I just don't get this wanting to treat the UK like early-90s Yugoslavia.

Yes that is Fair Comment
James.


But the World Pandemic,
is changing the whole world.
Vaccines "could" be out of date
soon.

As Variants will increase.
It takes some months to work out how
to stop them.
And because of this Medical Emergency
No 2nd Vote for the SNP.

I guess if all else fails, there's always gross hyperbole :joker:

Is it? :shrug:

Comparing a democratic vote on Scottish independence to a series of largely race-related insurgencies and conflicts that broke up a "country" that was cobbled together under Soviet supervision in the early 1900's

Is it an example of "gross hyperbole"?

...yes.

What is being proposed here (independence) is pretty much unprecedented in the modern world.

The only countries that have been broken apart are, as you said, ex-communist countries that were held together artificially by dictatorships. That why I compared it to Yugoslavia.

I mean do people think it would be a good thing if Quebec broke away from Canada, or Catalonia became independent from Spain?

You do realise that there is a huge independence movement in Catalonia that has FAR greater support than Scottish Independence... and was violently suppressed by the Guardia Civil when they tried to vote on it? There have also been referendums on Quebec independence that have been very close to 50/50. So the answer to your question is clearly... yes, there are many people who think that both Catalonia and Quebec independence would be a good thing. It is, however, not in the interests of the larger state to give up control of its constituent parts. A big reason for that being that if it is shown that it can work, it could have a cascading effect on other areas.

There's a reason Spain is firmly against Scottish independence, even though it has nothing to do with Spain... that reason is that there are independence movement in a NUMBER of Spanish regions. There is a reason that the EU and EU member states have a vested interest in things not working out well for Britain post-Brexit. There is a reason that China wants Hong Kong firmly under the thumb. There is a reason that most nations won't even allow a vote to take place. Entities that hold power don't want to diminish it.

That's why it's unprecedented. Not because "it's a bad idea". How would we know?

Think of it as a reverse hypothesis I suppose; Imagine if New Zealand (a country with a similar population to Scotland) was not an independent country, but rather was a small constituent nation of "Great Australasia". Do you think Australia would happily sign off on NZ independence? Do you think everyone would be convinced that it could work? Wouldn't a lot of people assume it would be a disaster?

And yet, they are a small independent nation, and they thrive. Do you think there's a push in NZ to give up that independence and become a vassal state of Australia? Does anyone at all think that would improve their standing in the world, or their quality of life?

And honestly, I don't think it should be under-stated that the biggest hurdles to successful Scottish independence are the social and economic problems catalyzed by Westminster Conservative governments. How anyone can think that "more Tory rule!" can ever be a solution to those problems is beyond me.

Again to clarify my current stance, I think at this current point in global politics, devo-max is probably enough. Economic union, fine. Free movement, close cooperation, fine. I'd even say that a combined armed forces isn't too much of a stretch. But when it comes to direct governance, the cord to Westminster needs to be cut, because Westminster will simply never fully understand Scottish people nor be able to solve Scottish issues. I've lived extensively in both Scotland and England, the countries ARE different in several distinct ways. We have cultures in common, as all of the English-speaking world does, but the overall picture screams of a necessity for fully devolved government. The British Empire is gone and the union, if there is going to continue to be one, needs to change to reflect that.

New Zealand has never been part of Australia though, so Australian has never been part of the NZ national identity; whereas Scotland has been part of the UK for 300+ years, and has always been geographically part of Great Britain and had a British identity.

Ireland could be considered a more recent example maybe? 1922 we became a free state and 1949 i think a Republic

This has nothing to do with arguments over whether or not it's socially preferable or economically feasible - which should be the ONLY two concerns; it's just baseless sentimentality "for stuff that's been around ages".

My point was that if NZ was part of a greater Australia, and wanted to separate, the same arguments about it not being a good idea / not being viable, "needing" the larger country for stability, etc. would undoubtedly be made...

...the fact that it exists very comfortably as an individual country and would have no desire to "join a bigger one" proves that those arguments are not necessarily true.