[Ska'dForLife-WBA]

What's wrong with having more referendums in the future ? Are you afraid of democracy or something? Why does 2 defeats have to set the issue in stone forever?

And if, hypothetically, the next referendum were to result in independence, how much time should elapse before another referendum is permitted which would potentially overturn that result and allow Scotland to rejoin the UK? Or would that one victory suddenly set the issue in stone forever?

[hibeejim21]

What's wrong with having more referendums in the future ? Are you afraid of democracy or something? Why does 2 defeats have to set the issue in stone forever?

And if, hypothetically, the next referendum were to result in independence, how much time should elapse before another referendum is permitted which would potentially overturn that result and allow Scotland to rejoin the UK?  Or would that one victory suddenly set the issue in stone forever?

Would that be even possible ? If it was and the Scottish people wanted it... then aye.

But name me one nation who attained independence and wanted to go back to how things were.

[0762]

What's wrong with having more referendums in the future ? Are you afraid of democracy or something? Why does 2 defeats have to set the issue in stone forever?

And if, hypothetically, the next referendum were to result in independence, how much time should elapse before another referendum is permitted which would potentially overturn that result and allow Scotland to rejoin the UK?  Or would that one victory suddenly set the issue in stone forever?

What a pish 'get out of jail' reply that is!!! The fact of the matter is if there is a huge ground swell of opinion in the country, due to whatever material change, there should be a referendum for indy or against brexit and it should be administered if it's clear that a significant part of a populace wants it!!!! Otherwise, in some cases down the years, autonomous governments take it back when public disorder ensues eh!! As mentioned previously, it's called the democratic right of the people and the government that represent them. Brexit is a classic example of utter folly in that regard now that we know that about 65% plus opinion in the UK is totally opposed to brexit after witnessing what it's really all about and not being enlightened in the first place - a total f###### joke of the highest order and the biggest piece of political sabotage in British political history tarted under a shameless' banner of deception called 'the will of the British people' - total f###### pish, a f###### deception and con!!!!!! Rant over!!!!

[hibeejim21]

I believe the SNP have  already 'prepared the ground' when it comes to the hypothetical scenarios (and others) that you mention and the lessons learnt from 2014 and after with 'best options' fully debated and consulted on. Remember a comprehensive white paper was researched, prepared and published in 2014 - compare that with the paltry 'fag packet presentation of brexit' before it arose and even months after it was confirmed. The SNP will be 'one step ahead of the game', believe me!!! One thing about the SNP/Scot govt is they are not standing still and are getting on with the biz for the Scottish people with no resolve for Scot indy yet although it is set out very clearly in article 2 of the party's constitution - nothing to hide but lets just discreetly 'place it on the back burner' while the Little Englanders 'burn the UK boat' with the Brexit fiasco!

Like I said in my previous post. What happens if you get a 2nd referendum and its to stay with the UK then? Have a 3rd referendum?

Also may I ask why you want to leave?

What's wrong with having more referendums in the future ? Are you afraid of democracy or something? Why does 2 defeats have to set the issue in stone forever?

I'd like independence so the Scottish people have full control over their own futures, not as has proven with brexit and the supreme court verdict resulting from it a mainly impotent holyrood.

Sturgeon is a far,far better leader and politician than may,and with even limited powers is doing a far lot more good with them.

I'm not afraid of democracy.

So Scotland want independence and full control over their own futures similar to what most of the people who voted Leave in the EU referendum want but 0762 calls people who voted Leave "Little Englanders".

How does leaving the EU provide you with"independence and full control" ? Go on, I've got time to hear this one. It provides you with nothing of the kind and if you had been listening to may yesterday,hammond today and numerous other tories in recent weeks you would realise that even they are admitting that.

Why is "little Englanders" such an insult? Its exactly what the likes of farage,johnson and the rest of the loonballs that drove brexit are.

Deary me.

[Ska'dForLife-WBA]

What's wrong with having more referendums in the future ? Are you afraid of democracy or something? Why does 2 defeats have to set the issue in stone forever?

And if, hypothetically, the next referendum were to result in independence, how much time should elapse before another referendum is permitted which would potentially overturn that result and allow Scotland to rejoin the UK?  Or would that one victory suddenly set the issue in stone forever?

Would that be even possible ? If it was and the Scottish people wanted it... then aye.

But name me one nation who attained independence and wanted to go back to how things were.

Fair enough. Personally, I think holding referendums every five years or so in that situation would be catastrophically damaging to economic confidence, political stability and the basic social fabric of your country, but hey, at least you're consistent in this mad belief.

As for countries that opted away from independence, East Germany would be the most obvious example, though of course the circumstances of them "attaining" independence in the first place were pretty singular and utterly undemocratic. But of course, we could also play this game a different way and name places that voted against independence and didn't regret it. Or does that not suit the narrative?

The birth and death of nations are not matters of historical inevitability. Nothing is.

[hibeejim21]

Really not sure what your point is, east Germany was reunified with the rest of Germany after the fall of communism. Germany is independent.

I cant think of many nations who have said no to independence bar us,I'd certainly stop short of saying we are happy about I though. Time will tell.

---

I would say the vast majority of countries are happy with being independent when taking that option. But that doesn't suit the narrative either eh?

[Ska'dForLife-WBA]

Really not sure what your point is, east Germany was reunified with the rest of Germany after the fall of communism. Germany is independent.

My point is that there's no God-given law of the universe that makes "Germany" a nation. Indeed, for most of history it wasn't a single nation at all; prior to 1990, there had only been a "Germany" for a grand total of 74 years. East Germany was independent for 50 years, and had every right to consider itself a different nation to the West. Given a few different circumstances, it's not inconceivable that we might be living right now in a world with an East Germany and West Germany, but the people chose otherwise.

It wasn't an historical inevitability that Germany reunified. It wasn't an historical inevitability that the 1707 Act of Union happened. It isn't an historical inevitability that Scotland is bound to become independent; or, conversely, that it's bound not to. Nations come and nations go, but none are divinely ordained. They exist only if the majority within them consider themselves so. As you say, time will tell.

I cant think of many nations who have said no to independence bar us.

Quebec the obvious one. 22 years since one of the tightest referendum results in the history of democracy, and support for independence has plummeted. Maybe it'll all come round again, or then again, maybe it won't.

I would say the vast majority of countries are happy with being independent when taking that option. But that doesn't suit the narrative either eh?

You're very much mistaken if you think I have a "narrative". You clearly have a horse in this race, but I don't. What I like to see is cogent argument, even from people I might not immediately agree with, hence me weighing in and questioning your reasoning on some stuff.

[hibeejim21]

Was Germany a nation before east Germany ? Yes it was. Do the east German people want to return to being a seperate state,even one free of communism ? No. The fall of communism was always going to lead to reunification,laughable to suggest otherwise.

Quebec? Any others? I repeat,most nations when becoming independent dont regret it or ache to return to being colonies or parts of other states. That's just historical fact.

There's not much wrong with my reasoning on this,but disagree away.

[Ska'dForLife-WBA]

It's not at all laughable to suggest that an independent East Germany might have remained a possibility; indeed, it was the favoured solution of most world leaders of the time, who feared the consequences of a reunified Germany. Circumstances simply dictated otherwise. Nations are a sheer accident of history.

I'm happy to leave it at that and agree to disagree.

[spireitematt]

I believe the SNP have  already 'prepared the ground' when it comes to the hypothetical scenarios (and others) that you mention and the lessons learnt from 2014 and after with 'best options' fully debated and consulted on. Remember a comprehensive white paper was researched, prepared and published in 2014 - compare that with the paltry 'fag packet presentation of brexit' before it arose and even months after it was confirmed. The SNP will be 'one step ahead of the game', believe me!!! One thing about the SNP/Scot govt is they are not standing still and are getting on with the biz for the Scottish people with no resolve for Scot indy yet although it is set out very clearly in article 2 of the party's constitution - nothing to hide but lets just discreetly 'place it on the back burner' while the Little Englanders 'burn the UK boat' with the Brexit fiasco!

Like I said in my previous post. What happens if you get a 2nd referendum and its to stay with the UK then? Have a 3rd referendum?

Also may I ask why you want to leave?

What's wrong with having more referendums in the future ? Are you afraid of democracy or something? Why does 2 defeats have to set the issue in stone forever?

I'd like independence so the Scottish people have full control over their own futures, not as has proven with brexit and the supreme court verdict resulting from it a mainly impotent holyrood.

Sturgeon is a far,far better leader and politician than may,and with even limited powers is doing a far lot more good with them.

I'm not afraid of democracy.

So Scotland want independence and full control over their own futures similar to what most of the people who voted Leave in the EU referendum want but 0762 calls people who voted Leave "Little Englanders".

How does leaving the EU provide you with"independence and full control" ? Go on, I've got time to hear this one. It provides you with nothing of the kind and if you had been listening to may yesterday,hammond today and numerous other tories in recent weeks you would realise that even they are admitting that.

Why is "little Englanders" such an insult? Its exactly what the likes of farage,johnson and the rest of the loonballs that drove brexit are.

Deary me.

Because leaving the EU means we will be in charge of our own laws. I voted remain but how the EU have treated us in negotiations is disgraceful and if we had a 2nd EU referendum I would vote Leave. I don't want to be part of a United States of Europe with 1 flag, 1 anthem, 1 currency. If we were part of the United States of Europe we would be governed by commission and we would have a Mayor for the state of Britain not a PM.

The European Union would work if it went back to a trading union and just a trading union.