But at the time one of the main arguments against Scottish independence was that it would mean they were outside of the EU.
But remaining in the EU was pretty much the main point put forward for not having independence in the first vote.
I doesn't have anything to do with the English or England, it is the UK Government not allowing another referendum.
Referendum isn't the appropriate way of doing things.The Scots should have thought it through before they sent their king down south to take over England and Wales too, then.
Referendum after referendum until you get the 'right' result isn't an appropriate way of doing things. Forty years between referendums seems about right - they should be truly a generational thing, not every five minutes because some people didn't like the result.
Basically, the English. I'm English, not UKish. Having other countries (Wales, Scotland) have seats in the English parliament is daft, but I can tolerate it if it makes them feel part of something (the UK).
I'd agree if they were binding referenda and required a supermajority. If you're suggesting that a marginal vote to leave the EU on a particularly day that could of gone the other way on a different day and dramatically disadvantaged the country and the populace should be set in stone for 40 years, then think again.The Scots should have thought it through before they sent their king down south to take over England and Wales too, then.
Referendum after referendum until you get the 'right' result isn't an appropriate way of doing things. Forty years between referendums seems about right - they should be truly a generational thing, not every five minutes because some people didn't like the result.
We had two referenda on being in the common market. The common market changed to be the EU while we were in it. Our politicians were too disengaged to oppose this, not bothering to send people to committees, and the nation sleepwalked into another place. Then some of the MPs flounced and then duped the nation into having a second referendum.
What was daft was that when the Scots ran the UK and brought in devolution they didn't consider it an option for England.
Are you referring to Blair and Brown? If so, I agree. Devolution makes sense only if it is the start of a journey to independence, which is why I opposed it (as proposed and executed) on a nation basis (and, to boot, excluding England from the fun, with no English parliament as such). If England were an equal partner in a devolved UK that would probably keep everyone happy (apart from the Welsh, who seem very happy to cling on the English coat tail, and the Ulstermen who think they are more Loyal than the English). Instead we have an English dominated 'UK' and half-arsed devolution for the jocks and Welsh.
But you know is the nasty English holding everyone else back, with our brutal suppressing dictatorship and constant Edward the 1st celebrations, as we throw meal leftovers over Hadrians wall to the starving Celts who long for freedom from the yoke of English rule. It’s only fair they now get a chance in 2022 to own televisions, have electricity and running water and build an NHS that will be perfect. Not to mention welcome everyone of all persuasions (so long as they’re not English), especially the millions of Scots happily living elsewhere (who left for better jobs, education, healthcare, food, football, transport, the weather etc etc)
the main argument was how they'd structure their economy, where they receive considerably more funding than they raise in revenue. at the time they expected to rely on north sea oil, which they consider theirs. with the carbon free future, they've shot that fox. they also proposed keeping the pound and keep their considerable financial industry back stopped by Bank of England. independance except when it suits not to. now they propose the similar hybrid, most the same compromises and flaws in the plan.
Blair and Brown. I agree that devolution was half-arsed, it was certainly met with apathy in Wales where I was living at the time and the turnout on the vote was barely 50%.Are you referring to Blair and Brown? If so, I agree. Devolution makes sense only if it is the start of a journey to independence, which is why I opposed it (as proposed and executed) on a nation basis (and, to boot, excluding England from the fun, with no English parliament as such). If England were an equal partner in a devolved UK that would probably keep everyone happy (apart from the Welsh, who seem very happy to cling on the English coat tail, and the Ulstermen who think they are more Loyal than the English). Instead we have an English dominated 'UK' and half-arsed devolution for the jocks and Welsh.
If you are referring to King James, I feel that too much water has passed under that bridge. May as well call for a reintroduction of slavery.
I think we've moved on from this issue since the war in Russia started. The EU have fast-tracked Ukraine and Moldova's applications to join and have already granted them candidate status since the Russian invasion. There is no way they would admit those two yet deny Scotland membership.
I think that we've only seen the tip of the iceberg re the negative economic effects of Brexit. Yes, hatred for Boris boosted the SNP and this will be diminished but be replaced with increasing anger at the Tories for foisting Brexit upon Scotland. The Scots have only to look at Ireland to see what benefits EU membership can bring to a small, English-speaking member of the group.
Very much this. The Irish economy has done incredibly well and offers a balance of sectors with a mix traditional and modern industries. An Indy Scotland can do the same.
A tiny economy, gained by being a tax haven for cheats such as Dell. Which the EU Commission was furious about. That plus colossal grants created the Celtic Tiger.
