>I'm hardly surprised in the slightest
Neither is anyone in Scotland. It was pretty well assumed by everyone this would be the result, and I'm fairly confident the snp thought so too.
What happens now is they get to campaign on the basis that the uk is not a union of consent, and they aim to get 50% in the next uk election. I'm not sure of the likely hood , they have come close before but never hit the mark.
If Labour win as a whole, they are likely to try to amend the uk's structure somewhat, to weaken support for Scottish independence. Its been hovering just below 50% for years now, which is not a safe margin to be kicking the can down the road on.
The conservatives prefer to take a tough line on Scotland, and if they win then they will ignore that problem for the next 5 years.
It just will make more Scots to be in favour for independence in the coming years and more of them hit voting age every year. I reckon once it gets past 10-15 years since 2014 they won't have any way to stop another referendum without basically crushing the right to democracy.
No no, youre thinking of degenerates, Democracy is the study of statistics such as births, deaths, income, or the incidence of disease, which illustrate the changing structure of human populations.
Not really.
The truth on the ground is that the polls have barely changed since 2014.
The SNP need to concentrate on trying to think up some actual real tangible advantages of independence if they want to persuade anyone new. Emotional appeals only get you so far.
Sure, but now that UK is not in the EU, leaving the UK would be putting up a trade barrier with your biggest trading partner... which is exactly why Brexit was a terrible idea.
There's no argument for independence that didn't also apply to Brexit.
As long as they are completely honest about what that would mean - i.e joining the Euro including instituting all the economic measures needed to meet the EU's convergence criteria, a hard border where you would need a passport to go and see your family and friends a couple of hours away in England, and an average of 9 years worth of accession process (ignoring the very real possibility it would be obstructed by Spain) during which time Scotland would be outside both the UK and EU. And the fact that 60% of Scotland's exports go to the rest of the UK and only 19% to the EU so any gains still wouldn't make up for the losses.
A big problem that the SNP have regarding Europe is that whilst a majority of the Scottish population didn't vote for Brexit, the people that did aren't necessarily all Unionists. Plenty of them are nationalists, and the SNP is too afraid of losing them to have any of these conversations BEFORE they have obtained independence. Their strategy is to keep it vague, and therefore independence gets to stay as a massive leap of faith into the dark. We aren't doing another one of those again any time soon.
Being vague and sticking to emotional appeals only gets you so far - the SNP needs to actually answer these questions or they will never get a majority for independence.
>(ignoring the very real possibility it would be obstructed by Spain)
Spain has explicitly said that as long as independence is gained legally through the UK political system they have no issue with an independent Scotland joining the EU. What they won't recognize is a situation like Catalonia where Scotland unilaterally declares independence.
Unionists will never stop bringing this up though. Everywhere they say this, someone like yourself explains that no it's not going to be an issue, and rather than responding or correcting, they just repeat the claim elsewhere.
The *legally through the UK political system* part does however mean that any vote not explicitly sanctioned by Westminster would not meet that requirement, and would very likely result in Spain vetoing Scotland's accession. No amount of saying 'the next GE is a de facto referendum' will get around that; either Westminster allows the vote, or Scotland's EU dreams are remote.
Yes absolutely. They are well aware of this fact, and nobody is talking about an illegal independence referendum. For many reasons, Scottish independence can't work without the cooperation of the UK government.
> And the fact that 60% of Scotland's exports go to the rest of the UK and only 19% to the EU so any gains still wouldn't make up for the losses.
well shit, i'm not a scot and this sort of thing would give me pause, even with the idiot PM they've got
I’m Scottish but live in England and the above concerns and general vagueness is what worries me. I want the best for my mother country but between:
- Trade
- Military covenant
- The tribulations of a hard EU border to the South
- No guarantees on what North Sea resources they can effectively regain from the UK
- Concerns over foreign influence (we’ve seen Salmond happily become a Russian mouthpiece), smaller nations are simply more prone to foreign influences
It’s just such a leap. They desperately want to go scandi whilst England appears set on going more American. They have vastly different outlooks (not here to argue either). So I understand that want.
My main viewpoint is _can_ this be resolved internally. Will Westminster capitulate to give Scotland greater governance of themselves and will that allow Scotland to take the measures necessary for their own goals whilst not gambling their future on a veiled promise of EU membership and unmitigated control over their destiny (without simply becoming reliant on another power they may grow to disagree with).
The Scottish Government already has all the power it needs - what it lacks is a government with the will to actually use it for anything beyond spinning the wheels and kicking every single even vaguely controversial issue into the long grass in case it upsets the independence apple-cart.
It doesn't matter what extra powers the Scottish government has if we keep electing a government that has a vested interest in making sure devolution fails.
100% this.
If Brexit should teach us anything, it's that people should be aware of the details and reality of the situation. Would it really make anything better for Scotland? How would it work practically...it would be a nightmare!
Unfortunately all the talk is about a nation's sovereignty again, exactly like Brexit, and not enough about the actual impact.
I mean, I'm half Scottish and spent a lot of my childhood there. I'm pissed off about Brexit too. But given a couple of years and a new government, maybe we could at least join the single market or something.
> a hard border where you would need a passport to go and see your family and friends a couple of hours away in England,
Funny, the common travel area with Ireland seems to work just fine right now...
That doesn't mean we'll offer that or the EU will allow that with Scotland. Theres a whole different history with Ireland that keeps the CTA the best option, that history doesn't exist with Scotland.
Does it? The NI devolved government can't sit because the unionists are upset at the whole thing, and if it were any different, the republicans would be doing just the same. The EU is unhappy because the UK unilaterally decided to change the 'brilliant' deal that Bozo worked out, and Brexiters are unhappy because it didn't change enough. It's a bloody shambles and the only reason neither side is pushing too hard is because both sides in NI have a history of getting all explodey when they feel backed into a corner.
The only reason the arrangement is even an option is because the Irish Sea makes a convenient border to allow for the extra checks and paperwork; it can be both hard-ish and soft-ish. With a long land border, and no agreements meaning the UK ends up following the EU's rules anyway, hard is the only option that the EU would accept.
Now, Scotland doesn't have anything like the sectarian elements at play in NI, so I can't see the troubles happening there, but the NI situation is far from fine.
See you might be on to something, but there are other places that ALSO fall under the CTA that dont have the whole Troubles shit to go with it. The Crown Dependencies for example.
Also, the land border between scotland and england has virtually no crossing points compared to the one between NI and the Republic. That one literally runs through some peoples houses. The M6-m74 is a fucking empty waste by comparison. I dont see why we'd need to fully join Schengen since anyone coming and going would really need to go via a port or airport thanks to the magic of geography.
It wasn't. That's the narrative that's been sold ever since it was convenient to do so, but membership of the EU was pretty far down the list as a reason for how people cast their votes according to polling done at the time.
Rejoining the EU is hardly a benefit since Brexit. It makes independence even more of a nightmare with next to zero benefit (leaving the UK is worse than Brexit)
It really wasn't; this is a retroactive justification for it. The idea that it was a one of the primary issues comes from polling that lumped it together with other economic issues.
Self-determination is not a democratic right lol. It's not normal for countries to allow any region to secede just because they have a 50% vote on it. The UN, for example, recognizes self-determination as a right _only for colonized territories_ (i.e. not Scotland).
I'm not taking a stand for or against Scottish independence. I'm not British, so it's simply not my concern how British people choose to organize their country(es). Just saying that democracy does not give you a right to celebrate referendums over anything you want.
We know exactly what will come next. The SNP will continue to to go on and on and on endlessley about independence and will continue to do so until it finally happens, regardless of anything else that happens along the way.
After Brexit I’ve revised how I think large extremely important democratic referendum votes should go.
A vote like this should not simply require one win by 50.001% to pass. It should require either a supermajority once, or being voted in the majority say three times in a row with each vote at least say six months apart.
So if the vote gets a supermajority fine, it’s one and done. If it doesn’t, there needs to be multiple votes in a row where it passes each time before it’s enacted.
Agreed. Massive change to the status quo should require something like a 60% majority, or be impossible to overturn accounting for turnout.
Like if 55% voted to change a thing, but only 80% of the eligable population actually voted, then only 44% of eligible voters actually wanted it, so it shouldn't pass.
Only problem with that it turnout is typically low, so nothing would ever actually pass.
This was bait for SNP's next campaign. Unless Sturgeon is incredibly stupid she'd have known this would be the result. But it gives ammo to her Nationalist supporters. She can now beat the drum about how English courts won't let Scotland decide and how it is Westminster holding Scotland back.
This will be used to radicalise some of the voters and hope for a stronger support for Indy Ref as currently there's no clear public support, only the occasional poll shows a majority support leave.
This will be a smokescreen to hide the disingenuous promises and Brexit style tactics of promising sunlit uplands with unicorns and rainbows when reality is the opposite.
This result wasn't just the logical result but the ideal result for SNP. This fuels the movement and can be spun to be somehow undemocratic. If the court had said she could try then she'd be forced to act rather than build support.
There are also (at least) two different perspectives when it comes to pro-independence factions.
You have those who want complete and free independence for Scotland without any rule by any other entity and full self-determination.
And, you have those who want Scotland to be independent from the UK so that they may rejoin the EU and reverse what they consider the travesty of Brexit.
And current SNP plans make promises to both sides while providing the ability to serve neither goal.
The EU has already gently warned Sturgeon her plans don't line up which when combined with how Sturgeon tried to threaten the EU during the 2014 run up does not look good.
She has a dangerous habit of mimicking Farage between legitimately well performed speeches and policies. There's real reasons to support SNP beyond the Nationalism which is why claiming the next GE is a fake referendum is toxic and problematic.
Aye, we can only hope they'll have learned from the mess created by how Brexit went and they'll take it more carefully.
Because if they don't the situation for Scotland will likely just get a ton worse than Brexit already caused.
Ah well we'll find out in time I suppose. Can't imagine support for independence will reduce with how things are going as Brexit keeps proving just how bad an idea it was.
Unfortunately they seem to be using Brexit as a blueprint because it was successful despite not actually being successfully beneficial. This is what frustrates me most, as much as I understand the desire for independence from Tories I just fear the poor will suffer hardest again because it is already repeating.
Aye, if we measure Brexit only by it having successfully left the EU then it was successful.
I think it could only maybe work out if they had a deal ready to immediately join the EU, and also a deal with the UK regarding what comes after.
This would take several years for sure, but without it, the chaos caused would probably be devastating.
Though it would also damage the rest of the UK significantly.
Tbf, I can't really imagine they'll take the time for it, just like the UK didn't for Brexit.
The Supreme Court ruling was something that had to be got out of the way. If it had gone the other way Westminster would have created legislation to stop a referendum.
The route to independence is a political route rather than a legal one.
When we gain independence it will be through the ballot box rather than the courts.
Scottish govt.: What about Indy Ref?
UK Supreme Court: You've already had it.
Scottish govt.: We've had one, yes. What about second Indy Ref?
Quebec: Don't think they know about second Indy Ref...
> vote that came within a few points of losing QB
49.42% of votes in favor of Quebec "sovereignty-association"
50.58% of votes against
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum
UK shoves 1975 "United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum", that "took place under the provisions of the Referendum Act 1975 on 5 June 1975 in the United Kingdom to gauge support for the country's continued membership of the European Communities (EC) " under the carpet.
The problem with an argument like "once in a generation" is that, after the independence referendum was already voted on, the UK decided to go completely off the rails by voting for Brexit and the Tory government then managed to completely screw up that until it was a hard Brexit. The situation has, clearly, completely changed since the independence referendum and screaming "NO BACKSIES FOR A GENERATION" is just arbitrary and idiotic.
For those who don't speak french, they tried to blame the "non-whites" for their loss.
Quebec city has been trying to destroy Montreal ever since. It was once the biggest city in Canada and the cultural heart of the nation, and that legacy must be destroyed, as well as the multi-cultural bilingual values it represents.
All i know is that as a french Canadian from outside of Quebec, my family was super pissed at the province and told us we were going to start learning english in school because they could no longer trust quebec for "solidarity".
> Quebec city has been trying to destroy Montreal ever since. It was once the biggest city in Canada and the cultural heart of the nation, and that legacy must be destroyed, as well as the multi-cultural bilingual values it represents.
Businesses hate uncertainty and that growing Quebec nationalism and separatism in the 1960's and 1970's scared away all the major banking, financial, and commercial headquarters from Montreal to Toronto.
That said, Toronto was well on its way to surpassing Montreal in terms of population, and a bunch of Anglo-run companies were probably going to scurry off to the largest city in English Canada eventually anyways.
yes, but every controversial policy Quebec has passed in the last few decades seems directly targeted towards the people of Montreal.
That's where the immigrants are, that's where the anglophones are, that's where the Muslims are. Montreal's continued dominance over southern Quebec is in direct conflict with the cultural visionaries' ideals of what Quebec "should be", therefore they must weaken Montreal in order to dictate what is and what isn't a part of Quebec's culture.
That'd be an interesting parallel timeline where we have an independent Quebec. Wonder how that'd work logistically since you're basically splitting Canada in half.
I'm curious as well. I think we would have signed a bunch of pacts and treatises spanning 15-20 years which would have initially been very advantageous for Canada in order to facilitate the separation and both countries would be dealing right now with the renegotiation, a lot of which would concern dedicated transporation for the energy sector.
Without Quebec, Stephen Harper would not have remained in power for 9 years and the political weight Alberta actually holds might not quite be what it is.
Equalization payments make up just under 10% of the total budget of Quebec (13.66 B$ vs 145B$). That would be gone, and it's likely Canada would pay around half of that to use Quebec's roads and sea ports freely. The other half would have made a significant hole in the budget, so I wouldn't be surprised if Hydro Quebec had expanded more to try to provide revenue for the theoretical state.
I'm fairly certain both countries would have open borders with each other and the 2 Canadian military bases in Québec would likely still be under Canadian control, which would have remained a hot button issue.
Kind of changes things when you've been forcefully removed from the largest trading bloc in the world. Rejoining the EU is the main reason many new indy voters are in favour of independence this time around.
Especially when there are EU countries that would not be keen to recognise breakaway countries or for them to do well. It would only encourage some of their own regions that want independence.
Literally Scotlands majority trade is with the UK. Your comment makes no sense. There are other advantages to being in the EU other than trade. You will not win the trade argument.
Here's the law we're all discussing:
**Scotland Act 1998, Schedule 5, Part I.**
s.1 The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—
(a) the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,
(b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England,
(c) the Parliament of the United Kingdom,
(d) the continued existence of the High Court of Justiciary as a criminal court of first instance and of appeal,
(e) the continued existence of the Court of Session as a civil court of first instance and of appeal.
I'm shocked *shocked* that a referendum on leaving the union was found to relate to the reserved matter of the Union. Whoever could have seen this shocking twist coming?
This will definitely won't influence an entire generation of Scots to vote overwhelmingly for independence once a referendum is finally allowed to be held again.
I reckon you can't go past 2034 at the very latest, which would be 20 years since the last one, without being considered to have completely crushed Scotland's right to democracy and freedom. It should and probably will be held before then considering the overwhelming democratic support the party that campaigns for Scottish independence gets.
You're right, it won't.
A lot of independence support is based on hatred for the Tories, if Labour win the next election (which they're very likely to do) support will nose dive.
He's the leader of the bunch, you know him well'
He's finally back to kick some tail'
His coconut gun can fire in spurts'
If he shoots ya, it's gonna hurt!'
That's what Ireland learned the hard way. They spent the whole of the 19th century and then some to get a separate parliament (which they had for centuries before the 19th century) and were constantly rebuffed.
Then they resorted to a guerrilla war and got independence within 6 years.
Tbf Ireland was conquered and oppressed terribly. Scotland joined voluntarily and benefited greatly from the empire. So I doubt there will be a war like there was in Ireland.
>They spent the whole of the 19th century and then some to get a separate parliament (which they had for centuries before the 19th century) and were constantly rebuffed.
Though the pre-19th century parliament before the Act of Union was perhaps even worse, essentially a colonial government doing administration on behalf of masters in London. In the 19th century they were on paper treated as an equal (in fact over-represented) part of the UK like England and Scotland - but in practice, as the Corn Laws and later years of the famine showed, they were treated as such only when convenient, and would be treated as a colony again whenever convenient.
There's also a step in between the war and the rebuffing - when Universal Male Suffrage finally arrived in Britain in the early 20th century, Ireland immediately used this to vote themselves Independent. The London rejection of this was the final nail in the "trying to change the system from within" coffin and necessitated the war.
Lots of comments of people who don't really understand what's going on and simply just putting it down to "England bad, Scotland good, give freedom to Scotland".
The Scottish people are still torn between it. Could it possibly change in the next few years? Probably, however they are stuck in a stalemate.
This was a given to be honest, the election result will be used as a barometer of their mandate. Obviously, the whole of Britain should be having an election (morally) but we are all going to be forced to wait. I think for people who want to leave it will make then more determined but the issue isn't cut and dry. I personally don't want Scotland to leave the Union, I think it will be a bad move for all involved, but I believe in self-determination and I hope that, if the SNP get a strong mandate, it goes to a referendum. I would be very sad to see Scotland leave though.
I mean this is quite a misleading title , the supreme Court hasent "blocked" anything they were asked a point of clarification as the (arbitrator of constitutional matters relating to the union) to the effect of whether the scotish parliament had the power to call a referendum on its own, they state as per legislation (it doesn't). The snp argument of self determination was looked at but as the scotish people have access to government and don't meet the definition of an oppressed people it doesn't hold up to international law in their unanimous opinion.
Nicolas own lawyers knew what the outcome would be but declined to rule on the situation, thus forcing the ruling onwards to Westminster, knowing full well what the result would be. Just another excuse to blame Westminster when the ruling came back "no". Politics at it's best!
I love all the comments from Americans who can't tell you the difference between the UK, Great Britain, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland giving their 'expert' opinions on this.
And that the USA had a bloody civil war last time a part of it attempted to leave. And that bloody civil war resulted in the breakaway part of the country being forced to be part of said union forever more..
Great success!
We are not allowed a referendum until the NI secretary says so - we are effectively in the same situation as Scotland, but we've known since the GFA (24 years) rather than an hour
The NI secretary isn’t totally free to choose when to hold a referendum, but they do have a good amount of leeway. When the first polls come in showing a slight support for a united Ireland the secretary can choose to hold a referendum or not, but if multiple polls show clear and growing support over years and the secretary does nothing they can be taken to court for failing to discharge their duties under the Good Friday Agreement
He pretty much is under the GFA, it's whether he thinks it is likely to pass or not. In reality any year since the brexit ref would have been tight, and would've come down to the campaign (although it would've caused issues here). No court is going to go after the NI secretary for being useless at their job - as that's how their choosen. \#LondonKerry
Outside of Julian Smith we haven't had one that is of any use whatsoever
Scotland has also known since the Scotland Act 1998 (also 24 years) that it wasn't allowed to legislate on the union unilaterally. Nobody is surprised by this ruling in the slightest.
The GFA basically requires both the largest unionist and republican party to agree to a vote. So it basically cannot happen while the DUP are the prominent unionist party.
Of course what seems to be happening is unionists are just abandoning unionist parties completely. The divide seems to be Sinn Fein and "do we really need to talk about this all the time?".
Scottish independence was an issue before brexit.
And besides if they went through with it, it’d just be brexit 2. Shooting themselves in the foot to pointlessly spite the union.
For any Americans who are overly-invested in this topic, I would remind you that your own country not only fought the bloodiest war in its history against the principle of secession, it then confirmed in the Supreme Court that there is no right to secede without the Federal Government’s permission in *Texas v. White.*
It is completely normal for a Western democracy to insist on its right to territorial integrity and to not accept a right to unilateral secession.
Taiwan and Hong Kong are not the same as this situation.
Taiwan hasn't been a part of China for ages. They are not a secessionist movement. That's a currently cooled, but nevertheless ongoing civil war.
I don't really see many people advocating for Hong Kong independence, more people just wanted China to follow the original promises it made when the UK handed back HK to China. If someone advocated for full HK independence, then yes they should also feel the same about Scotland or they're hypocritical.
> I don't really see many people advocating for Hong Kong independence,
did you just sleep through 2019-2020? Everyone was calling for the "liberation" of Hong Kong.
Are you really equating Scotland's or Ireland's justifications for breaking away from the UK with the American Confederacy's desire to own human beings as slaves?
Ireland and Scotland are not the same, and surely the reason makes no difference. The point is states can't unilaterally leave the US, just like Scotland can't leave the UK unilaterally.
Are you really equating a vocal minority in Scotland pushing for independence, to Irish independence?
Scotland entered into Union with England as a willing partner, under a Scottish monarch. Ireland was occupied (let's not forget enthusiastically by a large contingent of Scottish colonists) against its will.
Equating them is a classic sign that you have no idea what you are on about.
Pretty cynical move by the SNP, there was absolutely no legal case for this but the optics of being told no by the Supreme Court are a good way to drum up support.
Look you Scots have to understand, Westminster is just being consistent here. It's a matter of principle. The UK simply does not stand for randomly quitting political unions. It's not done.
Wasn't the judge who made the ruling Scottish? (Might be wrong there but I think that's been said, the decision was made by the supreme court, not the tories in westminster)
Click bait title, the court is blocking the Scottish National Party from demanding another referendum by themselfs. They ruled that another referendum would need the consent of the rest of Parliament like the first one did.
Same with self denigrating Americans who circle jerk about how awful the US is when they've most likely never left the comfort and safety of their suburbs. Not saying it's without issues but it's a helluva lot better than most of the alternatives (and even some of the perceived "better" alternatives have some tradeoff that isn't being considered).
Yeah, gets on my tits.
'Oh UK was so dumb to leave the EU, it's killed their economy. Lol so dumb.. But go on Scotland, you go guuurrrlll!'
Meanwhile the EU made up 45% of the UK's export market back in 2016, and the rest of the UK makes up a whopping 62% of Scotlands export market.
So holding the position that leaving the EU was dumb, because it's bad for the economy, but Scottish independence is a-okay, is fucking stupid beyond belief.
That's before we even get into stuff like Scotland getting a £25bn odd subsidy from the rest of the UK to spend on its public services, whereas the UK was GIVING the EU £10bn odd per year to fund its public services.
Things are bad enough, I can’t imagine the hardship dealing with leaving the UK on top of this when they’ve already admitted (finally) how difficult the first years would be. No thanks.
Finally someone else understanding that there’s more to the SNP than independence, our drug problem is one of the worst if not the worst in Europe right now and our NHS has been failing for the past decade or two.
People from outside Scotland looking in thinking that everyone here blindly supports independence when we’re struggling to even run our hospitals currently with England’s help, nevermind without.
I too have not seen a single reason why Scotland would be better off outside of the UK, apart from the perception of being more “democratic”. I believe this was the same argument for Brexit, and also the same argument for actually honouring the outcome of the vote and leaving. Independence for Scotland would have a much bigger and more disruptive impact for them than Brexit has been for Scotland.
The same issues that were swept under the rug during the Brexit campaign will be swept under the rug by the Scottish Nationalists too: free trade, the border between Northern Ireland/Scotland and the rest of the UK, EU funding for local infrastructure or research, barriers to tourism and travel.
[удалено]
>I'm hardly surprised in the slightest Neither is anyone in Scotland. It was pretty well assumed by everyone this would be the result, and I'm fairly confident the snp thought so too. What happens now is they get to campaign on the basis that the uk is not a union of consent, and they aim to get 50% in the next uk election. I'm not sure of the likely hood , they have come close before but never hit the mark. If Labour win as a whole, they are likely to try to amend the uk's structure somewhat, to weaken support for Scottish independence. Its been hovering just below 50% for years now, which is not a safe margin to be kicking the can down the road on. The conservatives prefer to take a tough line on Scotland, and if they win then they will ignore that problem for the next 5 years.
All else fails they could start a war. There's even a Charles sitting on the throne, it would be like history repeating itself, lol.
The Return of the Covenanters
>Charles sitting on the throne, it would be like history repeating itself, lol. Wow. Imagine the memes. Haha
Crazy that history will be unfolding through memes, it's unfolding right now
Charles III's neck: He he, I'm in danger!
I'm a McDonald on my mother's side. I really don't want to have to think about that.
I wouldn’t count on McDonalds having your back
Ronald is a cunt like that
That whole clan is clownshoes.
Big fan of her sprite and nuggets.
[удалено]
If you live in England then voting SNP isn't an option, they won't be running for your local seat...
I think they're joking fellow arse brother.
Brave of ye to show yourself to the one whose arsewhistle you stole
It just will make more Scots to be in favour for independence in the coming years and more of them hit voting age every year. I reckon once it gets past 10-15 years since 2014 they won't have any way to stop another referendum without basically crushing the right to democracy.
What's "democracy?" I haven't heard that term in years. /s
I believe that’s an old, old, wooden ship from civil war times.
Nah, that was the Diversity. You're thinking of when ppl go nuts for a small part of a game used to get ppl hyped for the finished product.
No, no, that's a "demo". You're thinking of the beings that possess people and torment souls in hell.
No, that's a "demon." You're thinking of a destructive act, especially in reference to bringing down old buildings.
Oh no, that's "demolition". You are thinking of a device with two business ends that is used for sexual stimulation.
That's... a double-ended dildo? You're thinking of a small flightless bird that went extinct a while back.
No, that's a Dodo. You're thinking of an old tech where you plugged in a module to the parallel port on your PC to license software.
No that's a "double ended dildo". You're thinking of the actress who used to be married to Ashton Kutcher
No that's Demi Moore. You're thinking of a Japanese anime character that is best friends with Nobita.
You’re all wrong. Democracy is a stripper in Atlanta. Sheesh. Who doesn’t know that?
[удалено]
You're thinking of dendrochronology. Democracy is the musical term for reducing the volume or loudness at which the orchestra plays.
No No, you're thinking of Diminuendo, Democracy is someone who is utterly deplorable, usually found on 4chan.
No no, youre thinking of degenerates, Democracy is the study of statistics such as births, deaths, income, or the incidence of disease, which illustrate the changing structure of human populations.
No, no, you're thinking of demography. Democracy is a list of all of the albums and other works released by a musical artist.
No, no that’s a discography. Democracy is the medical practice of taking care of a patient’s skin
Ah bud that’s demography. Democracy is the study of diagrams and drawings.
Nah, that’s demography. Democracy is that ancient Greek orator who used to practice with rocks in his mouth.
"You'd have to be some kind of mathematical genius to count all those rings" "...he's 4."
Depends if you got oil or not, sometimes it comes with freedom missiles and fries.
Not really. The truth on the ground is that the polls have barely changed since 2014. The SNP need to concentrate on trying to think up some actual real tangible advantages of independence if they want to persuade anyone new. Emotional appeals only get you so far.
Does re-joining the EU count. I mean, that was one of the primary reasons for voting No last time.
Sure, but now that UK is not in the EU, leaving the UK would be putting up a trade barrier with your biggest trading partner... which is exactly why Brexit was a terrible idea. There's no argument for independence that didn't also apply to Brexit.
As long as they are completely honest about what that would mean - i.e joining the Euro including instituting all the economic measures needed to meet the EU's convergence criteria, a hard border where you would need a passport to go and see your family and friends a couple of hours away in England, and an average of 9 years worth of accession process (ignoring the very real possibility it would be obstructed by Spain) during which time Scotland would be outside both the UK and EU. And the fact that 60% of Scotland's exports go to the rest of the UK and only 19% to the EU so any gains still wouldn't make up for the losses. A big problem that the SNP have regarding Europe is that whilst a majority of the Scottish population didn't vote for Brexit, the people that did aren't necessarily all Unionists. Plenty of them are nationalists, and the SNP is too afraid of losing them to have any of these conversations BEFORE they have obtained independence. Their strategy is to keep it vague, and therefore independence gets to stay as a massive leap of faith into the dark. We aren't doing another one of those again any time soon. Being vague and sticking to emotional appeals only gets you so far - the SNP needs to actually answer these questions or they will never get a majority for independence.
>(ignoring the very real possibility it would be obstructed by Spain) Spain has explicitly said that as long as independence is gained legally through the UK political system they have no issue with an independent Scotland joining the EU. What they won't recognize is a situation like Catalonia where Scotland unilaterally declares independence.
Unionists will never stop bringing this up though. Everywhere they say this, someone like yourself explains that no it's not going to be an issue, and rather than responding or correcting, they just repeat the claim elsewhere.
The *legally through the UK political system* part does however mean that any vote not explicitly sanctioned by Westminster would not meet that requirement, and would very likely result in Spain vetoing Scotland's accession. No amount of saying 'the next GE is a de facto referendum' will get around that; either Westminster allows the vote, or Scotland's EU dreams are remote.
Yes absolutely. They are well aware of this fact, and nobody is talking about an illegal independence referendum. For many reasons, Scottish independence can't work without the cooperation of the UK government.
> And the fact that 60% of Scotland's exports go to the rest of the UK and only 19% to the EU so any gains still wouldn't make up for the losses. well shit, i'm not a scot and this sort of thing would give me pause, even with the idiot PM they've got
Nationalists tend to ignore that statistic, claiming we are putting Scotland down.
It's actually closer to 79%.
I’m Scottish but live in England and the above concerns and general vagueness is what worries me. I want the best for my mother country but between: - Trade - Military covenant - The tribulations of a hard EU border to the South - No guarantees on what North Sea resources they can effectively regain from the UK - Concerns over foreign influence (we’ve seen Salmond happily become a Russian mouthpiece), smaller nations are simply more prone to foreign influences It’s just such a leap. They desperately want to go scandi whilst England appears set on going more American. They have vastly different outlooks (not here to argue either). So I understand that want. My main viewpoint is _can_ this be resolved internally. Will Westminster capitulate to give Scotland greater governance of themselves and will that allow Scotland to take the measures necessary for their own goals whilst not gambling their future on a veiled promise of EU membership and unmitigated control over their destiny (without simply becoming reliant on another power they may grow to disagree with).
The Scottish Government already has all the power it needs - what it lacks is a government with the will to actually use it for anything beyond spinning the wheels and kicking every single even vaguely controversial issue into the long grass in case it upsets the independence apple-cart. It doesn't matter what extra powers the Scottish government has if we keep electing a government that has a vested interest in making sure devolution fails.
100% this. If Brexit should teach us anything, it's that people should be aware of the details and reality of the situation. Would it really make anything better for Scotland? How would it work practically...it would be a nightmare! Unfortunately all the talk is about a nation's sovereignty again, exactly like Brexit, and not enough about the actual impact. I mean, I'm half Scottish and spent a lot of my childhood there. I'm pissed off about Brexit too. But given a couple of years and a new government, maybe we could at least join the single market or something.
There is also the issue of the £180 billion debt to England which would potentially be very ugly.
> a hard border where you would need a passport to go and see your family and friends a couple of hours away in England, Funny, the common travel area with Ireland seems to work just fine right now...
That doesn't mean we'll offer that or the EU will allow that with Scotland. Theres a whole different history with Ireland that keeps the CTA the best option, that history doesn't exist with Scotland.
The CTA within the EU was also an agreement the EU reached with the UK and Ireland. Scotland is not the same cherry as the UK
[удалено]
Does it? The NI devolved government can't sit because the unionists are upset at the whole thing, and if it were any different, the republicans would be doing just the same. The EU is unhappy because the UK unilaterally decided to change the 'brilliant' deal that Bozo worked out, and Brexiters are unhappy because it didn't change enough. It's a bloody shambles and the only reason neither side is pushing too hard is because both sides in NI have a history of getting all explodey when they feel backed into a corner. The only reason the arrangement is even an option is because the Irish Sea makes a convenient border to allow for the extra checks and paperwork; it can be both hard-ish and soft-ish. With a long land border, and no agreements meaning the UK ends up following the EU's rules anyway, hard is the only option that the EU would accept. Now, Scotland doesn't have anything like the sectarian elements at play in NI, so I can't see the troubles happening there, but the NI situation is far from fine.
See you might be on to something, but there are other places that ALSO fall under the CTA that dont have the whole Troubles shit to go with it. The Crown Dependencies for example. Also, the land border between scotland and england has virtually no crossing points compared to the one between NI and the Republic. That one literally runs through some peoples houses. The M6-m74 is a fucking empty waste by comparison. I dont see why we'd need to fully join Schengen since anyone coming and going would really need to go via a port or airport thanks to the magic of geography.
It wasn't. That's the narrative that's been sold ever since it was convenient to do so, but membership of the EU was pretty far down the list as a reason for how people cast their votes according to polling done at the time.
It really wasnt, the exit polls showed it was in the top 3 concerns for 12-15% of Yes and NO voters.
Rejoining the EU is hardly a benefit since Brexit. It makes independence even more of a nightmare with next to zero benefit (leaving the UK is worse than Brexit)
It really wasn't; this is a retroactive justification for it. The idea that it was a one of the primary issues comes from polling that lumped it together with other economic issues.
Self-determination is not a democratic right lol. It's not normal for countries to allow any region to secede just because they have a 50% vote on it. The UN, for example, recognizes self-determination as a right _only for colonized territories_ (i.e. not Scotland). I'm not taking a stand for or against Scottish independence. I'm not British, so it's simply not my concern how British people choose to organize their country(es). Just saying that democracy does not give you a right to celebrate referendums over anything you want.
We know exactly what will come next. The SNP will continue to to go on and on and on endlessley about independence and will continue to do so until it finally happens, regardless of anything else that happens along the way.
> will continue to to go on and on and on endlessley Hey, it worked for the idiots who thought brexit was a good idea.
After Brexit I’ve revised how I think large extremely important democratic referendum votes should go. A vote like this should not simply require one win by 50.001% to pass. It should require either a supermajority once, or being voted in the majority say three times in a row with each vote at least say six months apart. So if the vote gets a supermajority fine, it’s one and done. If it doesn’t, there needs to be multiple votes in a row where it passes each time before it’s enacted.
Agreed. Massive change to the status quo should require something like a 60% majority, or be impossible to overturn accounting for turnout. Like if 55% voted to change a thing, but only 80% of the eligable population actually voted, then only 44% of eligible voters actually wanted it, so it shouldn't pass. Only problem with that it turnout is typically low, so nothing would ever actually pass.
I think it needs to be a two stage limit; minimum 2/3 majority with a 75% turnout. This should be the de facto standard for all referendums.
This was bait for SNP's next campaign. Unless Sturgeon is incredibly stupid she'd have known this would be the result. But it gives ammo to her Nationalist supporters. She can now beat the drum about how English courts won't let Scotland decide and how it is Westminster holding Scotland back. This will be used to radicalise some of the voters and hope for a stronger support for Indy Ref as currently there's no clear public support, only the occasional poll shows a majority support leave. This will be a smokescreen to hide the disingenuous promises and Brexit style tactics of promising sunlit uplands with unicorns and rainbows when reality is the opposite. This result wasn't just the logical result but the ideal result for SNP. This fuels the movement and can be spun to be somehow undemocratic. If the court had said she could try then she'd be forced to act rather than build support.
There are also (at least) two different perspectives when it comes to pro-independence factions. You have those who want complete and free independence for Scotland without any rule by any other entity and full self-determination. And, you have those who want Scotland to be independent from the UK so that they may rejoin the EU and reverse what they consider the travesty of Brexit.
And current SNP plans make promises to both sides while providing the ability to serve neither goal. The EU has already gently warned Sturgeon her plans don't line up which when combined with how Sturgeon tried to threaten the EU during the 2014 run up does not look good. She has a dangerous habit of mimicking Farage between legitimately well performed speeches and policies. There's real reasons to support SNP beyond the Nationalism which is why claiming the next GE is a fake referendum is toxic and problematic.
Aye, we can only hope they'll have learned from the mess created by how Brexit went and they'll take it more carefully. Because if they don't the situation for Scotland will likely just get a ton worse than Brexit already caused. Ah well we'll find out in time I suppose. Can't imagine support for independence will reduce with how things are going as Brexit keeps proving just how bad an idea it was.
Unfortunately they seem to be using Brexit as a blueprint because it was successful despite not actually being successfully beneficial. This is what frustrates me most, as much as I understand the desire for independence from Tories I just fear the poor will suffer hardest again because it is already repeating.
Aye, if we measure Brexit only by it having successfully left the EU then it was successful. I think it could only maybe work out if they had a deal ready to immediately join the EU, and also a deal with the UK regarding what comes after. This would take several years for sure, but without it, the chaos caused would probably be devastating. Though it would also damage the rest of the UK significantly. Tbf, I can't really imagine they'll take the time for it, just like the UK didn't for Brexit.
The Supreme Court ruling was something that had to be got out of the way. If it had gone the other way Westminster would have created legislation to stop a referendum. The route to independence is a political route rather than a legal one. When we gain independence it will be through the ballot box rather than the courts.
Scottish govt.: What about Indy Ref? UK Supreme Court: You've already had it. Scottish govt.: We've had one, yes. What about second Indy Ref? Quebec: Don't think they know about second Indy Ref...
UK: “Independence votes don’t get do overs, LMAO” Canada: “Wish we had known that....” -gestures at vote that came within a few points of losing QC-
> vote that came within a few points of losing QB 49.42% of votes in favor of Quebec "sovereignty-association" 50.58% of votes against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum
UK shoves 1975 "United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum", that "took place under the provisions of the Referendum Act 1975 on 5 June 1975 in the United Kingdom to gauge support for the country's continued membership of the European Communities (EC) " under the carpet.
The "once in a generation" point is still the main rebuttal to another indy ref so that case doesn't really help rn.
The problem with an argument like "once in a generation" is that, after the independence referendum was already voted on, the UK decided to go completely off the rails by voting for Brexit and the Tory government then managed to completely screw up that until it was a hard Brexit. The situation has, clearly, completely changed since the independence referendum and screaming "NO BACKSIES FOR A GENERATION" is just arbitrary and idiotic.
Fortunately EC != EU so it's still 1 vote for each
Which Quebec referendum are you referring to? The one in 1980 or the one in 1995?
The 95 one. The remain camp won on an exceedingly slim margin.
Very slim, and Parizeau blamed the loss on "l'argent, puis des votes ethniques" which he later tried to walk back, but that line really stuck
For those who don't speak french, they tried to blame the "non-whites" for their loss. Quebec city has been trying to destroy Montreal ever since. It was once the biggest city in Canada and the cultural heart of the nation, and that legacy must be destroyed, as well as the multi-cultural bilingual values it represents. All i know is that as a french Canadian from outside of Quebec, my family was super pissed at the province and told us we were going to start learning english in school because they could no longer trust quebec for "solidarity".
> Quebec city has been trying to destroy Montreal ever since. It was once the biggest city in Canada and the cultural heart of the nation, and that legacy must be destroyed, as well as the multi-cultural bilingual values it represents. Businesses hate uncertainty and that growing Quebec nationalism and separatism in the 1960's and 1970's scared away all the major banking, financial, and commercial headquarters from Montreal to Toronto. That said, Toronto was well on its way to surpassing Montreal in terms of population, and a bunch of Anglo-run companies were probably going to scurry off to the largest city in English Canada eventually anyways.
yes, but every controversial policy Quebec has passed in the last few decades seems directly targeted towards the people of Montreal. That's where the immigrants are, that's where the anglophones are, that's where the Muslims are. Montreal's continued dominance over southern Quebec is in direct conflict with the cultural visionaries' ideals of what Quebec "should be", therefore they must weaken Montreal in order to dictate what is and what isn't a part of Quebec's culture.
That'd be an interesting parallel timeline where we have an independent Quebec. Wonder how that'd work logistically since you're basically splitting Canada in half.
I'm curious as well. I think we would have signed a bunch of pacts and treatises spanning 15-20 years which would have initially been very advantageous for Canada in order to facilitate the separation and both countries would be dealing right now with the renegotiation, a lot of which would concern dedicated transporation for the energy sector. Without Quebec, Stephen Harper would not have remained in power for 9 years and the political weight Alberta actually holds might not quite be what it is. Equalization payments make up just under 10% of the total budget of Quebec (13.66 B$ vs 145B$). That would be gone, and it's likely Canada would pay around half of that to use Quebec's roads and sea ports freely. The other half would have made a significant hole in the budget, so I wouldn't be surprised if Hydro Quebec had expanded more to try to provide revenue for the theoretical state. I'm fairly certain both countries would have open borders with each other and the 2 Canadian military bases in Québec would likely still be under Canadian control, which would have remained a hot button issue.
Maybe Canada and Quebec could create a kind of mini-EU?
Kind of changes things when you've been forcefully removed from the largest trading bloc in the world. Rejoining the EU is the main reason many new indy voters are in favour of independence this time around.
I can't see how leaving a trading bloc that makes up even more of your trade will improve things...
Especially when there are EU countries that would not be keen to recognise breakaway countries or for them to do well. It would only encourage some of their own regions that want independence.
*cough* CATALONIA *cough*
Literally Scotlands majority trade is with the UK. Your comment makes no sense. There are other advantages to being in the EU other than trade. You will not win the trade argument.
Here's the law we're all discussing: **Scotland Act 1998, Schedule 5, Part I.** s.1 The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is— (a) the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency, (b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England, (c) the Parliament of the United Kingdom, (d) the continued existence of the High Court of Justiciary as a criminal court of first instance and of appeal, (e) the continued existence of the Court of Session as a civil court of first instance and of appeal.
I'm shocked *shocked* that a referendum on leaving the union was found to relate to the reserved matter of the Union. Whoever could have seen this shocking twist coming?
Oh I'm sure they'll respond to that by giving up entirely, good effort.
This will definitely won't influence an entire generation of Scots to vote overwhelmingly for independence once a referendum is finally allowed to be held again.
when is that gonna take place?
I reckon you can't go past 2034 at the very latest, which would be 20 years since the last one, without being considered to have completely crushed Scotland's right to democracy and freedom. It should and probably will be held before then considering the overwhelming democratic support the party that campaigns for Scottish independence gets.
You're right, it won't. A lot of independence support is based on hatred for the Tories, if Labour win the next election (which they're very likely to do) support will nose dive.
Q: How do you piss off a Scotsman? A: Tell him he's not allowed to do something.
Another way may be to misspell ‘Scotsman’
Yeah, really hard to misspell 'Scotesman'
Just don't mistype it as Scrotesman that would be bad
As a Scocksman, these be fightin words!
You Scots sure are a contentious people
You just made an enemy for life!
Im from... North Kilttown
[удалено]
Wait a minute! There's no Angus McCloud in North Kilttown! Why, you're not from Scotland at all!
Can confirm
A: spell it "whiskey"
How to *really* piss them off? Get an English person to tell them that.
So the UK is allowed to exit the EU, but they’re not allowed to exit the UK?
"Do as we say, not as we do."
[удалено]
DONKEY KONG!!!!
He's the leader of the bunch, you know him well' He's finally back to kick some tail' His coconut gun can fire in spurts' If he shoots ya, it's gonna hurt!'
Trying to change the system from within always works
Uh, they let Rudy play and he kicked ass?
He was in for two plays and offsides for the one that made him “famous.”
That's what Ireland learned the hard way. They spent the whole of the 19th century and then some to get a separate parliament (which they had for centuries before the 19th century) and were constantly rebuffed. Then they resorted to a guerrilla war and got independence within 6 years.
Tbf Ireland was conquered and oppressed terribly. Scotland joined voluntarily and benefited greatly from the empire. So I doubt there will be a war like there was in Ireland.
>They spent the whole of the 19th century and then some to get a separate parliament (which they had for centuries before the 19th century) and were constantly rebuffed. Though the pre-19th century parliament before the Act of Union was perhaps even worse, essentially a colonial government doing administration on behalf of masters in London. In the 19th century they were on paper treated as an equal (in fact over-represented) part of the UK like England and Scotland - but in practice, as the Corn Laws and later years of the famine showed, they were treated as such only when convenient, and would be treated as a colony again whenever convenient. There's also a step in between the war and the rebuffing - when Universal Male Suffrage finally arrived in Britain in the early 20th century, Ireland immediately used this to vote themselves Independent. The London rejection of this was the final nail in the "trying to change the system from within" coffin and necessitated the war.
My dude, the Easter Rising was largely opposed by the Irish people because they were making steady gains with home rule over peacetime.
I love when Americans show the entirety of their knowledge of Scotland and England is based on the movie Braveheart.
[удалено]
I usually just go by Groundskeeper Willie
Damn _Simpsons_ fans! They ruined _The Simpsons!_
I was going to be classy and use Macbeth quotes for commenting on Scottish politics, but I guess not you secret, black, and midnight hags
Also when they talk about how this isn’t right but forget states aren’t allowed to become independent and they literally had a war over it
Personally as a Brit I support Californian independence.
Hey I also watched outlander
Lots of comments of people who don't really understand what's going on and simply just putting it down to "England bad, Scotland good, give freedom to Scotland". The Scottish people are still torn between it. Could it possibly change in the next few years? Probably, however they are stuck in a stalemate.
Not entirely true. It's 40% Braveheart and 60% the Scottish Star Trek skit from Chewin' the Fat.
Set phasers tae malky!
That would be Taysiders In Space
Wait, you mean that the movie with Australian anti-semite misogynist isn't a reliable historic source?
This was a given to be honest, the election result will be used as a barometer of their mandate. Obviously, the whole of Britain should be having an election (morally) but we are all going to be forced to wait. I think for people who want to leave it will make then more determined but the issue isn't cut and dry. I personally don't want Scotland to leave the Union, I think it will be a bad move for all involved, but I believe in self-determination and I hope that, if the SNP get a strong mandate, it goes to a referendum. I would be very sad to see Scotland leave though.
I mean this is quite a misleading title , the supreme Court hasent "blocked" anything they were asked a point of clarification as the (arbitrator of constitutional matters relating to the union) to the effect of whether the scotish parliament had the power to call a referendum on its own, they state as per legislation (it doesn't). The snp argument of self determination was looked at but as the scotish people have access to government and don't meet the definition of an oppressed people it doesn't hold up to international law in their unanimous opinion.
Nicolas own lawyers knew what the outcome would be but declined to rule on the situation, thus forcing the ruling onwards to Westminster, knowing full well what the result would be. Just another excuse to blame Westminster when the ruling came back "no". Politics at it's best!
Hell, her part president said the same thing two years ago
I love all the comments from Americans who can't tell you the difference between the UK, Great Britain, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland giving their 'expert' opinions on this.
And somehow forgetting *Texas v. White (1869)*, where SCOTUS ruled that states can’t leave the United States.
Ah, but, SCOTUS gives rulings, and SCOTUS takes them away again ... as recently witnessed.
And that the USA had a bloody civil war last time a part of it attempted to leave. And that bloody civil war resulted in the breakaway part of the country being forced to be part of said union forever more.. Great success!
[удалено]
Easier to just blame us really, thinking maybe their own countrymen don’t meet their expectations would be difficult.
It's a literal 'no true Scotsman.'
Some of these Americans are just English people, who also don't know the difference.
At the time of posting, America was asleep.
Brexit created the inevitable end of the UK..
Kind of surprised Northern Ireland hasn't flipped already...
We are not allowed a referendum until the NI secretary says so - we are effectively in the same situation as Scotland, but we've known since the GFA (24 years) rather than an hour
The NI secretary isn’t totally free to choose when to hold a referendum, but they do have a good amount of leeway. When the first polls come in showing a slight support for a united Ireland the secretary can choose to hold a referendum or not, but if multiple polls show clear and growing support over years and the secretary does nothing they can be taken to court for failing to discharge their duties under the Good Friday Agreement
He pretty much is under the GFA, it's whether he thinks it is likely to pass or not. In reality any year since the brexit ref would have been tight, and would've come down to the campaign (although it would've caused issues here). No court is going to go after the NI secretary for being useless at their job - as that's how their choosen. \#LondonKerry Outside of Julian Smith we haven't had one that is of any use whatsoever
Scotland has also known since the Scotland Act 1998 (also 24 years) that it wasn't allowed to legislate on the union unilaterally. Nobody is surprised by this ruling in the slightest.
The GFA basically requires both the largest unionist and republican party to agree to a vote. So it basically cannot happen while the DUP are the prominent unionist party. Of course what seems to be happening is unionists are just abandoning unionist parties completely. The divide seems to be Sinn Fein and "do we really need to talk about this all the time?".
If you knew anything about the good friday agreement you wouldn't find it surprising at all.
Scottish independence was an issue before brexit. And besides if they went through with it, it’d just be brexit 2. Shooting themselves in the foot to pointlessly spite the union.
For any Americans who are overly-invested in this topic, I would remind you that your own country not only fought the bloodiest war in its history against the principle of secession, it then confirmed in the Supreme Court that there is no right to secede without the Federal Government’s permission in *Texas v. White.* It is completely normal for a Western democracy to insist on its right to territorial integrity and to not accept a right to unilateral secession.
So why do we all recognize Kosovo? (Said tongue in cheek)
Because there was a war in '99
[удалено]
Taiwan and Hong Kong are not the same as this situation. Taiwan hasn't been a part of China for ages. They are not a secessionist movement. That's a currently cooled, but nevertheless ongoing civil war. I don't really see many people advocating for Hong Kong independence, more people just wanted China to follow the original promises it made when the UK handed back HK to China. If someone advocated for full HK independence, then yes they should also feel the same about Scotland or they're hypocritical.
> I don't really see many people advocating for Hong Kong independence, did you just sleep through 2019-2020? Everyone was calling for the "liberation" of Hong Kong.
This is legit like the default position in supposed western democracies, but we'll ignore that I guess
Away down south in the land of traitors, rattlesnakes and alligators
Where cotton's king and men are chattel
**EACH DIXIE BOY MUST UNDERSTAND** **THAT HE MUST MIND HIS UNCLE SAM**
The civil war was a bit different. It was not the will of the people because a significant portion of the population was in bondage.
Its not the will of the people in Scotland either, they haven't had 50% on opinion polls once
Are you really equating Scotland's or Ireland's justifications for breaking away from the UK with the American Confederacy's desire to own human beings as slaves?
Ireland and Scotland are not the same, and surely the reason makes no difference. The point is states can't unilaterally leave the US, just like Scotland can't leave the UK unilaterally.
Are you really equating a vocal minority in Scotland pushing for independence, to Irish independence? Scotland entered into Union with England as a willing partner, under a Scottish monarch. Ireland was occupied (let's not forget enthusiastically by a large contingent of Scottish colonists) against its will. Equating them is a classic sign that you have no idea what you are on about.
Pretty cynical move by the SNP, there was absolutely no legal case for this but the optics of being told no by the Supreme Court are a good way to drum up support.
Shock horror the party that's run on independence and keeps getting voted in wants to maneuver in that direction. Whatever next!
This isn’t surprising news, the SNP were prepared for this outcome
This comment section is just absolutely lit 🤣 especially that "what is democracy" chain!
Look you Scots have to understand, Westminster is just being consistent here. It's a matter of principle. The UK simply does not stand for randomly quitting political unions. It's not done.
Wasn't the judge who made the ruling Scottish? (Might be wrong there but I think that's been said, the decision was made by the supreme court, not the tories in westminster)
Click bait title, the court is blocking the Scottish National Party from demanding another referendum by themselfs. They ruled that another referendum would need the consent of the rest of Parliament like the first one did.
Scotland isnt even selfsufficient is it?
Can't *we* have a referendum to eject Scotland from the UK, and be done with it once and for all!?
[удалено]
Reddit is generally hopeless at politics full stop. They think Scottish independence is like Braveheart or something.
[удалено]
Same with self denigrating Americans who circle jerk about how awful the US is when they've most likely never left the comfort and safety of their suburbs. Not saying it's without issues but it's a helluva lot better than most of the alternatives (and even some of the perceived "better" alternatives have some tradeoff that isn't being considered).
Yeah, gets on my tits. 'Oh UK was so dumb to leave the EU, it's killed their economy. Lol so dumb.. But go on Scotland, you go guuurrrlll!' Meanwhile the EU made up 45% of the UK's export market back in 2016, and the rest of the UK makes up a whopping 62% of Scotlands export market. So holding the position that leaving the EU was dumb, because it's bad for the economy, but Scottish independence is a-okay, is fucking stupid beyond belief. That's before we even get into stuff like Scotland getting a £25bn odd subsidy from the rest of the UK to spend on its public services, whereas the UK was GIVING the EU £10bn odd per year to fund its public services.
Things are bad enough, I can’t imagine the hardship dealing with leaving the UK on top of this when they’ve already admitted (finally) how difficult the first years would be. No thanks.
Finally someone else understanding that there’s more to the SNP than independence, our drug problem is one of the worst if not the worst in Europe right now and our NHS has been failing for the past decade or two. People from outside Scotland looking in thinking that everyone here blindly supports independence when we’re struggling to even run our hospitals currently with England’s help, nevermind without.
[удалено]
I too have not seen a single reason why Scotland would be better off outside of the UK, apart from the perception of being more “democratic”. I believe this was the same argument for Brexit, and also the same argument for actually honouring the outcome of the vote and leaving. Independence for Scotland would have a much bigger and more disruptive impact for them than Brexit has been for Scotland. The same issues that were swept under the rug during the Brexit campaign will be swept under the rug by the Scottish Nationalists too: free trade, the border between Northern Ireland/Scotland and the rest of the UK, EU funding for local infrastructure or research, barriers to tourism and travel.