Am I being unreasonable to say that I don't agree that Scotland's voice doesn't count?

[clicknclack]

Over 30% didn't vote and over a million voted for leave. If those two things had changed they could have carried the whole thing the other way.

I completely understand that many are heartbroken and upset (I am too as pro-remain) and may feel different about the union but Scotland had a voice and could have made a difference if enough people felt differently about it.

[SpringingIntoAction]

The Scots were voting on the Question - Should the UK (note UK, not Scotland) remain or leave the EU.

My vote was for England, where I live and for Scotland, Wales, Northern Island and all other parts of the UK to leave the EU. I was not voting purely for that part of the UK in which I live.

The referendum was not a vote on Scotland's membership of the EI -it was a vote on the whole Uk's membership.

If Scotland doesn't like the result then it should hold a referendum to leave the UK. But before it does it needs to have a plan for an alternative currency sorted out to save the embarrassment of being told they cannot use the £ and have no access to the Euro outside the EU.

Meanwhile, we need to start building nuclear submarine facilities outside Scotland

[clicknclack]

I know it was for the UK and not just for Scotland.

[clicknclack]

I posted this because I've seen comments across the web that Scots feel that their opinion doesn't matter because they will be overruled. I was pointing out that they could have changed the outcome in this case for the whole country if enough people had wanted to. It wasn't because England has a louder voice, Scotland had a loud enough one as it turned out because the margin was 1.26M (and there were more than that voters who didn't vote remain), they just didn't use it to remain

If they want a second indy ref it is their prerogative but it shouldn't be because their wishes were ignored.