Because there is no viable alternative. The fact that the Scottish Conservative regularly beat Labour in the Scottish elections is astounding to me. When the devolved parliament was created then Labour formed the majority and the independence question was out of reach.

Again this is what the SNP exists for. This is the SNPs mandate and Scottish independence is in their manifesto. The Scottish people voted for the SNP on that manifesto so why are people surprised that the question has come up again?

Sure it was said this was a once in a generation question but the goal posts have most definitely been moved since the EU referendum.

All political careers in failure. I think this would be hers if she lost, and labour's comeback.

You have to balance Scotland's right to a say with England's right to an answer. It cannot go on and on forever. If she loses again, it is lost. Good luck to them whatever. I've got no problem with them staying. But if they leave it'll be a lot of cash that could be sent to Northern England instead.

Just why do the Conservatives want Scotland to stay as part of the UK? What is in it for them?

Isn’t the full name of the Tory party actually Conservative and Unionist Party or something like that ?

So what? They have got Wales.

Not sure, to be rebuffed twice, and it will be many years before a third referendum would be held.

It was, as far as I know, never publicly discussed, but it was certainly discussed internally within the EU and some journals picked up on it and gave their opinion. All to do with Catalonia, Galicia and the Basques. The Spanish fear letting Scotland into the EU would bolster their cause not only for independence but also to be allowed in turn into the EU as independent countries.

It was the case for Alex Salmond and it would be the case for her as well. It wouldn't be the case for the SNP as a party though.

In all honesty I find your second paragraph a bit condescending, you and other English probably don't see it....and it's probably why people ask 'I don't get why Scotland wants to be independent anyway WHAT ABOUT BARNET!!'

Edit: Reading this back is seems a bit condescending itself. So apologies

I don't think it's condescending to want closure. I entirely see both sides of the argument from a Scottish perspective.

The answer is surely we learn the lessons from Brexit which was chaotic and nasty after the vote and negotiate a deal quietly and calmly behind closed doors taking as much time as it needs then go to the Scottish people. Then both sides can campaign on the facts.

If we vote first and then negotiate afterwards can you imagine a yes vote followed by years of a repeat of the 2017-2019 Westminster Parliament. Defacto the nationalists would need to win not only the referendum but also another parliamentary election as the deal would presumably have to be ratified by the Scottish Parliament and I doubt it will get done by 2025 - especially given things won't get started for a bit. There's a very serious prospect of a unionist majority in that election - That would result in Northern Ireland levels of chaos then.

I don't want to get in the way of your countries democracy, but I don't want your democracy to come before ours. Hence the need for calmness, order and finality. Clearly our island is going through some constitutional issues but there's no need for things to be as nasty and divisive as they were re Brexit.

Although on balance I'd rather you stayed, and think you probably will in the Referendum, especially if it's made clear that it means a hard borderId fully respect a result to the contrary. I don't want to be like the FBPE people were after Brexit.

Well the ironic thing about comparing Brexit to the Scottish referendum is that Dave thought he learnt lessons from offering and 'winning' the Scottish referendum. Only to get egg on his face when he lost the brexit one. He thought he was onto something offering these obvious choice referendums in order to secure votes.

And don't be fooled. Things were very nasty and divisive first time around. Made brexit look like a soft play party.

I don't see how that could fly, they lack the authority to negotiate without the legal basis. And why would UK/England negotiate based on a hypothesis? Just like you don't negotiate on your salary for that new job unless you know you'll get it if the salary is agreed upon, you need to clarify the fundamentals first with IndyRef2.

So, if you want a vote on the agreement you need two votes, first on "do you want independence?" and 2nd on "this version of independence?". But a No on the 2nd would easily make the entire process take 2 decades until the 3rd vote (the 2nd round of "this version?") due to the necessity of new negotiations, and even then there's the possibility of another No. In short, continuous "No" after the initial "Yes" might well turn it into the same kind of joke the Brexit negotiations appeared as.

I keep getting Brexit flashbacks every time people talk about voting without knowing what the end results will be.

You prefer votes where the result is known beforehand?

Maybe North Korea is the place.

With people saying Scotland should not be allowed to vote without knowing how an independent Scotland would function, despite the fact that such a thing would take years to figure out, I'm getting heavy reminders of how the Brexit campaigns functioned.

Well North Korea is supposedly a paradise according to the state media there. I think I'll pass though.

You serious expect that the British government is going to sit-down and negotiate on things like:

- The split of the national debt
- The split of state pension obligations etc
- Property laws and rents
- The split of the army and military equipment
- Coordination of sterling between the BOE and a new BOS
- and so on

As they had to do in 1921, when Ireland left...

On the off chance that it might pass?

If Scotland were to leave the union what would "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" become in name?
Great Britain is the land-mass. Technically Wales is a 'lesser' country for want of a better word, than Scotland as it essentially belongs to England and I'm not sure the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland would go down well. That would lead to a Wexit or and then even a Cexit (Coarnwaal).

Scotland already has a lot of it's own laws etc.

The problem is the SNP have already made perfectly clear that if they lose a second referendum then they'll go for a third. This argument is distracting and needs putting to bed once and for all. I think the best way to do this is either through an act saying that after the next referendum there won't be another for 30 years, or do something like what Canada did to Quebec in order to finish off the separatist debate.

What's amazing to me is how much has changed in a mere 20 years. I lived in Scotland in 2000. The parliament was a brand-new thing. Wasn't even located in its current building, possibly on Chambers St if I'm recalling correctly. SNP was but a whisper (or at least that's how I remember it).

That year was the start of a love affair for me with the British Isles. I later moved to London and have also spent loads of time in NI. So I would be sad to see the Union break up. But that's more of a romantic take. Politically I can see arguments for both.

Nothing to do with the laws. Ireland has always had its own judicial system.

It’s about how you divided up the assets and liabilities.

Scotland was promised home rule/dominion status along with Ireland before the first war, that is how far back it goes.