Well, Sturgeon has now formally requested a second independence vote for the people of Scotland.
Despite Johnson saying on multiple occasions that he wont allow it (a second referendum), the case for having one does appear compelling.

First of all, prior to the first vote, David Cameron hopped over the border and faithfully promised the people of Scotland that "we" would not be leaving the EU and then during the recent GE, the SNP fought their campaign based on having a second vote on independence and significantly increased their share of the vote and the number of SNP MP's.

Fundamentally, should Westminster be able to decide Scotland's future and if they refuse, will we see and "illegal" vote, much like the one in Catalonia and what would the likely consequences of this actually be ?

For now, we should ignore the economic ramifications ? and just think about who should decide the future of the Scots ?

still banging the same tired old drum, YOU LOST, get over it, it can't be good for your mental health to harbour such deep seated grudges.

Boris' government has the powers to just say no to any referendum, but there's the risk that this issue will grow like a festering wound over time and at some point it will need to be addressed.

If the SNP win a big majority in the 2021 Holyrood elections I expect they will demand a referendum, the UK government will say no, there might be some court case about whether the Scots are allowed to hold a referendum anyway even if it's not binding on the UK government. If that happens it has the potential to embarass either side. If it's seen as a futile election and has a low turn out or only a narrow win for independence - or worse, a defeat for independence, it will really set back the independence cause. If there's a stonking majority for independence and the UK government just says 'it's not binding so we can ignore it' then there will be the same anger at ignoring the result of a referendum that we had over Brexit, and it won't go away.

Brexit will have a number of implications for the devolved governments as powers will be repatriated from Brussels that include areas that will fall in scope of devolution, and also trade agreements will have specific impacts to sectors that are prevalent in Scotland and NI. The UK government will ideally want there to be a collegiate approach to working on these, if there's a sense of the regions being ignored/shafted by a triumphalist UK government that will also fester massive resentment.

In the end the Conservative government could face an untenable position, if they claim to be the party of the Union but are treating Scotland as a colony to be dominated, they will face mass unrest like Thatcher did up there over the Poll Tax. It becomes harder for them to maintain a position about being the 'People's Government' and the ones who listen to the will of the people, if Scotland clearly wants to leave.

They might tactically decide to give the Scots their referendum and let them deal with the practicalities. Once the UK is out of the EU, then if Scotland wants to leave so it can join the EU there will be all those issues about the hardness/softness of the border, and Scottish exit will have the potential to have very stark economic consequences for Scotland. If the UK gets dominated in trade negotiations by the EU and US, it will be a lesson to Scotland as to what happens when you're the smaller partner in trade talks against a party with a vested interest in extracting concessions out of you. This is what they will be when negotiating a future trade arrangement with the UK. Many people in Scotland may well have Brexit/trade fatigue and not want to open up Pandora's Box of leaving the UK. There will be questions around what currency they use. The EU might also warn them that accession to the EU will not be straightforward particularly with potential blocking votes from Spain, Belgium etc who fear their own separatist movements being encouraged to push for independence with the incentive they can secure EU access afterwards.

So it may be that if momentum in Scottish public opinion seems to be heading in the direction of another referendum, that the UK government throws them the bone earlier, and forces the pro-independence side to grapple with the practicalities of exit, rather than let the sense of injustice and being ignored for a long time fester. You can see how a lot of peoples attitude to Brexit is now, "I don't care if it makes use worse off! I just want out and be done with it"....they don't want the Scots to move to that position as it will kill off the economic arguments for remaining in the UK.

Sorry to be such a nuisance in your busy life but, this could be serious stuff.
Not being Scottish, I didn't lose anything here, sorry if that's a bit too difficult for you to grasp.

However, Scotland wanting out and the potential for Ireland to want a reunification vote are significant issues for most BRITISH people.
I take it that, as usual, you have nothing to contribute ?

Well done for not using an emoticon.

Scotland have already voted to stay in the Union, NI don't want to be unified. Why do people think they can just keep calling votes until they get the result they want.

We live in a constitutional democracy.

I heard a rumour that there is already lobbying for Persimmon to rebuild Hadrian's wall in the event of a victorious IndyRef 2. JCB will provide the plant machinery.

That was way back when, before Boris and his commander-in-chief, Dominic Cummings took over the levers of power. Any clearer on what they have planned for the future of the UK?

I would let them have a referendum but with certain conditions. They must swop from the pound to an alternative currency. There has to be a hard border, there will be tariffs on goods from Scotland. No financial support from the rest of the UK, no SNP members in the UK Government etc.

Queen Nicola might thinks she holds sway but let the reality kick in of what life might be like outside of the union and see if the people really want.

After exit it will be expected that there will be no Scottish representatives in the UK government and no financial support from the rest of the UK. The UK can't stop an independent Scotland from using the pound though.

As for hard border and tariffs on goods from Scotland, the default outcome if there was no trade deal in place between Scotland and the rest of the UK at the point of exit or any transition, would be whatever arrangements the UK has with any 'third country' (ie country with which it doesn't have a trade deal), as under WTO rules you have to offer the same terms to every country with which you don't have a WTO-ratified trade agreement. So if we decided we wanted to be extra hard and nasty to them, we would have to do the same to every country with which we don't have a deal at that point, which might be most of the rest of the world!

A certain type of person really hates Nicola Sturgeon, it's funny to visualise them all gammony faced in rage about her.

I don't agree with her core policy but she's a very good, honest, hard working and very effective politician who does what she promises within the framework of the current settlement.

I dont think that any of your "demands" will be a problem, in fact, I'm sure that they would be delighted with them.
However, once again, England supplies more products and services into Scotland than they supply to us. Therefore, despite their apparent weak position, you may need to think properly about this.
Interestingly, you appear aggressive to the Scots wanting to leave the UK and yet IIRC, you were pretty upset when the EU got the hump with us wanting to leave their Union - hilarious

Personally, I dont see how Scotland would manage as an independent nation but, equally, despite nearly all of their MP's being from the SNP, they actually have no power in the UK Parliament whatsoever and as a nation have been ignored and shabbily treated by Westminster over very many years, leading to the rise in the SNP's popularity.

It's sure to get interesting and can you imagine if the UK were hit with tariffs and at some point in the future, the Scots and N. Irish were not.

As I say, it's interesting to see that some who were in favour of Brexit, dont believe that Scotland should be "allowed" to go it alone.
Especially Mr Johnson

How has Scotland been shabily treated?

They've had to endure six Tory Prime Ministers out of the last seven for starters.
All but the one you kept reminding us only had one eye.
Thats the problem with the aspiring English working class. They'd rather align themselves with a couple of ponces who went to Eton than somebody who only went to a state comprehensive.

why does it matter where someone was educated?

typical politics of envy, Thatcher went to state school by the way, daughter of a shop keeper. But crack on, we all need whippets, flat caps and a lack of aspiration.

Well I'm definitely aware you're a big fanboy of the divisiveness and inequality that has reverberated since her tenure terminated.
As for envy, nah, but I can also play your game if you want?
She was one fooking ugly dog.
Fair play to her though, she's even got the underclass, she was creator-in-chief of, voting for Boris.


You nearly couldn"t make it up.

They are shabbily treated all of the time.
Policies in Westminster are not made or changed for he benefit of Scotland and regardless of how many MP's the Scottish people vote in, they are powerless to change anything, which comes from having a population of 5,000,000 out of a total UK population of 70,000,000.
In many ways, they would have been better off voting Labour or Tory and at least then, their MP's could influence government policy.

Also, despite, as a nation, voting heavily in favour of remaining in the EU, as a nation, they will leave with the rest of the UK.

Of course, assuming that once independent they wanted to and could rejoin the EU, their MP's (or MEP's) would have little influence on EU policy as they would become a smaller cog in a much larger wheel but, I dont think that anyone can argue that they have no influence at Westminster and never will have.

If you were unhappy at home, you would be able to leave and it would be your choice.
Bizarrely, much like an angst ridden teenager, who isn't happy, they have to ask permission.

The "one nation" Tory rule seems like it is only concerned with one nation, England with the rest just having to toe the line.

An interesting view, but remember the people of Scotland voted to stay in the Union, in yet another "once in a generation" vote.

Yes they did, just as they were told by a previous Tory leader that, we "would not be leaving the EU"
How many people voted to remain as part of the Union based on Cameron's guarantee or, should the people of Scotland thought "lying tort T***" and assumed that he was lying - maybe that was the start of the new Tory style

Cameron got it wrong, no denying that. We should have voted, as the UK, to remain, but we didn't.

As has been pointed out before - you are either in favour of democracy or not - you can't be democratic and only support democracy when you win. Why should 5m hold sway over the other 65m its not how it works. Why should 48 MPs have any power against 600 MPs - it reflects the population mix too c7%. its odd that they are even in the UK parliament given they have their own assembly?

I appreciate for you lefties - you know what's best for everyone - and anyone who has a different view is simply stupid but that's dictatorship not democracy. No doubt you think Corbyn won the argument and how could these thick northerners not see it!!

I have no issue with Scotland leaving - As you quote says - I would let them have the vote. What was must avoid is the misunderstanding that "people didn't know what they were voting for". It is certain that Queen Nicola will only push the perceived positives of leaving the union.

On a positive Labour will never get into power again without the help of the big number of MPs from Scotland. Plus the weeble will wobble back off to Skye

Oh the irony!

Nobody said leaving the EU would not be without challenges - it remains to be seen whether theses challenges are insurmountable

I'm sure you have your fingers crossed

As it's panto season. Oh yes they did.

Gerard Batten: "A trade deal with the EU could be sorted out in an afternoon over a cup of coffee"

David Davis: “there will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside”

Liam Fox: "The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history"

Michael Gove: “The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want”

Boris Johnson: "There is no plan for no deal because we are going to get a great deal"

John Redwood: "Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy – the UK holds most of the cards in any negotiation"

Very good.

Sal’s triple negative adds a confusing wrinkle, tbf.

Expectations have been managed since the referendum and the dire warnings from the Brexit sceptics have lowered them further. For a lot of us, anything better than very bad will be a win/relief. However, I think there are sections of the electorate still anticipating a Brexit dividend.

Redwood and Gove were correct it could have been had it not been for the remain side putting up every barrier to stop it. Nobody actually knows how things will pan out if/when we leave with no deal - its never been done before and we all know how accurate economic forecasting is!!

The referendum was lost on two areas: immigration and who writes our laws. The EU are now in a tricky spot - they can play two ends off against the middle as they could before. We are in for an interesting 2020.