The referendum was never once in a lifetime and when Scots went to the polls that was not part of the vote

let's see the snp give up their seats in the uk parliament if they are so serious about independence

Time to go.

Why would they do that before achieving independence? :think: I don't think it's sensible for anyone to start shooting themselves in the feet just to "prove some sort of point" :laugh:

It's fairly obvious that no one ever expected this to go any other way; the point of this was so that they can now state with actual objective evidence that the UK is not a "voluntary union of equals" as has been frequently claimed. We now have it legally determined in the supreme court that this is false. As opposed to it just being entirely obvious.

That's actually quite a lot more impactful for the UK than people realise.

Scotland is not an equal member state in a voluntary union. Scotland is a vassal state. This is undeniable proof of that. It's not good global optics for England at all, especially as a country with such significant colonial history.

Scotlands fault for what they signed off and agreed to, to get devolution.

Personally, if Scotland are that desperate for independence then let them have the vote, but they really can't keep having a vote every few years, there has to be some point where they accept its a once in a generation vote

I'm Scottish and i'm fed up with the snp droning on about it and at this point i would simply say good luck, on you go

Would they still have their free universities and other things they get that we don't, if they truly became their own country?

For Sure

As a voluntary union of equals, it should be a binding vote until something substantially changes within the political landscape of that union, where there is a clear and demonstrable difference of opinion between the member states. At which point, the possibility of dissolving that union should be raised.

i.e. Brexit.

This is the only rational, reasonable take on how "frequency of vote possibility" should work. If they have a vote now and it's still to remain in the union, then there shouldn't be another vote "in a generation" if there's no similar divergence in a generation. If there's no major political divergence in 200 years, then there shouldn't be a vote in those 200 years. If there's another major political divergence in 10 years then there should be another vote in 10 years.

"Once in a generation" is arbitrary nonsense that, looking at the issue rationally, means absolutely nothing.

As we know it isn't a union of equals, The Supreme Court confirms that Scotland, Wales and NI are vassal states not voluntary member states of a union. There is no voluntary union. It doesn't exist. We now have documented proof of this. The supreme court of the UK ruled that member states of a union need the permission of the largest member state in that union in order to hold a vote on voluntary union membership. An absolute joke :joker:.

you know that if there was a vote tomorrow and remain narrowly won we would be looking at another vote in less than 5 years, once is a generation is just that, it doesn't matter what goes on as no one can predict the future, a vote is a vote as with Brexit even though it is hurting the UK it is what it is, its not like the Scots didnt know it was once in a life time and that they lowered the voting age so every advantage was given for them to leave and they didn't take it, I would add to that that many Brexiteers would vote differently now imo but they are not going to get the option, and they were lied to...so

There's no reasonable argument that "once in a generation" (vague, and was only descriptive and never legally binding) is a better trigger for a political vote than substantive political change. It's little more than a large-scale filibuster.

But let's say it holds water.

There have been 6 generations in the last 100 years. That places "a generation" at (roughly) 16 years. The referendum was in 2014 ... by the "once in a generation" rule, can we have one in 2030 pretty please? Or will there be a new excuse :idc:.

2030 sounds about right tbf, and that would be fine it we didnt have to arduously have to go through Nicola demanding a new vote every 5 minutes

I would also argue that she might have backed herself into a corner that Labour can seize on for the next election as those in favour of the Union will have a hard decision to make now as voting for the SNP would be a vote for the break up....

that's an argument of false equivalence. England couldn't just dump Scotland from the union either.

The Westminster government could choose to hold a referendum on dissolving the United Kingdom and there would be no scope for veto of that vote by any of the other member states. They wouldn't, because Scotland has resources that (looking to the future) England cannot reasonably survive without. But they could, and that's the point. It's not a union of equals, it's a union based on the power of population majority, which is so disproportionate that it results in England having unilateral decision making power. Honestly I find any argument to the contrary disingenuous ... even those who believe that everyone is better off with the union in place, if they're being honest, still knows that the above is true.

Scotland has more power in the United Kingdom because we have a devolved parliament.

London didn't vote in favour of Brexit, and hasn't returned a majority of MPs of the current governing party in about 30 years. That doesn't mean that London should become an independent city-state.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmfjA7RW...g&name=900x900


In her so called Free Nation
she is in a mess, over what money to use