I realise that when Wee Jimmy Sturgeon said the initial referendum was a 'once in a lifetime' event she was speaking from a Scottish perspective, and all those deep-fried Mars Bars aren't exactly conducive to a high life expectancy. But what, five years? Things are obviously more dire than I'd expected if that's a lifetime now.
Should they actually ever go independent, I look forward to seeing what great strides they make in funding their own education and healthcare with a ~£15bn deficit.
Nah you're wrong, the referendum was once in a lifetime, but it's a foreverendum thus the first one hasn't ended, and it will keep on going until the sun explodes
As I recall the actual wording was 'once in a generation' anyway, which is roughly 5-10 years, so the timeline fits with her original statement. A few thousand of the people who voted last time are dead now and a few thousand people have since turned 16. As I said before, the SNP get the right to hold one anytime they get the biggest share in Holyrood. Or to be more precise, anytime the majority of MSPs vote for it in Holyrood, because that's how representative democracies work.
I agree with you but for timing, before the next general election and before Brexit is done and Scots can clearly see the difference between staying in the UK or going alone and seeking to join the EFTA. England and Wales are in a rather tough spot in that trying to hold a referendum so soon would pretty much grind international business to a standstill whether Scotland remained or not, the Union would be a severe risk. Basically all I'm saying is we've got to get things back to business as usual before campaigning to change the sovereign nature of governance in the UK all over again - Sturgeon was right. These kinds of stuff are once in a lifetime decisions, I really don't think if our dudes lost Brexit we would have seen a second chance in our lifetimes. This is my biggest concern; if we held indyref2 now, there's better chances that no would win over yes. The uncertainty however would spook business peeps into death with a long, drawn out independence campaign after the UK has already endured two such consecutive ones. Thus whether win or lose, the UK would be dead by indyref3
But if the Indyref2 happens after Brexit then the entire purpose for doing it, which is for Scotland to avoid Brexit, stops being relevant, as Scotland would then have to apply for EU membership as a non-member, rather than as a sub-member.
His comments come as Nicola Sturgeon is said to be about to abandon her policy of rejoining the EU immediately after a vote for independence, amid concerns rising Euroscepticism in Scotland could derail her campaign.
A quarter of people who voted for independence in 2014 also voted 'Leave' in last year's EU referendum; that is 400,000 voters Ms Sturgeon cannot afford to lose next time around. This has apparently pushed the SNP to pursue a compromise that they hope will please everyone.
Ayyy lmao
Scots are BritishI'm also not sure where this promise was made. Was it Cameron? Not being sarcastic mind you, I genuinely don't know, sorry[/quote]
It was one of the official platforms of the NO campaign run by the Conservatives, New Labour and Lib Dems. I do not think it was on the pointless pledge the party leaders signed though, not that that went anywhere anyway.
As is there's a chunk of YES voters who are more self determination focused than the rest, who are anti-EU
and anti-UK and want to leave both, with the rest of the movement being focused on the more direct problems that come from UK politics not aligning with Scottish ones more than half the time over the past 40 or so years and feeling the less direct influence the EU has is not a problem, or feeling it's actually a benefit because of freedom of movement, trade, research grants and other funding it gives.
Author
Topic: Brexit! Conversation Continued (Read 191921 times)