Scotland will they vote for Indepedence?

[jellmoo]

Setting up a currency from scratch is a massive undertaking - I believe that the SNP's own estimates were that this would take about a decade - especially when you are starting from a point (and this is pre-Covid) where your deficit spending is nearly three times the level allowed by the EU.

It also remains to be seen whether there would be any appetite amongst member states for another member state that would be a net beneficiary to join given the pressures from Covid and that the EU has just lost a large contributor.

But now we're talking about two different things. There's a lot of difference between "Scotland also does not meet the criteria for joining the EU" and "it would be difficult for Scotland to meet the criteria for joining the EU".

Would it be an automatic thing, an independent Scotland just declaring membership and joining? Of course not. But in the event of Scottish independence, the most likely scenario would be the EU working with Scotland on a path towards membership. Now, it may take years to accomplish and could be very difficult, but it would be very odd for it to play out any other way.

[Pann]

But now we're talking about two different things. There's a lot of difference between "Scotland also does not meet the criteria for joining the EU" and "it would be difficult for Scotland to meet the criteria for joining the EU".

Would it be an automatic thing, an independent Scotland just declaring membership and joining? Of course not. But in the event of Scottish independence, the most likely scenario would be the EU working with Scotland on a path towards membership. Now, it may take years to accomplish and could be very difficult, but it would be very odd for it to play out any other way.

Scotland doesn't meet the EU's criteria for membership. In order to meet the criteria it would need it's own currency which it does not have and listening to the SNP they do not even have a plan to set it up.

Why would the EU work with iScotland when the SNP plan - this week - is to ignore the requirements for an independent monetary policy, budgetary responsibility and the commitment to join the Euro? Why would the member states want to support a nation that would be drain on their budget when the people in charge of that country have no intention of following the rules for entry?

How would the governments of the frugals sell it to their electorates that they are supposed to hand over more of their tax Euros to support an iScotland when Scotland will not commit to the required set of rules? What would the government of Greece say to their citizens when they ask why Greece is forced to obey EU deficit rules whilst the SNP continue to spunk money up the wall with complete abandon? What will the EU say to Poland and Hungary when they come asking why following the rule of law is required of them but not Scotland? Why would the EU want another border headache with the UK when they have just spent the best part of four years sorting out the Irish border?

The fact is that, at present, the SNP's plans for iScotland are completely incompatible with the requirements set by the EU to become a member state.

Scotland is a great and wonderful country but all the while they governed by a group of incompetent, fantasist, grievance mongers they will not be able to join the EU.

[jellmoo]

Scotland doesn't meet the EU's criteria for membership. In order to meet the criteria it would need it's own currency which it does not have and listening to the SNP they do not even have a plan to set it up.

Where are you seeing that as a requirement? I've found reference to having a functional market economy or having the economy go through a stress test, but haven't seen having an independent currency as a requirement. From what I can tell, an Independent Scotland could use the pound sterling whilst entering the EU, before adopting the Euro.

Why would the EU work with iScotland when the SNP plan - this week - is to ignore the requirements for an independent monetary policy, budgetary responsibility and the commitment to join the Euro? Why would the member states want to support a nation that would be drain on their budget when the people in charge of that country have no intention of following the rules for entry?

Because it's a developed nation that already has extensive ties with the EU and is a trading partner, and would open up things like additional fishing area for EU members. Because, like everything, it would be a negotiation and the EU would have the much larger hand, and despite what the SNP would say or want, they would have to bend quite a bit to the will of a Franco-German EU. The EU would largely set the terms of membership and the SNP would more or less have to abide by them.

How would the governments of the frugals sell it to their electorates that they are supposed to hand over more of their tax Euros to support an iScotland when Scotland will not commit to the required set of rules? What would the government of Greece say to their citizens when they ask why Greece is forced to obey EU deficit rules whilst the SNP continue to spunk money up the wall with complete abandon? What will the EU say to Poland and Hungary when they come asking why following the rule of law is required of them but not Scotland? Why would the EU want another border headache with the UK when they have just spent the best part of four years sorting out the Irish border?

Because Scotland would submit to those rules. No amount of bluster or grandstanding would change the fact that they are a tiny fish in a huge ocean.

Also the border issue is really not the same at all. There is no worry about breaking something like the Good Friday Agreement. There can absolutely be a hard border between Scotland and the UK. This would happen if Scotland were independent anyhow.

The fact is that, at present, the SNP's plans for iScotland are completely incompatible with the requirements set by the EU to become a member state.

Scotland is a great and wonderful country but all the while they governed by a group of incompetent, fantasist, grievance mongers they will not be able to join EU.

Oh, I don't disagree that they would have to bend over backwards in order to gain entry into the EU. I just happen to think that they would do it. They may use some fiery rhetoric and make a few grandstanding gestures, but at the end of the day, Brussels holds all the cards. Scotland would almost certainly play ball though.

This is all so incredibly hypothetical though as it requires independence first, which, well, is a stretch to say the least. But if we work on the assumption that this has happened, then their options become so thin that it isn't funny.

[Mayhem]

Scotland doesn't meet the EU's criteria for membership. In order to meet the criteria it would need it's own currency which it does not have and listening to the SNP they do not even have a plan to set it up.

Why would the EU work with iScotland when the SNP plan - this week - is to ignore the requirements for an independent monetary policy, budgetary responsibility and the commitment to join the Euro? Why would the member states want to support a nation that would be drain on their budget when the people in charge of that country have no intention of following the rules for entry?

How would the governments of the frugals sell it to their electorates that they are supposed to hand over more of their tax Euros to support an iScotland when Scotland will not commit to the required set of rules? What would the government of Greece say to their citizens when they ask why Greece is forced to obey EU deficit rules whilst the SNP continue to spunk money up the wall with complete abandon? What will the EU say to Poland and Hungary when they come asking why following the rule of law is required of them but not Scotland? Why would the EU want another border headache with the UK when they have just spent the best part of four years sorting out the Irish border?

The fact is that, at present, the SNP's plans for iScotland are completely incompatible with the requirements set by the EU to become a member state.

Scotland is a great and wonderful country but all the while they governed by a group of incompetent, fantasist, grievance mongers they will not be able to join the EU.

It's good you haven't cited even one source in this thread because right now, you are wrong on all accounts, which is a rather impressive feat, respect.

It started with your very first post and you just went on with being wrong about everything. If your new years resolution was to make a bumbling fool of yourself, well done. Usually, your cryptic posting style saves you from ridicule because you can always backtrack and nitpick your way out of being laughed at but this time you went in well over your head with this topic.

[Pann]

Where are you seeing that as a requirement? I've found reference to having a functional market economy or having the economy go through a stress test, but haven't seen having an independent currency as a requirement. From what I can tell, an Independent Scotland could use the pound sterling whilst entering the EU, before adopting the Euro.

You can't have a functional market economy without being able to control your economy and you cannot control your economy when you are using someone else's currency.

Because it's a developed nation that already has extensive ties with the EU and is a trading partner, and would open up things like additional fishing area for EU members. Because, like everything, it would be a negotiation and the EU would have the much larger hand, and despite what the SNP would say or want, they would have to bend quite a bit to the will of a Franco-German EU. The EU would largely set the terms of membership and the SNP would more or less have to abide by them.

What's in for the EU when the governing party has openly said that they will not follow the EU rules for joining? Allowing a member state, especially one that has just joined, to essentially throw the EU rule book out will be disastrous.

Because Scotland would submit to those rules. No amount of bluster or grandstanding would change the fact that they are a tiny fish in a huge ocean.

Also the border issue is really not the same at all. There is no worry about breaking something like the Good Friday Agreement. There can absolutely be a hard border between Scotland and the UK. This would happen if Scotland were independent anyhow.

SNP policy is at odds with the EU rules.

It is the same and whilst the GFA is not a consideration you still face the same problems with protecting the SM that plagued the Irish border.

Oh, I don't disagree that they would have to bend over backwards in order to gain entry into the EU. I just happen to think that they would do it. They may use some fiery rhetoric and make a few grandstanding gestures, but at the end of the day, Brussels holds all the cards. Scotland would almost certainly play ball though.

This is all so incredibly hypothetical though as it requires independence first, which, well, is a stretch to say the least. But if we work on the assumption that this has happened, then their options become so thin that it isn't funny.

The mistake you, understandably, appear to making is that you are taking the SNP's comments about joining the EU at face value. It is nothing more than the usual SNP ploy to create chaos and division.

Ultimately if a government was serious about its commitment to joining the EU it would be making plans as to how it could achieve that goal yet the SNP refuses to even acknowledge the problems Scotland would have to overcome exist, instead they continue to lie to voters claiming that the EU would simply allow them to bend the rules whilst blaming England.

[LeGin Tufnel]

Just today, Boris Johnson has reiterated his position that a Scottish independence referendum should be a "once-in-a-generation" vote.

Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr programme, the prime minister said the gap between referendums on Europe - the first in 1975 and the second in 2016 - was "a good sort of gap".

So, basically, he's taken the standard definition of a "generation" (20 to 30 years) and increased it by between 33-100%. So, they’d be looking at 2055. lol

Conveniently overlooking the fact that Brexit was the single largest political event since the second world war and that Scotland, unequivocally, voted to Remain.

If the SNP didn’t have such a massive majority I could kind of vaguely understand his stance here. But they are virtually uncontested. By denying the SNP referendum it simply makes a mockery of devolution.

Of course, though, you’d expect nothing less disingenuous from him or any of his supporters.

I don't want Scotland to secede. Practically, I'd be interested to see how it'd be managed. However, in light of Brexit they should be given this choice. If BJ and the Brexiteers who brought about this scenario try and delay, I’ll bet it'll only entrench secessionist views. They were warned throughout the Brexit campaign and chickens are now coming home to roost.

[molliewoof]

All the budget to entice Scots to leave was set when the North sea prices were double what they are now


The rest of the UK subsidises Scotland, that is why people that live in Campbell town can buy tins of corned beef from Asda at the same cost as I can and I live in a fairly central city

Sturgeon is just a troll that wants her own way

[jellmoo]

You can't have a functional market economy with being able to control your economy and you cannot control your economy when you are using someone else's currency.

That's not quite true. There are countries that do just that. Ecuador, for example, uses USD and does have a functional market economy. In the case of Scotland, considering they would eventually switch to the Euro anyway, I really don't see the lack of a dedicated currency as any sort of deal breaker all on its own.

What's in for the EU when the governing party has openly said that they will not follow the EU rules for joining? Allowing a member state, especially one that has just joined, to essentially throw the EU rule book out will be disastrous.

That simply wouldn't happen though. It's not like Scotland could be like "haha, screw your rules, we'll do what we want!". They would have to follow EU laws and regulations, regardless of what the SNP says. Their rhetoric simply wouldn't matter.

SNP policy is at odds with the EU rules.

It is the same and whilst the GFA is not a consideration you still face the same problems with protecting the SM that plagued the Irish border.

SNP policy would have to change. It's really as simple as that. It would be like a small app developer wanting to work with Apple and trying to dictate the terms of the arrangement. It wouldn't happen.

The border issue would already be in effect though. If Scotland were independent, they would already have a hard border with the UK. Whether they join the EU or not wouldn't change that.

The mistake you, understandably, appear to making is that you are taking the SNP's comments about joining the EU at face value. It is nothing more than the usual SNP ploy to create chaos and division.

Ultimately if a government was serious about its commitment to joining the EU it would be making plans as to how it could achieve that goal yet the SNP refuses to even acknowledge the problems Scotland would have to overcome exist, instead they continue to lie to voters claiming that the EU would simply allow them to bend the rules whilst blaming England.

I'm not talking about the ins and outs of the SNP though. This is purely a hypothetical, where an independent Scotland would be plotting a new course. I'm not particularly talking about the SNP at all really. More of what the hypothetical situation would entail. I'm not Scottish or even European, so it's well outside my frame of reference.

I did live for over 40 years in Quebec though, so I do have quite a bit of experience living in an environment where an independence movement is at play though. The reality usually seems to be that the planning takes a step behind the actual movement. Moving forward with one goal (independence) takes precedence over logictical planning and acknowledgement of repercussion. In this case, I'd say you're probably very right. The SNP isn't working to position themselves for the eventually of joining the EU. They are probably also looking at the situation with rose coloured glasses. I think the reality is that if they got to that position, they would ultimately have to bend over backwards and pretty much make large, sweeping changes in order to gain entry to the EU. Because at that point, after they had already secured independence, what else could they possibly do?

[Pann]

That's not quite true. There are countries that do just that. Ecuador, for example, uses USD and does have a functional market economy. In the case of Scotland, considering they would eventually switch to the Euro anyway, I really don't see the lack of a dedicated currency as any sort of deal breaker all on its own.



That simply wouldn't happen though. It's not like Scotland could be like "haha, screw your rules, we'll do what we want!". They would have to follow EU laws and regulations, regardless of what the SNP says. Their rhetoric simply wouldn't matter.



SNP policy would have to change. It's really as simple as that. It would be like a small app developer wanting to work with Apple and trying to dictate the terms of the arrangement. It wouldn't happen.

The border issue would already be in effect though. If Scotland were independent, they would already have a hard border with the UK. Whether they join the EU or not wouldn't change that.



I'm not talking about the ins and outs of the SNP though. This is purely a hypothetical, where an independent Scotland would be plotting a new course. I'm not particularly talking about the SNP at all really. More of what the hypothetical situation would entail. I'm not Scottish or even European, so it's well outside my frame of reference.

I did live for over 40 years in Quebec though, so I do have quite a bit of experience living in an environment where an independence movement is at play though. The reality usually seems to be that the planning takes a step behind the actual movement. Moving forward with one goal (independence) takes precedence over logictical planning and acknowledgement of repercussion. In this case, I'd say you're probably very right. The SNP isn't working to position themselves for the eventually of joining the EU. They are probably also looking at the situation with rose coloured glasses. I think the reality is that if they got to that position, they would ultimately have to bend over backwards and pretty much make large, sweeping changes in order to gain entry to the EU. Because at that point, after they had already secured independence, what else could they possibly do?

Ecuador is not able to control it's monetary policy to extent that the EU requires, it is at the mercy of US's monetary policy and Ecuador has something that Scotland does not and would need to create - a Central Bank.

We are in agreement that the EU will not allow Scotland to bend the rules - this is the entire point I have been making.

Until the SNP acknowledge the difficulties Scotland would face with joining the EU - like setting up a central bank and currency, bringing deficit spending down from circa 8% (pre-Covid) to the required maximum of 3%, etc - or Scotland elects a competent governing party (or parties) Scotland will have no chance of joining.

Ultimately the ideal situation for the SNP is that they attract disgruntled remain voters with the promise of rejoining the EU and Johnson refuses to allow a 2nd IndyRef. This allows the SNP continue stoking division and to blame Westminster for all their ills, and it means that they will never be in the position of delivering on the impossible promise they've sold to those want Scotland to join the EU.

In short Scotland joining the EU is not, at present, a serious proposition.

[Mayhem]

We are in agreement that the EU will not allow Scotland to bend the rules - this is the entire point I have been making.

Well done, you've successfully argued against a point that no one but you brought up.

[PC2]

Will Brexit make the idea of Scottish independence a reality now?

What do you think?

It's unpredictable but I don't think it's going to happen in the foreseeable future. Even though the current polls show around 56% support that doesn't mean it's actually worth the hassle of going through the process, especially when a lot of it is just about joining the EU.

[cubby]

I cannot provide you with a link that proves that something that does not exist is non-existent. Again instead of asking me why aren't you asking Kallisto to provide you with a single speech or interview from someone in government, like Cameron or Clegg, or a government document that supports his claim.

Why don't you search for yourself? The specific point I mentioned deals with the Con manifesto promise to hold an in/out referendum on the UK's EU membership. Ask yourself this; how could anyone promise Scotland that they would remain EU members when there was a possibility that the UK would (and did) vote to leave the EU. The answer is they can't.

Also a fundamental principle of the British parliamentary system is that no current parliament can bind the hands of a future parliament therefore it was not possible for anyone in government to make this promise to Scotland.

Cubby if you wish to join in with a conversation it is not unreasonable to expect that you have at least some basic knowledge on the subject beforehand. It is not my job to lead you by the hand or spoon feed you information.

That is the same article and rather than proving your point it laughably reports Sturgeon's claims third hand via The Express!

So you can't provide the White Paper you're quoting from? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here....

You keep making all these statements like they are facts without any evidence to back them up. And I continually, and reasonably, ask for those cites and links, while providing my own.

Pann if you wish to have a conversation about something, it's not unreasonable to expect people will ask you to back up your claims with evidence. If you can't provide that, maybe you are the one who needs some basic knowledge on the subject. Your opinions are not fact. You need to back them up with evidence or you fall into another category of poster, one I'm certain you do not wish to be labeled.

[LeGin Tufnel]

It's unpredictable but I don't think it's going to happen in the foreseeable future. Even though the current polls show around 56% support that doesn't mean it's actually worth the hassle of going through the process just to be in the EU.

Yes. But since when do actually practicalities matter?

Freeeduuuumb....

(and that's really aimed at the English, not the Scots)

[cubby]

Just today, Boris Johnson has reiterated his position that a Scottish independence referendum should be a "once-in-a-generation" vote.

Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr programme, the prime minister said the gap between referendums on Europe - the first in 1975 and the second in 2016 - was "a good sort of gap".

So, basically, he's taken the standard definition of a "generation" (20 to 30 years) and increased it by between 33-100%. So, they’d be looking at 2055. lol

Conveniently overlooking the fact that Brexit was the single largest political event since the second world war and that Scotland, unequivocally, voted to Remain.

If the SNP didn’t have such a massive majority I could kind of vaguely understand his stance here. But they are virtually uncontested. By denying the SNP referendum it simply makes a mockery of devolution.

Of course, though, you’d expect nothing less disingenuous from him or any of his supporters.

I don't want Scotland to secede. Practically, I'd be interested to see how it'd be managed. However, in light of Brexit they should be given this choice. If BJ and the Brexiteers who brought about this scenario try and delay, I’ll bet it'll only entrench secessionist views. They were warned throughout the Brexit campaign and chickens are now coming home to roost.

Interesting. Probably because he doesn't want to be known as the guy who lost Scotland, lol.

Question for you - why do people like @Pann and others thing Scotland can't vote for independence and then join the EU? I'm seeing plenty of articles and evidence saying it's possible (not guaranteed of course), and ZERO evidence to the contrary.

- - - Updated - - -

Where are you seeing that as a requirement? I've found reference to having a functional market economy or having the economy go through a stress test, but haven't seen having an independent currency as a requirement. From what I can tell, an Independent Scotland could use the pound sterling whilst entering the EU, before adopting the Euro.

Exactly. There is no literal requirement that a country have their own currency. They just need a stable economy and to pass the EU market tests. Once membership is granted, they will have use of the Euro.

- - - Updated - - -

It's good you haven't cited even one source in this thread because right now, you are wrong on all accounts, which is a rather impressive feat, respect.

It started with your very first post and you just went on with being wrong about everything. If your new years resolution was to make a bumbling fool of yourself, well done. Usually, your cryptic posting style saves you from ridicule because you can always backtrack and nitpick your way out of being laughed at but this time you went in well over your head with this topic.

Ok, thank you. I was wondering about his complete lack of citing even a single source.

What do you think about Scotland seeking a second independent referendum and then joining the EU?

[Mayhem]

Interesting. Probably because he doesn't want to be known as the guy who lost Scotland, lol.

Question for you - why do people like @Pann and others thing Scotland can't vote for independence and then join the EU? I'm seeing plenty of articles and evidence saying it's possible (not guaranteed of course), and ZERO evidence to the contrary.

Because they as shown by the overwhelming lack of evidence they provide have fallen for lies and "logic" without ever actually reading anything about the topic.

[Pann]

So you can't provide the White Paper you're quoting from? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here....

You keep making all these statements like they are facts without any evidence to back them up. And I continually, and reasonably, ask for those cites and links, while providing my own.

Pann if you wish to have a conversation about something, it's not unreasonable to expect people will ask you to back up your claims with evidence. If you can't provide that, maybe you are the one who needs some basic knowledge on the subject. Your opinions are not fact. You need to back them up with evidence or you fall into another category of poster, one I'm certain you do not wish to be labeled.

No, I can't. I've told you what to look for, look it up yourself.

Those statements are facts, I'm not sure what you're so confused about.

I cannot back a claim that a promise to Scotland to remain in the EU does not exist because it doesn't exist - this should not be a difficult concept to understand. The only way I could come close to doing this would be link every single speech or interview, government white paper, bill, act, etc and seeing as you cannot be bothered to google something I doubt you'd read them anyway.

You obviously think that there was a promise to Scotland so why don't you back this up and provide proof? Unless of course you are posting just to cause an argument.

[jellmoo]

Ecuador is not able to control it's monetary policy to extent that the EU requires, it is at the mercy of US's monetary policy and Ecuador has something that Scotland does not and would need to create - a Central Bank.

Where are you seeing these requirements for entry? I haven't found any information suggesting that: independent currency or control over currency is required for entry into the EU. A central bank would seem to be a requirement because it would be needed to to secure a market economy, but well, an independent Scotland would absolutely need to have a central bank, EU membership notwithstanding.

We are in agreement that the EU will not allow Scotland to bend the rules - this is the entire point I have been making.

Until the SNP acknowledge the difficulties Scotland would face with joining the EU - like setting up a central bank and currency, bringing deficit spending down from circa 8% (pre-Covid) to the required maximum of 3%, etc - or Scotland elects a competent governing party (or parties) Scotland will have no chance of joining.

Ultimately the ideal situation for the SNP is that they attract disgruntled remain voters with the promise of rejoining the EU and Johnson refuses to allow a 2nd IndyRef. This allows the SNP continue stoking division and to blame Westminster for all their ills, and it means that they will never be in the position of delivering on the impossible promise they've sold to those want Scotland to join the EU.

In short Scotland joining the EU is not, at present, a serious proposition.

We're largely saying the same thing. I think the only thing we really disagree on is membership requirements to the EU. I think that it would be more than possible, but would require Scotland adopting EU policies and regulations. Whether or not the SNP would do that is another matter entirely. I'm inclined to believe that they would have to, but they could of course be stubborn. It would be stupid, but crazier things have happened.

But since Scotland itself doesn't actually have the mechanism needed to achieve independence, the point is largely moot.

In summary, my position is:

IF Scotland were to convince Westminster to hold a referendum, and IF they were able to win on the promise of joining the EU, and IF they were willing to adopt EU rules and regulations, and IF the SNP were able to do all the above in good faith and Scotland as a whole went along with it, then I don't see why they wouldn't be able to join the EU.

As you can see though, it's an awful lot of IFs.

[LeGin Tufnel]

Question for you - why do people like @Pann and others thing Scotland can't vote for independence and then join the EU? I'm seeing plenty of articles and evidence saying it's possible (not guaranteed of course), and ZERO evidence to the contrary.

I definitely can't speak for Pann.

Being honest, there are people definitely more qualified than me to talk about the practicalities.

As I understand it the main hurdles are:

- Enlargement of the EU is unwanted by e.g., France
- In light of Brexit, Spain/Catalonia would this be welcome?
- Scotland would have to join the Euro. Would Sturgeon sign them up? Indications are she might but it would be hugely unpopular (<20% support).
- How would a hard border between Scotland and England be avoided?
- Scotlands budget deficit

I don’t pretend to know the solutions to these problems but I’m they'd be surmountable if there was the will. At what cost, I don't know. Personally, this is not what I would want is it’d further cement little Englander isolationism that is / has ruined the UK.

My point here is that I object to BJ and co. denying the SNP this second referendum in light of Brexit. It's morally untenable to trot out the "once in a generation line". Completely laughable. They were warned that a consequence of Brexit would be this, now they have to suck it up. And it’s no good politicians like BJ or posters like Pann trying to bluster their way through it.

[cubby]

No, I can't. I've told you what to look for, look it up yourself.

Those statements are facts, I'm not sure what you're so confused about.

I cannot back a claim that a promise to Scotland to remain in the EU does not exist because it doesn't exist - this should not be a difficult concept to understand. The only way I could come close to doing this would be link every single speech or interview, government white paper, bill, act, etc and seeing as you cannot be bothered to google something I doubt you'd read them anyway.

You obviously think that there was a promise to Scotland so why don't you back this up and provide proof? Unless of course you are posting just to cause an argument.

Wow...just wow. So you want us to find evidence to prove your claim? Lol - you must be new to this who conversation/debate thing. Is it difficult for you to understand that we would like a link to your White Paper - the one you have literally cited page numbers from. Is that too confusing for you?

Your confusing facts with your opinions. They are only opinions until they are backed with evidence (please, don't go on some diatribe re "do I need to prove gravity exists?" - we're all adults here, well, most of us are at least). Which is why most of us have been citing evidence for our claims. It's curious that you haven't - why is that? Are you lying?

I'm posting to discuss and learn. You seem to be posting mostly to lie and bully. Too bad it's not going to work. You are quickly approaching the gaslighting/sealioning stage of a poster. Please cite your claims or refrain from lying.

[Mayhem]

What do you think about Scotland seeking a second independent referendum and then joining the EU?

It's a daring task but even the SNP have acknowledged it'll take probably a decade and are planning accordingly. It would obviously be better for Scotland and for the EU as well, so I doubt there would be many headwinds from EU-members. I hope they can negotiate a 2nd indyref and manage to break free from the UK as they clearly as a nation are not even remotely treated on equal footing.