SNP lay their stall out - vote for them next May, they will start negotiating to separate.

[RandomGeocache]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgknlj3vr76o

Because they have learned nothing from Brexit. I mean, it's sort of their raison d'etre, banging on about independence and it does resonate with some of their fans who believe that should Scotland separate, we'd all be loads richer. They do appear somewhat confused though - a majority in parliament is a mandate, the biggest number of MSPs is a mandate, a vote for "pro-indy" parties is a mandate.... Anyone would think they were either making it up as they go along, or hedging their bets.

Are we supposed to forget all about the incompetence, the failing NHS and education, the scandals and all the other fuck ups?

So if you don't want to separate, don't vote SNP or Green in May.

RobG comes on here thinking mumsnet women are stupid and will swallow what he says. He’s 100% wrong on everything. We’re on the whole highly educated people on here Rob. Take your nonsense somewhere else. You can’t peddle it here.

Ah you always know the Indy debate has reignited when you get people on mn claiming GERS is some sort of fantasy, honestly they sound like people that think lord of the rings is factual.

🥱 it’s like Groundhog Day.

I wonder why the SNP didn’t use RobG’s calculations in their latest blueprint for independence that they’re now trying to sweep under the carpet, the growth commission take 2? 🤭🤭

I wonder why the SNP expect the Bank of England to be an “independent” Scotland’s lender of last resort still if Scotland could buy and sell England many times over as RobG claims?

"I mean Scotland is much worse than the rest."

No it isnt. Stop reading the Daily Mail 😉

"I wonder why the SNP expect the Bank of England to be an “independent” Scotland’s lender of last resort"

Hahaha lol! 😉

Sources? I'll get a coffee while you dont produce any evidence lol

🤣

Hahaha! lol 🤣

Oh only straight from John Swinney. 🤭🤭
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/10/08/bank-of-england-independent-scotland-crisis-snp/

enjoy that coffee. 🤭🤭

Thank you, I am 😊

I do think that in a situation such as ours, with the UK consisting of four separate countries, that one of the rules for a referendum should have been that each country had to vote to leave the EU.

I also think, even if you didn't have that rule, that referendums with 50%+1 as their cut off are a bad move. 60% would be better, so that whatever change you're proposing has a clear majority in favour.

So any future independence referendum needs a 60% cut off. As it is, a vote could go either way, and I think not carrying a good majority of people with you would be very problematic.

Hehehe lol!

Brexit was 51.89%

Nice try 😉

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂breathe 😂😂😂😂😂breathe 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂breathe

Is Richard Murphy the best you can do?! Embarrassing. No one takes that fool seriously.

Nationalists are opaque, sleekit and I would not trust them at all. their end justifies their means and they do not work for what is in best interests for Scotland and its people.

They take the easy route of spreading discontent and xenophobia. it’s easier to theorise, pontificate and throw a wee freebie to us now and again.

the Expansion of renewable energy is a big topic where I live in rural Scotland.

As I understand it, energy and its infrastructure is retained by the union but we have the energy consent unit at holyrood who make the ultimate decision on infrastructure energy projects in Scotland rather than the local council area or Westminster.

any change in environment is often not wanted by local populations and nimbys, and the building of solar and wind farms and super pylons in rural Scotland has been heavily criticised and drawn concerns from many people who live on the doorstep of these applications and those who are tourist or daytrippers.

objections often given are that Scotland with its lower population and lower energy need is being being used and ruined to fulfill the needs of others: all the energy is going freely to England (or the Scottish central belt, or the next town or the next village...) and we are being decimated.

There is much support for this thinking, especially for the energy going to England and it’s a regularly whispered strap line.
nationalists and the SNP administration are silent on these concerns.

Why are they not openly objecting to this belief that the Scottish countryside is being ruined? From their silence they must agree with this energy expansion.
why are they not negotiating and pushing for more money from Westminster?

@CrimsonStoat yes you are right.
That would have solved a lot of discourse and anxiety for many people.

Unfortunately for remainers we cannot go back in time. So perhaps it’s better to positively focus on our new relationship with EU and the rest of the world.

going forward for the nationalists push for independence, first past 50% will not make for a successful happy country. The threshold has to be higher. Looking at say Ukraine, their vote for independence in 1991 was 92% in favour.

I have to partially disagree with@CrimsonStoat. The UK is one country, the only fair way is one person one vote. Why should a voter in Scotland have greater weight than one in England.

I do very much agree that having a threshold of 60% would be much more sensible for any referendum.

I see Brexit and Scexit as two cheeks of the same arse. Same rhetoric, same sentiment of expecting it to be everything to all people while ignoring the downsides.

How, in any way, do you think having 50%+1 in favour and 50%-1 against would ever make for a successful outcome?

Did Brexit not teach anything about having such a small win?

Actually, on a general point about referendums, I also think a certain percentage of the electorate has to actually take part in one before it is even valid.

The UK is unique. Yes, it's one country, but it is made up of four separate countries, each of which has a parliament of its own.

I do see your point, but unless you're taking all four countries with you, then it's just going to cause resentment.

However, perhaps I only think that because the threshold wasn't set at a sensible level. If it had been, that would perhaps have smoothed out the differences between countries. Having 50%+1 when England has a much larger population than any of the other countries means that, in essence, what England votes for in a UK wide referendum England gets.

Isn't that the exact point that Crimson was making - that Brexit should have had a 60% majority to actively change the longstanding status quo, and thus Scottish independence would also require 60%?

I can see merit in this.

I think it's always going to be challenging, when one of the four countries has the vast majority of the combined population. If we were all broadly similar population-wise, it would be a lot more straightforward.

Cornwall was historically a separate country, so there is a firm precedent for their national rights to be restored - and many of the Cornish still believe this to be so, and would quite probably vote in favour of devolved rule. How could this be refused if a majority of the population sincerely desired and campaigned for it?

Supposing that this happened and we then did it on a pure basis of each country getting a fifth of the say in all kinds of matters (apart from in any referendum on their own individual independence, of course), we could theoretically end up with UK-wide decisions being made based solely on what Wales, NI and Cornwall wanted - 5.5m people and three nations vs 63.5m people but only two nations, if Scotland and England were to vote the opposite way to the other three. Would this seem fair either?

Nationalists are opaque, sleekit and I would not trust them at all. their end justifies their means and they do not work for what is in best interests for Scotland and its people.

I would add to that - very loud, very vocal, very antagonistic on social media and with some very nasty anti-English sentiment from many. Put out figures/statistics/plans which are total fantasy but lapped up by their devoted followers. Like during the Indyref first time round where sleekit Salmond made a huge play out of getting Cameron to say an independent Scotland would use the pound - but failed to lay out the implications of that. All the devoted nats heard was that Scotland would continue to use Sterling and the whole stuff about underwriting debts and pensions went right over their wee heads.

This kind of attitude isn't helpful either.

Talking about two cheeks of the same arse, I think you can lay that description at the feet of both some nationalists and some unionists. Neither will believe anything that doesn't fit their own narrative, and both will insult and ridicule those with different opinions.

David Cameron and his EVEL announcement the day after the Independence vote did nothing to bring anyone together, better or otherwise, and only antagonised those who had lost. Why do that other than a show of power? 55/45 wasn't exactly a resounding endorsement of the status quo.

Perhaps then divide England into the same regions as there were for Brexit and AV and ensure every "region" of the UK votes 60/40 for change before it can be implemented.

I've no doubt that would bring its own issues.

But to be honest, I think making it 60/40 for any change in a referendum, would be fairer anyway, and iron out a lot of problems caused by the 50%+1 model.

I’m an SNP voter and definitely would like independence, as long as folk vote cause in the past women were not allowed to vote and the poor people were not allowed to either so your lords guess who they voted for

Scotland has many amazing qualities but none as a result of their leadership

We have had universal suffrage for almost 100 years.