You’re not getting what I mean. Leaving the EU was never an issue demanded by people on the peripheries yet when it became an issue put forward by posh boy Cameron and moreover telling them what they should think they said “up yours” and went against him and Westminster. Different from Indy entirely

Not the equivalence you assert. The EU was good for Scotland hence the desire to rejoin at large here. The initiation of Brexit and the outcome of its happening are separate. Westminster doesn’t work for the peripheries. They responded in England by saying no to a Westminster direction of Remain.

Serving in government is different from counting for Scotland. So many of UKGov decisions seem England centred; Scunthorpe, Lindsey versus Grangemouth. Same issue different logic applied. Shanks doesn’t even have any relevant experience for his sinecure. An appointment solely to appease Scot Labour.

You seem unable to accept that Brexit wasn’t really anything to do with Europe but that it was an internal Tory Party issue fought on UK political territory. The outcome was more a symptom of disenchantment with Westminster and how it doesn’t work for most people in the country’s peripheries.

Then perhaps we can never agree here Duncan. You seem incapable of accepting that Scotland’s votes in the political set up as it is can never have an impact on your majoritarian view. You don’t see Scotland.

When the political other is Westminster with its London centricity, zero written constitution and anachronistic procedures more rooted in cap-doffing royal worship then we have a major issue.

That’s where you are wrong Duncan. The economics are critical but you can’t underestimate the cultural oppression and the reality of being dragged into situations like Brexit on the whims of another culture. Domination takes many forms and you can’t underplay the impact of the asymmetry in the Union

So you are happy with the status quo and those political efforts to unravel and correct Brexit? Perhaps that fear of change could be ameliorated by some fundamental assessment of Brexit at a political level. This is sadly lacking in Westminster. So what would you say to those seeking independence?

Yes. Scotland and NI didn’t matter to English voters who saw an opportunity to stick it to the man and suck in the belief that England/Britain could be a great power again. A poor constitutional arrangement shouldn’t bind a nation out of fear.

Moreover those codependencies are exactly what the sovereignty mongers of Brexit couldn’t stand and is exactly why Britishness is so enmeshed in perceptions of itself that don’t hold up in the wider Europe or the world. An island off Europe is what it is. I want 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 as a part of Europe and independent

The key word Duncan is codependency. That implies autonomous nations recognising their joint interests and their relative dependence on each other. Thats a very different proposition from being an insignificant section within a dominant polity.

Who would’ve thought the President of a country that had bankrolled and provided the bombs and weapons for decades to Israel might have been able to apply some pressure to attain a ceasefire. It’s hard to believe that Israel could have done what it has in the region alone. It’s the US attack dog.

@neilmackay.bsky.social rest your beating heart……..

They did a reasonable job on a contentious issue in Ireland on Legalisation of Abortion. A Catholic country with the church in a once powerful position. Much of the conclusions ended up in legislation. Sometimes the government don’t take on the assembly conclusions but it does air the key issues.

One more point if you don’t mind. The Brexit question should have been asked after a significant campaign informed by a Citizens Assembly giving the public an unvarnished view of the likely range of outcomes. Seems though that Brexit was driven by Cameron’s hubris and an age old Tory problem.

The circular argument is hardly a logical one Duncan so I’ll pass.

Now we seem to be on the same page. Starmer however seems to be mired in events such that he would never consider it even were polling to be higher. Media interest is limited with the right wing spectre hovering. The key for us Indy supporters is getting the message across fairly and with respect.

I’m afraid Duncan that this argument could run on and on. The constitution is in the eye of the beholder and all that was required in 2011 was a UKPM in Cameron who saw the 2011 HR result and recognised that there was real support for Indy. Not a specific number. Brexit looms large over this now.

Is there to be no representation of the will of the people of Scotland other than that mediated by a UKGov dominated by English votes? How else does one do this? Perhaps your Labour Party ought to look at what it does for Scotland, and quickly. The demographics are against the Union in Scotland.

See, democracy is a bit of a slippery thing, especially on these islands with no written constitution or proper means for the will of the people to be expressed other than FPTP GEs which are mediated largely by strong vested interests in the union and a turkey parliament that won’t vote for Xmas.

So, Duncan how do you expect independence minded Scots to express that will? In a Holyrood election or a General Election or is there some other way? Seems difficult to equate both electoral systems since HR is AMS so would it be vote %? Or would you take opinion polls into consideration?

OK Duncan. I’m there with the bullshit that sells lies and half truths to a credulous audience. How about agreeing to a process of Referendum followed by a Citizens Assembly to evaluate the likely outcomes of Independence and recommend accepting the result of said referendum? Any alternative?

And De Gaul was the reason it took a decade for Ireland to join.

Brexit has not been addressed by any party of government in the UK since it happened. The damage done will take decades to recover from and Scotland will not benefit from any Labour government regardless. What could be worse than rejoining a union that supported Scotland. You want it both ways.

This is the ultimate aim of Project 2025 and the Heritage Foundation that is underpinning Trump’s tendency to autocracy and narcissism. US Democracy will die under these pressures and intimidations. That is why resistance is imperative. This will be the new norm across both sides of the Atlantic.