Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Ps please locate an insult I’ve used . Thanks . And try and read others posts and the insults they use and challenge that as well . 

 

Nah. Just read back over your old posts and you'll get the picture.

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

Nah. Just read back over your old posts and you'll get the picture.

You’re the one making the comment . 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Awe she’s blaming Westminster for 

the drug deaths in Scotland . “ we don’t have controls “ Bla bla bla 

 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

You tell em penny 😀😀

 

https://x.com/markthehibby/status/1785977001850912901?s=46&t=Uyg6zS_aUfEwlXY6vOoxzQ

 

 

[AyrJambo]

3 hours ago, Lord Montpelier said:

Intrigued to understand what taking on the British state "unlawfully" actually means, in practice. 

 

It means asserting the legal reality that in Scotland sovereignty rests with the people not with the Crown in Parliament as is the case in England

Sovereignty cannot be diluted

Either we are sovereign or Westminster is sovereign

The UK runs on the assumption that the latter applies but that is constitutionally false

Permission from Westminster is not actually required and is constitutionally inept since it sets a precedent of ceding Scottish sovereignty

Unfortunately most  people in Scotland are either unaware of this or don't care

Ask yourself why no English monarch since Anne in 1702 has taken the Scottish coronation oath

Not Charles, not his mother or any of them since 1702 (the last one before political union)

Because the Scottish coronation oath requires that the incoming monarch, to be King or Queen of Scots, must acknowledge and pledge their subordination to the people of Scotland who are sovereign over them

 

In party political terms it means that the pro-independence parties should work together

They should all have as the first line in their manifestos that a vote for them is a vote for the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum on independence

No Westminster involvement

To answer your question this would be unlawful under the Scotland Act but no one ever unshackled themselves from Britain without some kind of confrontation

If the electorate vote a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament then go ahead and hold the referendum

Force the UK to mount the legal challenge and argue in open court why they consider that the people of Scotland are not entitled to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination

 

3 hours ago, Ked said:

Disagree.

Legally and with democratic backing Scotland can unilaterally declare itself a state.

Now how that is affected by our treaty I'd be lying if I said I knew.

But the latest ICJ ruling that it was legal.

Anyway I feel the SNP has to capitalise now before passion erodes.

 

 

Absolutely, a state becomes a state as soon as other states give it recognition

UDI is an attractive prospect for me and possibly for you but in most people's minds it has negative connotations

It also relies on the international recognition required to give a new state legitimacy

Plus you would have about half the country opposed and some actively working against the new state

Better to go to the people in the manner I have suggested above

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

11 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

It means asserting the legal reality that in Scotland sovereignty rests with the people not with the Crown in Parliament as is the case in England

Sovereignty cannot be diluted

Either we are sovereign or Westminster is sovereign

The UK runs on the assumption that the latter applies but that is constitutionally false

Permission from Westminster is not actually required and is constitutionally inept since it sets a precedent of ceding Scottish sovereignty

Unfortunately most  people in Scotland are either unaware of this or don't care

Ask yourself why no English monarch since Anne in 1702 has taken the Scottish coronation oath

Not Charles, not his mother or any of them since 1702 (the last one before political union)

Because the Scottish coronation oath requires that the incoming monarch, to be King or Queen of Scots, must acknowledge and pledge their subordination to the people of Scotland who are sovereign over them

 

In party political terms it means that the pro-independence parties should work together

They should all have as the first line in their manifestos that a vote for them is a vote for the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum on independence

No Westminster involvement

To answer your question this would be unlawful under the Scotland Act but no one ever unshackled themselves from Britain without some kind of confrontation

If the electorate vote a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament then go ahead and hold the referendum

Force the UK to mount the legal challenge and argue in open court why they consider that the people of Scotland are not entitled to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination

 

 

Absolutely, a state becomes a state as soon as other states give it recognition

UDI is an attractive prospect for me and possibly for you but in most people's minds it has negative connotations

It also relies on the international recognition required to give a new state legitimacy

Plus you would have about half the country opposed and some actively working against the new state

Better to go to the people in the manner I have suggested above

 

Ok I’m getting you now . You wanna bypass wesminster and Scotland just holds it own ref and which ever way it goes it’s binding ? So that means if it’s a majority over 50% plus for Indy then we just declare independence ? I’m fine with all this . As long as you’re fine if it goes the way and it’s a majority for staying in the union . Let’s go for it . 
 

as long as there isn’t a ref again for at least 20 years . We really couldn’t have de stabilising / divisive refs every few years . 
 

thoughts ? 

[AyrJambo]

13 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Ok I’m getting you now . You wanna bypass wesminster and Scotland just holds it own ref and which ever way it goes it’s binding ? So that means if it’s a majority over 50% plus for Indy then we just declare independence ? I’m fine with all this . As long as you’re fine if it goes the way and it’s a majority for staying in the union . Let’s go for it . 
 

as long as there isn’t a ref again for at least 20 years . We really couldn’t have de stabilising / divisive refs every few years . 
 

thoughts ? 

 

I think 20 years is arbitrary and too long

If we accept that the people are sovereign then they should be able to ask for a referendum on any subject any time they choose

I get your concern though - repeating the same referendum every year for instance would be nonsense! 🙂

Somewhere between 5 and 10 tears would be reasonable IMO

I think in Northern Ireland there is an entitlement to repeat a referendum on Irish reunification after 7 years?

 

[AyrJambo]

37 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

Absolutely, a state becomes a state as soon as other states give it recognition

UDI is an attractive prospect for me and possibly for you but in most people's minds it has negative connotations

It also relies on the international recognition required to give a new state legitimacy

Plus you would have about half the country opposed and some actively working against the new state

Better to go to the people in the manner I have suggested above

 

@Ked

 

If the above was successful then the result would effectively be UDI

 

 

[AyrJambo]

More sense from Robin McAlpine

 

https://robinmcalpine.org/we-have-to-stop-the-fire-sale-of-scotlands-economic-assets/

[AyrJambo]

And more

 

https://robinmcalpine.org/the-snp-is-a-failed-project/

[JudyJudyJudy]

14 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

I think 20 years is arbitrary and too long

If we accept that the people are sovereign then they should be able to ask for a referendum on any subject any time they choose

I get your concern though - repeating the same referendum every year for instance would be nonsense! 🙂

Somewhere between 5 and 10 tears would be reasonable IMO

I think in Northern Ireland there is an entitlement to repeat a referendum on Irish reunification after 7 years?

 

Yes but the 5/10 years thing would be chaotic / destabilising as we would have 2/3 years campaigning before hand ? Or there would be an agreement that campaigning could only begin a year or 6 months before the Indy vote ? 

[JudyJudyJudy]

15 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

I think 20 years is arbitrary and too long

If we accept that the people are sovereign then they should be able to ask for a referendum on any subject any time they choose

I get your concern though - repeating the same referendum every year for instance would be nonsense! 🙂

Somewhere between 5 and 10 tears would be reasonable IMO

I think in Northern Ireland there is an entitlement to repeat a referendum on Irish reunification after 7 years?

 

Oh and it would obviously be Indy ref indefinitely I suppose ? Until it was a yes ? 

[JudyJudyJudy]

17 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

referendum on any subject any time they choose

So we should also accept that some do not wish to have a ref too ? 

[AyrJambo]

5 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

So we should also accept that some do not wish to have a ref too ? 

 

The main point is that it would be up to the people

The mechanism whereby sovereignty is exercised and how often should be defined in the Scottish constitution

The Swiss have a pretty good model of direct democracy

 

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/07/switzerland-direct-democracy-explained/

[Gizmo]

3 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

They controlled bifab.

They controlled the off shore windfarm sell off 

They controlled prestwick airport

they controlled Ferguson marine

they banned fracking

they set education standards

they froze council tax

they set income tax rates that have led to 1000 high earners leaving ( approx £150 million down then at least , more when the self employed are taken into account)

they prioritised bike lanes over the homeless

 Now shamelessly avoiding an election because their former rulers allegedly stole all their campaign money, so they couldn’t fight an election if they tried !

Gender > jobs

 

And I don’t care what England do .

i don’t live there 

I demand better

You want a Nationalised energy generation company to provide free energy to the poorest off in Scottish society, yet baulk at other progressive policies like freezing council tax and income tax/benefit changes that redistribute money to the poorest 10%. 

 

That doesn't add up. At all. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

3 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

The main point is that it would be up to the people

The mechanism whereby sovereignty is exercised and how often should be defined in the Scottish constitution

The Swiss have a pretty good model of direct democracy

 

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/07/switzerland-direct-democracy-explained/

 

7 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

The main point is that it would be up to the people

The mechanism whereby sovereignty is exercised and how often should be defined in the Scottish constitution

The Swiss have a pretty good model of direct democracy

 

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/07/switzerland-direct-democracy-explained/

Very interesting .  
 

however 

 

 

 

[AyrJambo]

1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

 

Very interesting .  
 

however 

 

 

 

 

Read the Robin McAlpine articles

Shouldn't we at least be open to trying something different from the moribund and decaying edifices of what passes for democracy in the shitshow of a UK?

[JudyJudyJudy]

11 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

The main point is that it would be up to the people

The mechanism whereby sovereignty is exercised and how often should be defined in the Scottish constitution

The Swiss have a pretty good model of direct democracy

 

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/07/switzerland-direct-democracy-explained/

Another issue is people , the yes I mean would not be happy with a ref every 5 years and def 10 years . They would agitate for one every year ! More than likely 

[AyrJambo]

1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Another issue is people , the yes I mean would not be happy with a ref every 5 years and def 10 years . They would agitate for one every year ! More than likely 

 

Yes people are an issue!!

Pesky creatures with their opinions and rights

😄

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, AyrJambo said:

 

Read the Robin McAlpine articles

Shouldn't we at least be open to trying something different from the moribund and decaying edifices of what passes for democracy in the shitshow of a UK?

No I actually quite like the idea of referendums about various subjects and then they are legally binding , however sometimes ref results can be very different from normal legislative processes . 
 

i read some time ago that if there was a ref vote on gay marriage it would lose 

 

or anything to do with capital punishment , a majority would vote for its return 

 

and various other issues .. 

 

so be careful what you wish for 

[JudyJudyJudy]

3 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

Yes people are an issue!!

Pesky creatures with their opinions and rights

😄

Night night but that Swizz thing is very interesting I’ll  leave you with this though 

 

“ the cuckoo clock “

 

😎

 

 

Edited May 3 by JudyJudyJudy

[AyrJambo]

1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

No I actually quite like the idea of referendums about various subjects and then they are legally binding , however sometimes ref results can be very different from normal legislative processes . 
 

i read some time ago that if there was a ref vote on gay marriage it would lose 

 

or anything to do with capital punishment , a majority would vote for its return 

 

and various other issues .. 

 

so be careful what you wish for 

 

So you would campaign and agitate for another referendum, convince more folk of the merits and eventually win

But you would bringing the majority along with you

[AyrJambo]

2 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Meant NO people I’m tired now . Night night but that Swizz thing is very interesting I’ll  leave you with this though 

 

“ the cuckoo clock “

 

😎

 

 

A wonderfully dismissive summation of a whole nation's history into a little wooden timepiece!!

Shame on you 😮

Mind you they did give us the Reformation but not sure they were having referendums on that!

[Ulysses]

9 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

 

i read some time ago that if there was a ref vote on gay marriage it would lose 

 

 

 

Of course you did.

 

Britain public opinion on same-sex marriage 2024 | Statista

[manaliveits105]

5 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

You tell em penny 😀😀

 

https://x.com/markthehibby/status/1785977001850912901?s=46&t=Uyg6zS_aUfEwlXY6vOoxzQ

 

 

[doctor jambo]

5 hours ago, Gizmo said:

You want a Nationalised energy generation company to provide free energy to the poorest off in Scottish society, yet baulk at other progressive policies like freezing council tax and income tax/benefit changes that redistribute money to the poorest 10%. 

 

That doesn't add up. At all. 

It does.

i don’t really believe that benefits work.

Not entirely.

if people out of work paid no rent/ council tax/ gas / electric then that would only leave food + clothes etc etc.

they are living for free anyway so why channel tax money into private landlords / power companies etc?

They have a profit margin- that is wasteful.

It also means people never freeze to death/ end up in hospital/ evicted - also very expensive and wasteful .

Everyone would be warm and housed securely with health care/ education / police etc

to me that is the state having done its duty-?

 

[Ked]

Judy I'm sorry.

But let's remember you and the merry bunch of unionists started branding independence supporters as hibs.

So stop that disgraceful slur and I won't point out that you're a turncoat.

Now put your big boy pants on judas and apologise to independence supporters for the hibs chat.

😆

[Ked]

7 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

You tell em penny 😀😀

 

https://x.com/markthehibby/status/1785977001850912901?s=46&t=Uyg6zS_aUfEwlXY6vOoxzQ

 

 

Wouldn't mind but the SG couldn't lace dear Penny's boots when it comes to thieving .

 

[Japan Jambo]

7 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

You tell em penny 😀😀

 

https://x.com/markthehibby/status/1785977001850912901?s=46&t=Uyg6zS_aUfEwlXY6vOoxzQ

 

 

 

Just heard the exchange on Radio 4 - Deidre Brock completely handed her arse!

[The Mighty Thor]

9 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

They controlled bifab.

They controlled the off shore windfarm sell off 

They controlled prestwick airport

they controlled Ferguson marine

they banned fracking

they set education standards

they froze council tax

they set income tax rates that have led to 1000 high earners leaving ( approx £150 million down then at least , more when the self employed are taken into account)

they prioritised bike lanes over the homeless

 Now shamelessly avoiding an election because their former rulers allegedly stole all their campaign money, so they couldn’t fight an election if they tried !

Gender > jobs

 

And I don’t care what England do .

i don’t live there 

I demand better

Lots of words but not an answer to the question. 

 

You know the answer to the question I asked hence the reason for your highly emotional and utterly irrelevant word salad. 

 

Do you want another go?

 

The big hint was in my original post. 

[doctor jambo]

23 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Lots of words but not an answer to the question. 

 

You know the answer to the question I asked hence the reason for your highly emotional and utterly irrelevant word salad. 

 

Do you want another go?

 

The big hint was in my original post. 

increasing OUR economy is easy, because we are totally laden with under used natural resources.

we are either refusing to use them, misusing them or turning our noses up at them.

and I include its people in that.

The money generated in this nation is being misused.

If it was a businessman running the finances - the very first question would be

you are spending money on what?

And you generate what?

£2oo million on cycle lanes generates how much back?

£1.5 million "greening" the PF office in Elgin ( building worth £250k) saves how much and generates what?

How could that be spent better to increase GDP and therefore available revenue to be spent.

Free school meals to wealthy kids - is that a good use of the money?

£1000 per bike for kids - really?????

Diversity training in NHS ? police? SW  does what good for patients? How could that be better spent?

Root and branch change is needed.

Total overhaul.

 

[Australis]

7 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

So we should also accept that some do not wish to have a ref too ? 

We had the once in a lifetime referendum.

The result was not accepted.

 

The nationalists only have one policy and interest so can't let it drop ever.

 

Looks like their own now realise Indy  ain't going to happen in our life times.

 

But it took the donkeys a long, long time.

 

 

Edited May 3 by Australis

[Pans Jambo]

11 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Whereas the SNP are  a shambles plus they stole grievence resentment division and hatred of those who oppose them . 

Resentment and grievance?

The alternative is much worse. 

[The Mighty Thor]

25 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

increasing OUR economy is easy, because we are totally laden with under used natural resources.

we are either refusing to use them, misusing them or turning our noses up at them.

and I include its people in that.

The money generated in this nation is being misused.

If it was a businessman running the finances - the very first question would be

you are spending money on what?

And you generate what?

£2oo million on cycle lanes generates how much back?

£1.5 million "greening" the PF office in Elgin ( building worth £250k) saves how much and generates what?

How could that be spent better to increase GDP and therefore available revenue to be spent.

Free school meals to wealthy kids - is that a good use of the money?

£1000 per bike for kids - really?????

Diversity training in NHS ? police? SW  does what good for patients? How could that be better spent?

Root and branch change is needed.

Total overhaul.

 

 

Again you're not getting the bigger picture. The bike lanes, the bikes, the buildings etc you are talking about is how the SG is spending the pocket money it is given in the block grant. 

 

We don't control our natural resources other than water. We have no say on the revenue generated by Oil & Gas or indeed power generation. We don't even control the great resource of the Scottish workforce. 

 

If you were a businessman and you had no control over the returns on your produce you'd be looking at a different market. 

 

If you want to drive the economy you need to be able to control direct and indirect taxes, you need to be able to control how you trade with other markets, you need to be able to control immigration. 

 

Root and branch change has been needed for decades, indeed centuries, and that change is uncoupling Scotland from what is a very one sided and damaging union, not changing the politicians sitting in Holyrood. 

[doctor jambo]

4 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

 

Again you're not getting the bigger picture. The bike lanes, the bikes, the buildings etc you are talking about is how the SG is spending the pocket money it is given in the block grant. 

 

We don't control our natural resources other than water. We have no say on the revenue generated by Oil & Gas or indeed power generation. We don't even control the great resource of the Scottish workforce. 

 

If you were a businessman and you had no control over the returns on your produce you'd be looking at a different market. 

 

If you want to drive the economy you need to be able to control direct and indirect taxes, you need to be able to control how you trade with other markets, you need to be able to control immigration. 

 

Root and branch change has been needed for decades, indeed centuries, and that change is uncoupling Scotland from what is a very one sided and damaging union, not changing the politicians sitting in Holyrood. 

If your kid cannot spend its pocket money properly, you dont give it a credit card

[hughesie27]

32 minutes ago, Australis said:

We had the once in a lifetime referendum.

The result was not accepted.

 

The nationalists only have one policy and interest so can't let it drop ever.

 

Looks like their own now realise Indy  ain't going to happen in our life times.

 

But it took the donkeys a long, long time.

 

 

Thought it was once in a generation? Must only be about 10 years away from the next then.

[Australis]

14 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Thought it was once in a generation? Must only be about 10 years away from the next then.

However it was worded, it was a one of referendum and the result would be accepted.

 

But it was just more SNP lies.

They thought they were going to win it by saying it wouldn't happen again.

 

 

[hughesie27]

14 minutes ago, Australis said:

However it was worded, it was a one of referendum and the result would be accepted.

 

But it was just more SNP lies.

They thought they were going to win it by saying it wouldn't happen again.

 

 

Well it was worded as generation. And they are yet to hold another. Another also seems a long way off. But in around 10 years it would be fair to say a generation has passed.

 

Since losing they have won election after election on the grounds of many policies, to main being a continued effort to lead Scotland to Independence. If you don't agree with that then that's absolutely fine. But maybe you should accept the results of the elections and expect the party that won to try and carry out it's policy goals. 

 

Or just cry more.

Edited May 3 by hughesie27

[redjambo]

7 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Another issue is people , the yes I mean would not be happy with a ref every 5 years and def 10 years . They would agitate for one every year ! More than likely 

 

I'm sure they wouldn't, in practice. Every time Yes loses, folk would be turned off by the whole rigmarole and disruption that the campaigning and divisiveness would cause, as you feel too. It would have to take a major event happening or a major groundswell change in public opinion to produce a call for a referendum, imo. As a safeguard, there is a possibility that polling results or some other measure could be tied in to the setting up of a referendum. The "once every x years" is too restrictive.

[Gizmo]

2 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

It does.

i don’t really believe that benefits work.

Not entirely.

if people out of work paid no rent/ council tax/ gas / electric then that would only leave food + clothes etc etc.

they are living for free anyway so why channel tax money into private landlords / power companies etc?

They have a profit margin- that is wasteful.

It also means people never freeze to death/ end up in hospital/ evicted - also very expensive and wasteful .

Everyone would be warm and housed securely with health care/ education / police etc

to me that is the state having done its duty-?

 

 

It sounds like under your policy you would be moving people from private houses into council-owned ones since you baulk at paying private landlords. Given the waiting list, I assume they will have to be housed in derelict, abandoned housing estates or presumably you would prefer a programme to build a significant amount of social housing to house people out of work. Would people with mortgages have their houses reclaimed to cover the costs before being moved to a new estate as paying their mortgage/interest is money going straight into private finance.

Establishing a national energy generation company just so we pay ourselves for energy for people on benefits, would it be run as a non-profit and protected from the turbulent energy market? Backed by?

Once people are moved into their houses, will they have limits on how much energy they can use? Will they be getting food and clothing vouchers and are they allowed any other utilities for free: broadband, computer, mobile phone + contract? 

Assuming the above was possible and somehow voted for, it has to be paid for.  You'll need to withdraw your complaints about our progressive taxation system to give us any hope of financing it.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

1 hour ago, doctor jambo said:

If your kid cannot spend its pocket money properly, you dont give it a credit card

Ah the good old when backed into a corner facing the obvious truth whip out the absolutely disingenuous 'GERS' argument. 😂

 

How does SG spending compare to the WM government spending? 

 

So we're now agreed that the SG cannot grow the economy without control of economic levers. Excellent. 

[Gizmo]

38 minutes ago, Australis said:

However it was worded, it was a one of referendum and the result would be accepted.

 

But it was just more SNP lies.

They thought they were going to win it by saying it wouldn't happen again.

 

 

Perhaps you could point us all to where this legislation is enshrined in law, or even where a "generation" was defined?

You can't, of course, as it was merely one person's opinion and holds no more water than Thatcher's quote on Scotland merely needing to vote in a majority of SNP MPs during a Westminster election to declare independence. 

One of the two has occurred yet here we are...

[hughesie27]

14 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

I'm sure they wouldn't, in practice. Every time Yes loses, folk would be turned off by the whole rigmarole and disruption that the campaigning and divisiveness would cause, as you feel too. It would have to take a major event happening or a major groundswell change in public opinion to produce a call for a referendum, imo. As a safeguard, there is a possibility that polling results or some other measure could be tied in to the setting up of a referendum. The "once every x years" is too restrictive.

I wonder how the Ref would have went if it was held a few years later in 2017 or 2018, after Brexit.

Edited May 3 by hughesie27

[pablo]

8 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

I wonder how the Ref would have went if it was held a few years later in 2017 or 2918, after Brexit.

 

Yes would have won easily I think.

[AyrJambo]

1 hour ago, doctor jambo said:

If your kid cannot spend its pocket money properly, you dont give it a credit card

 

A misleading analogy I think

Scotland is not some child of the union

It is one of the two signatories of a bilateral  treaty which brought the UK in to existence

The sovereignty of the Scottish people is not something to be "given" or "withheld"

It is ours by right

[Malinga the Swinga]

20 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

I wonder how the Ref would have went if it was held a few years later in 2017 or 2018, after Brexit.

But it wasn't. It was held and you lost and if it was held again now, the result would be the same 

The majority of Scotland doesn't want independence, it really isn't that difficult to understand.

[BlueRiver]

8 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Of course you did.

 

Britain public opinion on same-sex marriage 2024 | Statista

 

What was polling running at when the act was actually passed? 

 

Of course JJJ may have meant if held today but perhaps it was more an innocent misreading of something saying at the time it would have failed. The closest I find is a consultation which has 53% in favour of marriage for all couples in 2012. 

 

 

[hughesie27]

3 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

But it wasn't. It was held and you lost and if it was held again now, the result would be the same 

The majority of Scotland doesn't want independence, it really isn't that difficult to understand.

I'm sorry you made up the impression that I don't understand that. 

[Malinga the Swinga]

24 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

Perhaps you could point us all to where this legislation is enshrined in law, or even where a "generation" was defined?

You can't, of course, as it was merely one person's opinion and holds no more water than Thatcher's quote on Scotland merely needing to vote in a majority of SNP MPs during a Westminster election to declare independence. 

One of the two has occurred yet here we are...

Yep, here we are. We had a referendum, the independence vote was held and e voted to remain in union.

If rhld another referendum, the nation would vote and I've absolutely no doubt that despite more lies from nationalists, result would be exactly the same.

It's a bitter minority who continue to agitated for yet another vote, and try to cause as much division as possible, all because they refuse to accept the majority view.

Just get on with day job of government and run the ****ing country without constantly bleating about how life is unfair. 

[BlueRiver]

4 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

A misleading analogy I think

Scotland is not some child of the union

It is one of the two signatories of a bilateral  treaty which brought the UK in to existence

The sovereignty of the Scottish people is not something to be "given" or "withheld"

It is ours by right

 

Which is grand but sovereignty of the people really doesn't amount to much different to what we have.

 

Plenty of states around the world declare that their people have sovereignty but in practice they operate with very little difference to any other western democracies. (I won't bring in dictatorships which declare such stuff either). 

 

If we take the sovereign wish of Scotland to be expressed via their voting for example unionist parties have rarely, if ever, received less of the vote combined than nationalist ones in Scotland. Should that therefore be taken as the sovereign will over and above returning of seats?