government has no mandate since it only achieved 43% of the vote across the UK. So despite their majority they have no mandate? You do realise how the FPTP system works do you? You're picking an argument with democracy and all those of us that it's designed to represent and protect.

Thanks for your replies, some sensible answers there.  If you could provide more information on the question below though then that would be interesting.

A bigger proportion of the Scottish people do not want another referendum.  Why won't you respect their wishes?

Regardless of the above, support for independence and/or referendum has hovered at around 45% for the last few years now.  What do you say to the 55% of the Scottish people (you seem to be conveniently ignoring) who want to remain?  Do you think your wishes should take priority?

Thanks for the advice....deep sigh!

This is about giving all Scottish voters a choice. 100% of them. Simple democracy in action. Everybody will have their say....those for and against independence and each will have the opportunity to make their case. 

But 55% of the Scottish people don't want the uncertainty, disruption and division that comes with having to make that choice, particularly when the last referendum is still so fresh in peoples minds.  Why can you not respect their wishes?

More depth and diversity than the existing countries of the UK working together towards one pot in the UK treasury, which is then divided up unequally in Scotland's favour?

As I said, economic madness. 

Its not 55% who want remain, its about 45% each way - if the polls are accurate.  Add in the undecided to get the full 100%... Mandates aren't won by whoever loses, the SNP won seats in more than 80% of the available constituancies.  They have the mandate for their manifesto.

I bow to your superior knowledge of the Scottish economy. I'm sure you have our best interests at heart.

The mandate is 48/59 Scottish Constituencies voting for a party which is very clearly pro-independence.

There are three distinct questions:

1. Does the Scottish Parliament as the representative of the Scottish people and the successor to the Scottish Parliament at the time of the Treaty of Union have the right to define a process - such as an independence referendum - under which Scotland could restore its independence.

My view is that legally and morally Scotland does have the right to leave the UK and the Scottish Parliament is the representative body for Scotland.

2. Should the Scottish Government hold a referendum in 2020

I think it should.  It has a mandate from the last Holyrood election, it has passed the necessary legislation and it just received a strong electoral confirmation.   The matter is urgent because the sooner we leave the easier it will be to stay in (or rejoin) the EU and the less chance Boris will have to destroy the devolution settlement and our economy.   This is a practical/political argument.  If circumstances changed I might change my mind.

3. If the Scottish Government was to hold one would YES win.

I think it would, though it is far from certain.  Let's say it is currently 45% YES, 55% NO.   We saw at the last referendum that during the course of the campaign the YES vote went up, we don't need a majority for YES at the start of the campaign to win.  Secondly, the longer Boris is in office the more apparent it will be that being controlled by Westminster is a disaster - if the referendum is held in autumn 2020 there could already be a majority for yes at the start of the campaign.  Thirdly,  I think the EU will be a lot more supportive this time because Scotland intends to become a member state.  Last time the UK was a member state in good standing and entitled to have the EU support it.  This time it is not and the EU self interest is different.   

I'd be interested to see your polls as I have not seen them.  The polls I am aware of, with very few exceptions, consistently have the remain side ahead by somewhere between 1% and 10%.  Then there is this:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/poll-finds-1-in-4-who-voted-yes-in-scott...

But just not the support of the Scottish public for their proposed actions!

Not matter how diverse the Scottish economy is, it's impossible to be more diverse than the total of Scottish, English, Welsh and NI economies? 

That's not the same though is it as the Scottish public's support for independence and you know that.  Again what do you say to the 55% who do not want another referendum?

You've not convinced me that a bigger majority do not want a referendum.  I think many Scots in favour of remaining in the UK would actually want a referendum to settle it one way or another.  

The margin is clearly small enough that a referendum is required. 

A good post but a lot of assumptions and what-iffs.  I'd be with you in supporting another referendum but I really think you need to have the support of the Scottish people with you to justify doing this.  Currently 45% support is not enough.  If the level of support for another referendum was reliably over 50% for a good couple of years then I think that another referendum would be justified.  The worst thing for you is to have another referendum prematurely which is then lost.  2-0 would be the final nail in the coffin for independence for a generation (which is what the last vote was supposed to be in any case).

The EU referendum was a good illustration of how not to hold a referendum, that doesn't mean that referenda are bad.

Were you in Scotland during the indyref1 campaign? 

If so, you must have surely noticed that it ignited healthy public political debate in a way that the Brexit referendum never did. 

I think that's down to a couple of reasons - a) the grassroots independence campaign was based on a positive vision of what we could do going forwards and b) the Scottish government released a pretty comprehensive white paper on the path forward from a Yes vote.

That gave people on both sides the framework for a constructive debate.

We didn't get the outcome I was looking for, but I found myself stopping to consider alternative viewpoints in a way that I never have in the brexit debate, so I think it was a worthwhile exercise in democracy regardless.

Brexit had no such plan from the government. It was a farce from the start.

There is no reason why indyref2 should be run like Brexit, instead of like indyref1.

But it was settled one way or another in 2014.  Despite Brexit the polls supporting independence have not shifted in any meaningful way since then.  The margin is still what it was.  You do know that nearly 1.5million Scots voted for Brexit?

Again, what do you say to the 55% who do not want another referendum?

"Scotland would vote for independence if Brexit goes ahead, new poll suggests"

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scotland-would-vote-for-independence...

Don’t disagree with that, however the SNPs manifesto says that they will try for an indy ref and the Scottish people vote for them in droves. How can you deny that in a democracy?

I don't really accept that argument. There had been a referendum for the whole UK population on leaving the EU which was to Leave. Following elections returned a government that is progressing the referendum result. I don't want to leave and would have support a second referendum but accept that our elected government has the right to Leave.

Scotland's case is different in that the indyref voted to stay, so the elected Scottish  government has no right to leave (I admit its not trying to) or to consider its their right to have a second indyref (and they have less than 50% in the GE, the 81% of constituencies used by some being an irrelevant figure IMHO). Of course it it is their right to ask for a 2nd indyref and with some justification as the situation is about to change as we leave the EU. It might be better to wait to see what the final EU/UK agreement will be ( BJ promises a year!) and possibly to experience its effects. 

Alternatively Scottish government arranges a referendum about holding a second indyref, If the result was positive there would be a very strong moral case, and if Westminster refused that would probably get even more support for Scottish independence in the future.

If SNP want to win the referendum they need to do a lot better than the results in the election would suggest:

SNP 1,242,380

Con 693,939

Lib 263,417

Lab 511,838

I am more than happy for another referendum, but these numbers suggest that they would again lose.

they need to be in a position whereby they can win , not lose.the numbers just do not stack up otherwise. Brutal stuff. 

When you say you're "more than happy" for another referendum....I assume therefore you live and vote in Scotland?

The most clear democratic ruling on this issue was the referendum on this one issue. To be honest I quite like SNP's manifesto and lots of people support those kinds of centrist policies. It's very hard to argue with strong Scottish representation in Westminster either. I'm not going to pretend I know which line of the manifesto won each individuals vote and how many were driven from Boris amd Corbyn.

I'm not sure how there is a civil rights issue or dangerous precedent when Scotland very recently voted to be part of the UK with all that entails (including having to be granted another referendum). There's 63 million people's lives on the line everytime we have a state defining referendum. Whilst I support the once in a generation vote it's too damaging to have this repeated every 5 years because a small minority in these Islands want to do so.

I'd have the exact same view of a Scotland / UK reunification being conducted 5 years after a hypothetical Scotland decided to leave. As a pramagtic point, you can't just uproot everyone's lives every few years for your own selfish reasons. Some state level decisions need to be made for a generation at a time for any semblance of stability. 

I assume given the volume of your opinions and the investment you clearly have in the future of the way Scotland is governed that you live and vote here?

Totally agree.  I think the increase in SNP support has nothing to do with more people Scottish people wanting independence.  It simply reflects the total ineptitude of the current Labour party.  Labour are not a credible voting option at the moment either in England or Scotland.

Interesting that in in 2017 the SNP had 37% of the vote.  Labour had 27%.

In 2019 the SNP had 45% of the vote and Labour had 19%.  That's Labour down by 8%, and the SNP up by the same 8%.

I live in the UK .

if you want to gain independence you need at least another 300k SNP voters then you know you will win 100% in a referendum. Otherwise despite all the political rhetoric you could get stuffed again.  

It s not difficult to figure this out.

rant and rave if you want. But if you really want to win then you need more votes to be certain. 

No I'm Welsh, but consider myself proud to be part of the UK too.  I'm not sure why though (as I think you are trying to suggest) me not living in Scotland would mean that I can't take a view on Scottish independence, particularly when breaking up the Union would affect us all in the rest of the UK so profoundly.  I love Scotland and it's people and I truly believe that we are all stronger together, despite the disappointing result of the Brexit referendum.

The mesaage from the pub landlord is clear!!

https://www.facebook.com/17006989895/posts/10159665674379896/

We'll take that on board....and then maybe come back to you for your approval.

Upto you but the numbers suggest you would simply lose again. If your object is to win next time then you need better numbers.As I said it’s brutal  and the lesson from this week is that if the poll and other numbers do not stack up take heed .

Really? Nothing at all. Like, just nothing. 

You can still visit us if we choose independence....and be very welcome.....we'll let you know what we decide.

I'm assuming that by that comment that you don't think anyone outside of Scotland should be allowed an opinion on a matter that will affect the whole of the UK?

I'm pretty sure he watched the news back in 2014. 

The number was actually 1,018,322, not that near 1.5 million.

55% voted No in 2014, I was one of them. 55% voted for parties other than the SNP on Thursday, again I was one of them. It is some assumption that everyone who voted No in 2014/not SNP in 2019 is immutably opposed to independence, or at least, to another referendum. As a student (pre devo, when the SNP were a small fringe) I was an emotional nationalist. By 2014, I was a firm No, on pragmatic grounds. Now, I'm not really sure anymore. FAOD  - I have various issues with the SNP ; I think that overall, on balance the union has benefitted Scotland for the majority of the last 312 years; I don't think indy would be a panacea; and I feel that culturally we have much in common with the other nations of the UK, and the ABE/victim/braveheart/Scottish exceptionalist school of nationalism really repels me. But for all that, recently I have been giving some thought to whether the Union, certainly in its current form, may be reaching the end of its natural life. 

If/when there is an indyref2, I don't know if I would vote yes. But I do know that being told that I won't be permitted to choose doesn't make me more likely to vote No again. 

I’m mildly supportive of Scottish Independence simply because, when I look across the Sound of Sleat to the mainland, particularly in winter, it feels a million miles and a different world from London.

But I have to say, when you Nats stridently proclaim a mandate in this hectoring manner, you sure make me want to vote No/Remain.

Of course everyone in the rest of the UK should have an opinion on whether they'd like us to stay or go. 

But the tone of the comments from rUK whenever this comes up is less "we'd love you to stay" and more "you don't have the right to choose whether to stay or go, or at least not at a time of your choosing"

Which is fine, really, because it's exactly this sort of attitude which will drive up the independence vote in Scotland 😉

The unrest at the political direction of the UK in Scotland is growing:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/eagetw/police_block_buchanan_s...

Thanks, that's appreciated, but it seems like some on here want this to be a Scotland only sounding board.

Referendums of this sort are decisive and damaging, which is why they should not be held every few years.  If you want another referendum then I'm in agreement with you at some point in the future, just that 55% of the Scottish people think that now is not a good time.  Why can't you respect the views of your fellow countrymen?

I'm not so sure.  55% of the Scottish electorate are perfectly happy with the status quo.  Again why can't you respect the views of your fellow countrymen?

Don't worry it's happening in London too:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/protest-downing-street-boris-johns...

London was also heavily pro-remain in the EU referendum too.  See we really have more in common than you think.

The GE has been a decision to radically change the economic model  and ironically, Scotland has voted for our status quo as regards EU . It is the English vote that has propelled a separation from NI and Scotland- a sort of Independence of England from EU, Scotland and NI. 

There are very few defences available to those regions affected- no proportional Westminster system, being an example, no confirmatory vote.

One defence is to reserve the power to decide to have a referendum on independence and place it within the Scottish Parliament. So I support that. Other defences may emerge in the next year such as a separate agreement with the EU even though we have no absolute severence eg a Hong Kong type relationship. The vote in Scotland cannot be interpteted as anything other than a rejection of the idea of imposing an idea which has the double insult of no confirmatory referendum nor has substantial support. It cannot seriously be expected for us not to find any administrative mechanism to defend ourselves? 

Which is the whole point. The system in the UK is that some powers are reserved to the UK parliament. The right to hold referendums on the constitution being one of them. In 2014, by popular vote, those living in Scotland voted to remain within that system in which those powers are reserved to the UK. Prior to the 2014 referendum the SNP won a majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament a clear and unequivocal commitment to an independence referendum. In recognition of that  members of that parliament of all parties voted to request the power to hold a referendum on Scottish independence. That power was transferred. That was because the mandate of the SNP was unimpeachable. 

That is not the case now. The claimed mandate is not unimpeachable, else how could this thread exist? the cross party support is not there because of that lack of unimpeachable mandate. The current claimed mandates are equivocal, the referendum and independence were not front and centre of the nationalist campaign, stop brexit was. 

Get that mandate and I am sure almost all will support holding the referendum. 

At the moment I suspect the desire of the SNP is to have a request for a refer to refused in the hope that the alleged unfairness will gain support. A tactic that will quite likely be successful. Whatever else she may be Nicola Sturgeon is an extremely good politician. (just a pity she didn't join the Labour party). 

Sorry for the late reply and apologies if this has already been said. Boris is irrelevant, David Cameron got more than 50%. Therefore a mandate, ie Brexit. The SNP have never had 50% of anything. Listen to the people not what you would like to happen.

Almost exactly, she knows it will be rejected since the rest of the UK parties have already said no to another referendum.  It's also the last thing the whole UK needs right now in the midst of what currently needs to be sorted out.  It makes the rest of the UK look unreasonable when the reality is very different.  She's playing this to her advantage.

Rather than knee jerk reactionary politics, the SNP should be patient if they want another referendum.  Do the right thing by the people of Scotland, let the dust settle after the last referendum, govern the country properly instead of focusing all your effort on independence and if, following all of that, independence is still right in a few years time, then a better, more thought through opportunity, with increased public support will arrive. 

Sometimes it is difficult to remain level headed when you're constantly being told you don't have the right to self-determination

You keep talking about respecting views, as if asking someone "do you still want to go with this" is somehow disrespectful. 

The circumstances have changed, and once again the Scottish electorate has voted in a largely pro-independence cohort of representatives. The respectful thing to do is to sit down and have a chat about it, followed by a show of hands.

Pretending that you can read the runes of a bunch of opinion polls and accurately predict what the people of Scotland want is what's disrespectful IMO.

Why do you feel the need to lecture the elected representatives of the Scottish people on how best to represent their constituents on Scottish matters?

You are, by extension, lecturing the people who voted them in - it's quite a patronising attitude.

Get that mandate in the scottish election may 6 2021 and you are sure all will support it in Westminster as per the past.

I am not as sure as you are of the support in that scenario - normally it should occur like that , but I am concerned about the intransigence of a conservative government that has felt no qualms in not playing by old rules {prorogation}.

I agree that the mandate occurs through the Scottish parliamentary election process, having fought the election on an independence referendum ticket but I think to secure the principle that the Scottish Parliament alone is required to institute it, seems reasonable. 

I may or may not vote for independence, I have never voted SNP and voted to be part of UK in 2014. 

It is at that point, if it happens that we all object. At that point there would quite possibly be a case in the courts, at that point there would be an overwhelming political case for a referendum. I however have faith that in those circumstances all msps from all parties whether or not they supported indepence would, as prior to the 2014 referendum, support a further referendum and that support would be persuasive to the UK government as it was before . 

That however, given the 2014 result, is a decision for the UK parliament. If this is done it needs to be done legally. If not it is open to challenge and gives other countries issues in dealing with the new state. 

Perfectly reasonable position. 

It's not like this came out of nowhere. What are you doing about it? The whole world is watching. I have been in conversations about brexit with about 10 or 15 nationalities during the last few weeks and everyone thinks your bonkers. 

Compared to what? This is the UK in 2019.

As an English nationalist I can't stand in the way of Scotland's struggle for independence, 

Scotland does have the right to self determination.  It had it in 2014 and it chose to remain part of the UK for the foreseeable future (a generation) and all that that entails.  Yes 'a generation' is not legally binding but it is morally binding.  It is unrealistic to have referendums every few years on huge constitutional changes such as this.  The constant uncertainty would damage investment in Scotland and the UK, much like the Brexit uncertainty has done to the UK over the last 3 or so years.  You will get another referendum at some point I'm sure but perhaps let the dust settle on the last one first.

I think it's pretty disrespectful for the 55% who don't support independence to have their government constantly focus a big chunk of their efforts on another referendum, rather than hospitals, schools, communities etc.  Why should the 55% continually suffer because the 45% refuse to accept their opinion?

They have, but despite this there is still no majority favouring independence or another referendum.  Have a chat about it by all means but don't try and force the 55% through another disruptive referendum that they don't want.

The results of various polls are clear to see - I'm not sure how you could interpret them in any other way?

I'm not lecturing anyone and I'm sorry you feel that.  I'm trying to offer a contrasting opinion that's all.  It is clear that there are some on here who want to silence anyone who disagrees with them.  Anyone who they deem either non-Scottish or perhaps, if they are, non patriotic enough.  The ignored 55% who do not have the option for fair representation in Scotland under the FPTP system.  That's a shame because if you perhaps step outside your SNP echo chamber for a while then you will realise that what you want is not what everyone wants.

Sorry that does sound like I'm lecturing now doesn't it so I will declare myself out of this discussion.  Good luck whichever way your campaign goes and I hope you manage to convert those 55%.

As a protest I'm listening to Radio 3 European Broadcasting Union's day of Christmas music while in bed with a chest infection that won't go away.

My wife is German (met her on Skye) so how do you think her relatives feel about the UK.  As part of the UK electorate I'm afraid you bear as much blame for this as I.

traitor

May I ask, did you vote conservative? It is a serious question. Obviously you may wish to be private in that matter.

I'll steer this away from the personal.

My point is, how far does the English Conservative Party harbour what are essentially far right nationalist views belonging truly in the BNP? Dominic Grieve raised this point.

Well they have just allowed Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon to join.

That's easily fixed.  They should vote for independence.  After that all the decisions would be made in the Holyrood parliament which is elected using proportional representation.   FPTP is a Westminster thing and the big Westminster parties are not going to give it up any time soon.

The other thing is that the GE was fought under the FPTP system, you can't assume the exact same vote ratio would happen in a referendum.   There is a very good chance that a political organisation which can get 81% of the seats in an FPTP election could get 51% of the votes in a referendum but it wouldn't use the same tactics to do so.  For example, rather than focussing on marginal constituencies to win an FPTP election it would be spreading its resources more evenly to maximise share of the vote.

Roger...I've just watched Michael Gove being interviewed by Sophy Ridge. He was quite explicit....regardless of the result of elections to Holyrood in 2021 this government have no intention of allowing a referendum. Because I think they know how likely a positive vote will be. So three options. They offer Scotland "special status" like NI as part of the Brexit deal along with enhanced powers for Holyrood. Alternatively, they offer a referndum of sorts that is significantly delayed and try to kick the ball into the long grass. Or finally, they opt for confrontation and play to the Conservative base in England by "toughing" it out. You have more faith than me in a government that already uses the language of dictatorship. I can't comprehend why any democrat would deny that the recent election was an overwhelming mandate to devolve power to the Scottish Parliament to have a referendum at a time and in a form chosen by that parliament. Scotland has completely rejected this government, the Conservative Party and Brexit. To deny that is to deny democracy. It's interesting this morning to hear senior Labour figure like Paul Sweeney and Neil Findlay agree. 

There's definitely a move by some Labour politicians in Scotland to accept there's a mandate for indyref2 without accepting the argument for independence and use it as a lever to fight the Conservatives.   There's also evidence that some Labour voters in Scotland, faced with 5 years of Johnson are giving up on the union and thinking independence is a better option.

In some ways the SNP are better served by Johnson toughing it out and refusing indyref.  There's a sizeable group in the middle ground who think the Scottish Parliament has the right to call an indyref but woudn't vote yes if one was called.   If Westminster is overtly colonial about this support for independence will increase.

Very true.

i think the difficulty for the U.K. govt is that the moral case for any reasonably coherent section of the populace in a sensible geographic area to have the option for self determinism is clear.

The loss of control of the timing of such an event could be catastrophic at the moment however - indyref2 in late 2020 makes Brexit even more complex and harder. If Johnson was sensible (!) he would concede the first point, but find some way to accommodate the second.

I wouldn't take Michael Gove's position two days after an election as being definitive.

At the moment the position of the UK government is, in my view, correct in law and is one that respects democracy. If they maintain that position after an explicit vote in 2021 they would be arguably still correct in law but would not be respecting democracy.

In 2014 the SNP had an indisputable mandate to hold an independence referendum derived from an explicit commitment in their manifesto for the Scottish Parliament election of 2011.

In 2014 the SNP lost that referendum. That resulted in an indisputable mandate for the UK government to continue with the current constitutional settlement. Within that settlement constitutional matters are reserved to the UK government (as they are reserved to the national government in all EU states).

For the UK government to simply unilaterally overturn the result of a constitutional referendum would be to subvert democracy and the rule of law. 

My fundamental beliefs are that we should live in a democracy under the rule of law. To achieve that you have to respect decisions that go against you as well as for you.

In the present circumstances I don't think the SNP are doing that, and from what you say Michael Gove intends not to do so. Two wrongs, especially when one is just putative do not make a right.

If I was a so minded to support independence, and that is not impossible, Michael Gove could persuade me, (unlikely I admit). I would be reducing the level of confrontation and hence polarisation and concentrate on making a reasoned case for 2021 involving practical concerns, currency, division of the wefare state, EU application, relations with rUK, foreign affairs, national debt, pensions etc with an honest appraisal of the economic impact not facile claims that simply because some small countries are prosperous then so will Scotland be. 

For Alistair, I left it too late to edit.

The unilateral overturn by the UK government would be because to permanently transfer the power to hold constitutional referenda to a body other than the UK government would be to permanently alter the UK constitution without a manifesto commitment or even a vote in the UK parliament. And also in contravention of the position (the status quo) put in the 2014 referendum.

(it is a reflection of the polarisation that these things bring that the more Nicola Sturgeon speaks on the matter the less likely I am to support independence and the more Michael Gove speaks the more likely I am to consider it.) 

There's never going to be this level of detail before a referendum because the UK government knows that a detailed plan makes a YES vote more likely.   Whatever the SNP put in their plan the UK government will immediately announce they will refuse or block.  Currency choice is always going to depend on negotiation with both the rUK and the EU.

Independence will happen is when the Tories do something so provocative that an extra 5% of people are angry enough to want to leave.  It's like a divorce, anger and complete distrust of the other party is what gets you past the quitting point.

I agree with quite a bit of what you say Roger and appreciate the fair and reasonable way you approach the question. But the rule of law is often wrong and needs to be challenged. Without making comparisons, apartheid in South Africa, discrimination against the catholic community in Northern Ireland, segregation in the US. Bad and unfair laws need to be challenged in a peaceful way. I think it is much more reasonable to accept the mandate that the Scottish government now has and devolve power to the Scottish Parliament to deal with what is an exclusively Scottish decision. Scottish MSP's from all parties can then agree a sensible timetable. It must be fundamentally wrong for Scottish voters to have to wait for a partisan parliament populated by MP's, 80% of whom aren't elected by Scottish voters, to "allow" us that choice. However I do agree with Tom that a consistent refusal to do so will act as very powerful fuel for the independence cause. Unfairness and intransigence from a Tory government utterly rejected in Scotland will take even the most ardent unionist pause for thought.

One other thing Roger..remember the 2014 referendum wasn't sacrosanct. Having another referendum when circumstances have changed so dramatically is entirely reasonable and indeed has always been recognised. The Smith Commission and the Edinburgh agreement made it clear that it didn't rule out another move for independence when Scottish voters supported it. This shibboleth built around "once in a generation" is based on one quote used for illustrative purposes. And of course since this election, when the SNP stood substantially on a platform of devolving the right to hold such a referendum, Scottish voters have spoken...and spoken with an almost deafening roar of approval.

Do you really want to live in a country born of anger and complete distrust? It would not be a good place to live.

(I think many a family lawyer would despair at your comparison, mediation is where we try to go these days)

I don't think that the 2014 referendum is sacrosanct but neither do I believe it is to be simply discarded as of no account. If you disregard one referendum you can disregard all, including one that votes for independence. The 2014 referendum is the most recent verdict of Scottish voters on the UK constitution. It also in its genesis demonstrates a lawful and democratic path to an independence referendum. There could be little reasoned objection if that path were followed again.

(I don't hold with the once in a generation argument, Parliament cannot bind itself neither can it be bound by Alex Salmond) 

White Paper: Scotland's Future. ScotGov 2013

UN Treaty Collection: Vienna Convention on Succession of States (treaties) 1978 

UN Treaty Collection: Vienna Convention on Succession of States (property) 1983

That is not the assertion. The assertion, clearly evidenced by the numbers in the World Bank and OECD databases, is that within our immediate regional family, but also across the small states of wider Central Europe, many countries of less than 10 million people are doing really well, in spite of not having as broad-based and highly developed economy and infrastructure as Scotland. You can come up with exceptions here and there about Norway's tunnels or Estonia's internet but essentially we have got it all in place at moderate to excellent levels appropriate to a functioning nation state in the richest and safest corner of the world.  

There has been endless rubbish talked about the currency choice. The normal pattern is to keep using the same currency and then move to whatever suits the future plans. When another state uses your currency, is is a good thing for your currency. To object to another state using your currency is to talk down your currency in the market. It is a really stupid thing to do. It is a demonstration of how infantile and incompetent the UK Government is when it is happy to talk down the pound in the way that it has as though the world wasn't watching. 

rUK will never exist. The successor state becomes something very different. No Scotland, no union. Forget NI: good as gone now. Wales will have to think about some serious negotiation on its constitutional position.

Yes they have spoken and 55% are against another referendum.  The only thing that's deafening is the incessant whining of Nicola Sturgeon, like a child being denied sweets by it's parents.  It's so unfair!!! 

Sorry I'm really off now.  Stupidly read the thread again and got wound up by all the mis-truths, poison, hate and bullship that seems to be so part and parcel of any nationalistic propaganda these days.

One day our children will ask us what did we do whilst the planet burned and the oceans rose?  If we are not careful we'll have to answer "we were too busy squabbling over whether to have Indyref2 or not".  So so sad!

My ideal solution is Scotland and England as separate EU states with a common currency and open borders and additional treaties on defence co-operation.   We could have got there in 2014 and had a very soft form of independence where little changed on the surface. 

All the nonsense about 'we won't let you use the pound' and 'you'll never get in the EU' plus dirty tricks like the last minute 'vow' to shift voters removed a lot of trust.    The completely partisan way the BBC and UK press in general reports on Scotland and the SNP removes trust.  Brexit and the UK electing Boris Johnson closes more doors.   When Boris formally refuses an s30 order that will be the last straw.  

a) we live in a representative democracy - referendums are advisory - and therefore whatever our representatives decide to do after a referendum, regardless of the outcome of that vote, is both democratic and lawful.

b) holding another referendum is not overturning the last one, it's simple holding another one.

Funny you should mention that - one of the many reasons I feel that membership of the UK is a bad thing, is that it's holding back Scotland's renewable potential. We have the natural resources to become a world leader in tidal power generation and a large net exporter of clean energy. UK energy policy is holding us back.

We? I thought you were offering an alternative viewpoint, not squabbling over whether Scotland should be allowed to decide it's own future?

That went well on Brexit, didn't it. No-one dared refute the marginal majority result on the basis that the referendum was just advisory. "Honouring the result" became a war cry all too quickly. I suspect any other view of referendums is politically outdated now.

The Edinburgh Agreement made 2014 binding (that is disputed by some) 

The issue is about how you come to holding another referendum. There is a clear precedent for a legal pathway. If that is followed there is and can be no objection. If it is not followed then the referendum's legitimacy can be called into question. If that is the case we all, whatever side we are on, have a problem.

If you think I am opposed to another referendum in any circumstances I have not explained myself well enough. 

Just if there is one it had better be undisputibly legal and with a clear and unambiguous mandate. If that occurs any transition to independence will be a lot less problematic. 

and another...and another...and another...until you get the reault you want!

It's the addition to everyones electric bills in the whole of the UK that have been funding or subsidising all the 'Scottish' renewables for years!!! 

If Scotland wished to retain the pound it wouldn't have independent control of its currency. The UK treasury would set interest rates etc.  Just as countries that use the US dollar don't have control of it. 

And if that were untenable than Scotland would change it in time. You made opinion clear that you don’t think Scotland can go it alone- most of your points are valid. As a marginally pro-independence advocate I acknowledge that all of your points will have to addressed. 

I am willing to go through the pain of trying to address them, I am ready to live through a probably a decade of pain to do so as it is very clear to me that politically the nation I live in, Scotland, and the rest of the UK are not on the same wavelength. I had come to the same conclusion just before the 2014 referendum. At the time to sway voters, many promises were made. It swayed my dear wife who is from a staunch unionist family. But she was tearful for days after the 2016 referendum and kept saying they told us we would stay in the EU! I didn’t have the heart to tell her « I told you so ».

ultimately this is my issue- England has its agenda chosen by English people which then become the agenda of the UK. Nothing wrong with English people choosing for England. That’s right and proper. Some of choices aren’t too palatable to me but neither here nor there.

on the one hand, in Scotland many people want to enjoy freedom of mouvement within the EU, the ability to use the last bit of carbon fuel to invest in green energy and fully become an exporting nation in this field, on the whole a welcoming nation to those in needs and we have the space to accommodate this. Meanwhile in England, many people want to limit immigration of any form, rightly complain about the space and willingness to do so, and advocate such things as fracking.

it is a wonder that anyone would question why on those premises we would like the question to be put to resident of Scotland again. That things have change enough within 5 years to come to this should worry people. I am not an advocate for indyref2 this coming year. In my opinion it should be at least a ten year period to show how truly different our views are but also to truly demonstrate how nefarious the ruling party has been.

That's a common claim lately (particularly in the light of the Brexit referendum) but it's simply not true. Since the UK doesn't have a written constitution which decrees what exactly a referendum is, any particular referendum will have the 'authority' proclaimed by its corresponding enabling bill. So any particular referendum might well be legally binding.

I think any country can be independent, but it might not be in the format that they desire, in terms of border control, currency, splitting of existing shared assets and so on. What they gain in independence they might easily lose in wealth. 

The amp are portraying Scotland can just head off without any pain and won't be tied to the UK anymore, despite want to potentially still have the pound, or protection from UK crown military assets etc. 

Life isn't so straight forward as sturgeon portrays it. 

Not sure that fracking is exactly popular in the North of England. You may want to update yuor view on that!!!

Illustrates how out of touch people can get.

It seems tactically odd to me that Sturgeon is indeed asking for it to be held on such a short timescale. Supporters of independence can't risk another defeat.

How about a Federal Republic of Britain like the Germans?

Or the Swiss Cantons ?  Not based on anything as big as England, nothing bigger than a region

That way there could be a Border Region not based on the current border  Perhaps Rheged?

100% agree, another defeat next year, so soon after the 2014 referendum defeat really would put a final nail in the coffin for Scotland's chance of independence for at least a generation, possibly two.

Despite the SNP being impatient for another referendum now, until the polls show several years of reliable and consistent support for independence it's far too risky a proposition IMO.  If they loose then that really is it.  If they win by only a very slim margin then cue years of bitter infighting with significant doubts being cast over the result. 

Sustainable independence is a long game.  Slowly building a base level of support to make such a route beyond reasonable doubt.  It shouldn't be started on shaky foundations.  It shouldn't be a knee jerk reaction to whoever the current UK PM is or isn't.  It's not a process where you can take short cuts if you want to achieve success.  As an example, Australia became fully independent from the UK over a period of 85 years from the formation of a Federal parliament in 1901, to 1986 when full sovereignty was attained.

Would the SNP really want to take the gamble on another referendum right now, particularly when there is such dispute over their mandate?  Perhaps if they took a step back for a few years and decided to prioritise schools, hospitals, infrastructure and environment over independence, then maybe support for them would grow to levels that would be beyond dispute.  Then they could hold another referendum, safe in the knowledge that they have the majority of people of Scotland fully behind them.

I understand that Brexit is a bitter pill to swallow.  It is for a huge percentage of us here in the rest of the UK too.  I can't stand the thought of it.  The 48% have no control over it and just like you, many of us feel that we are not being represented right now.  But at the same time I realise that being part of a large and varied democracy, none of us can ever get what we want in it's entirety.  It is a compromise to be struck and there are many benefits of being part of the UK.  I realise that if we stick together and work together then great things can still happen.  We will make the best of it and emerge stronger from the other side.

Brexit is just the start of a complete change of direction for the UK.  With 80 seat majority and far more of its MPs on the Brexit Party/UKIP wing of the party the project is to change the UK into a version of Trump's US.  The longer this goes on the harder it will be to reverse.  We need to jump while our economy is still organised to work with the EU, five years out it will be re-organised to work with the US and getting back into the EU will be far harder and more disruptive.   We also need to jump before Boris has a chance to tear apart the devolved government, reduce the power of the courts and centralise more power in London to the extent that independence becomes far harder to achieve.   

The SNP need to get Indy done before it is too late.

Whilst I understand your points of view , I am not sure with his new lots of Northern MPs that the plan will be to centrailise power in London.I would suggest far from it.