SNP's Nicola Sturgeon announces she is to publish a second referendum bill next week

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm all for trident, rip oil.

How can you be both for Trident but want to leave the realm?

[dbgtz]

And if people did vote Leave because of mass immigration so what?

Who the hell are you people to void people's votes based on what you consider a reasonable argument?

I just said the 3 reasons you said weren't inherently linked. At what point did I say immigration as a reason was poor?

And Scotland would have to accept the principle of 'ever closer union' aka less independence and eventually none.

Except they could just veto it or seek exclusion, you know like how we get a rebate, no Euro, no Schengen etc.

No legal basis for it.

Sturgeon travelled around the EU after the vote and basically had the door shut in her face. An independent Scotland wouldn't be a successor state in international law and would have to join the Euro and the rest of the circus.

Yes similarly to how we're getting the door at the moment. Makes sense since there's no point discussing something that isn't necessarily going to happen.

So in other words you're still in the denial stage of grief.

And yes I do keep banging on about sovereignty: the same Parliament that handed over the powers to the EU that belong to we the people with treaty after treaty and they did not once consult us despite numerous pledges to give us a say on the issue. It is our turn now to ignore them as they have done with us. In any case, I expect May will go the the country if Parliament does attempt to block and will win a 100+ seat majority.

I will also add a warning: you speak of a shitstorm because you did not get your way and that's fair enough as you're naturally unhappy with the result. However, if Parliament dares to ignore the will of the people then quite frankly violence could be justified. You have no idea of the forces/elements you're risking unleashing if you block the will of the people.

Nothing to do with denial? I'm not saying it's not going to happen, I'm saying I don't want it to be at the hands of say someone like this guy: http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenter...ard-to-losing/

I said the referendum campaigns were shit shows i.e. full of lies and crap from both sides. Nothing to do with it going my way or not, I'd have said that if remain was the majority so if you could stop making assumptions and twisting my words that would be great.
I also want to say that 48% of those people voted to remain, so maybe they should go be violent? Because you are saying all of this as if there was a huge majority for hard Brexit when there wasn't at all and you've basically just justified violence if it doesn't go your way on a non-binding referendum which got a rather slim majority.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I just said the 3 reasons you said weren't inherently linked. At what point did I say immigration as a reason was poor?

You seem to be saying that a dislike of immigrants was to blame. Quite frankly, anybody who does not understand the anger out there of being ignored on immigration now with the vote and everything needs their head checking. It is after all the main reason - along with courts supremacy - as to why we'll be leaving the Single Market.

Except they could just veto it or seek exclusion, you know like how we get a rebate, no Euro, no Schengen etc.

We only got those by threatening to stall treaties. A Scotland applying to the European Union would not have that veto. In any case, vetoes are slowly being phased out given the introduction of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) which was one of the many thousands of reasons to have voted to Leave, as 52% of the country thank heavens did.

Yes similarly to how we're getting the door at the moment. Makes sense since there's no point discussing something that isn't necessarily going to happen.

I don't mind being shown the door at all. The shorter the negotiations are the better.

I also want to say that 48% of those people voted to remain, so maybe they should go be violent? Because you are saying all of this as if there was a huge majority for hard Brexit when there wasn't at all and you've basically just justified violence if it doesn't go your way on a non-binding referendum which got a rather slim majority.

Fed up of this mental gymnastics from Remoaners still not accepting the will of the people.

48% is a smaller number than 52% so in a democratic vote 52% won as it is greater. Therefore, if that vote - carried on the largest turnout and mandate of any vote held in this country ever - was ignored then yes things could turn serious.

And what is this nonsense about a 'slim' majority? Many of our governments and governments around the world are elected on a 4% majority. If Clinton wins Trump on a 4% majority, will people call into question the result? It's an absurdity.

[scottish]

How can you be both for Trident but want to leave the realm?

I like my nukes.

[dbgtz]

You seem to be saying that a dislike of immigrants was to blame. Quite frankly, anybody who does not understand the anger out there of being ignored on immigration now with the vote and everything needs their head checking. It is after all the main reason - along with courts supremacy - as to why we'll be leaving the Single Market.

I mean, I didn't at all I just used it to prove that the reasons of immigration, identity and sovereignty have no inherent link to each other.

We only got those by threatening to stall treaties. A Scotland applying to the European Union would not have that veto. In any case, vetoes are slowly being phased out given the introduction of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) which was one of the many thousands of reasons to have voted to Leave, as 52% of the country thank heavens did.

Every country has a say stop being absurd. Ireland is around a similar size to Scotland yet they avoided Schengen. We did not obtain these because we threatened to stall treaties (or if we did, source please ). Admittedly, we really did only avoid the Euro and Schengen because it wasn't a prerequisite when the UK joined, so Scotland wouldn't get the luxury unless they fiddle it a bit like other countries.

Oh yeah sure that's the reason. This is literally the first time I've even heard of this, so I doubt many others have quite frankly. I'm not going to take on that point in any depth since I've read nothing on it, but I'd like a source on that "phasing out" vetoes. I do think you need to stop fantasising about how education the majority of people are on this subject, but maybe if this was the other way around you might say that the remainers were improperly educated on the subject

I don't mind being shown the door at all. The shorter the negotiations are the better.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

Fed up of this mental gymnastics from Remoaners still not accepting the will of the people.

48% is a smaller number than 52% so in a democratic vote 52% won as it is greater. Therefore, if that vote - carried on the largest turnout and mandate of any vote held in this country ever - was ignored then yes things could turn serious.

And what is this nonsense about a 'slim' majority? Many of our governments and governments around the world are elected on a 4% majority. If Clinton wins Trump on a 4% majority, will people call into question the result? It's an absurdity.

Stop calling me a "remoaner" as if that's a valid thing to say. Stop turning this into some kind of school yard argument where you just throw names at people. It's stupid and accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Right you don't need to explain 52% > 48% (on the same dataset), I do study maths so you'd think I would understand that. First, lets think of public opinion. It changes, a lot. Secondly, there are going to be errors in there somewhere and you can probably find information on this somewhere. Whilst I'm not going to suggest ~630,000 votes are an error, it is something to consider (whilst this could be more votes for remain, it could also be more for leave). Thirdly, comparing it to the US presidential election is different since that is not a major constitutional change. They vote in a new president every 4 years, we don't vote on the EU or Scottish independence every 4 years (though saying that, looking quite likely on a 2018 referendum lmao). It's not absurd to have want a significant majority on a significant change and referendums in the past have reflected that and I think it is stupid it wasn't put in to place beforehand.

Let me ask you, if remain won 52-48, what would you be saying right now? Would you just be sitting and accepting the result?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I like my nukes.

Except they wouldn't be your nukes if you voted to end the Union.

Every country has a say stop being absurd. Ireland is around a similar size to Scotland yet they avoided Schengen. We did not obtain these because we threatened to stall treaties (or if we did, source please ). Admittedly, we really did only avoid the Euro and Schengen because it wasn't a prerequisite when the UK joined, so Scotland wouldn't get the luxury unless they fiddle it a bit like other countries.

The Euro didn't exist when we joined that is how we never had to adopt. Legally, every new EU member is now obliged to commit to eventually joining the Euro. If you're a newly joining member then you have to join on their terms, not your own.

Let me ask you, if remain won 52-48, what would you be saying right now? Would you just be sitting and accepting the result?

Yes. I said quite clearly before the vote that whilst I believed many of the promises of the Remain campaign would turn out to be false (and they have), that our next realistic chance of securing a referendum would only be at the next treaty change which could be a a decade or more away. I was reasonable to assume that if we did not secure victory at this referendum, then our next fight to prepare for would be ten or so years away and would likely be over the terms of a new treaty on an in/out on that basis.

On the rest of your post, you're finding any way possible you can to dismiss people's votes. You cannot keep re-running votes because you do not like that although I know that is a great EU tradition having re-run the votes of the French, Irish and Dutch before. The fact is that this is a major constitutional change yes, but so was 1973 when we were taken in without an initial referendum. Further huge transfers of powers took place with the Single European Act, the Maaschtrict Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty and not once were we asked whether or not we agreed to this huge change to our constitution. That was..... until 2016 when we were asked. And we reflected on 42 years of EEC/EU membership and decided to leave. That's the inescapable reality of it: parliament put the question to us in a referendum and we wanted out.

By all means you can campaign to re-join the EU in a decade or so once we've left. Funnily enough, I think both you and I both know that by that stage public opinion will be Norway-style set against joining and we'll be out forever which is why your desperate to block it now.

[abc]

That **** is crazy.

[dbgtz]

The Euro didn't exist when we joined that is how we never had to adopt. Legally, every new EU member is now obliged to commit to eventually joining the Euro. If you're a newly joining member then you have to join on their terms, not your own.

I mean, that's basically what I said. But there are ways I think Sweden and some others have sort of "got out of it".

Yes. I said quite clearly before the vote that whilst I believed many of the promises of the Remain campaign would turn out to be false (and they have), that our next realistic chance of securing a referendum would only be at the next treaty change which could be a a decade or more away. I was reasonable to assume that if we did not secure victory at this referendum, then our next fight to prepare for would be ten or so years away and would likely be over the terms of a new treaty on an in/out on that basis.

On the rest of your post, you're finding any way possible you can to dismiss people's votes. You cannot keep re-running votes because you do not like that although I know that is a great EU tradition having re-run the votes of the French, Irish and Dutch before. The fact is that this is a major constitutional change yes, but so was 1973 when we were taken in without an initial referendum. Further huge transfers of powers took place with the Single European Act, the Maaschtrict Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty and not once were we asked whether or not we agreed to this huge change to our constitution. That was..... until 2016 when we were asked. And we reflected on 42 years of EEC/EU membership and decided to leave. That's the inescapable reality of it: parliament put the question to us in a referendum and we wanted out.

By all means you can campaign to re-join the EU in a decade or so once we've left. Funnily enough, I think both you and I both know that by that stage public opinion will be Norway-style set against joining and we'll be out forever which is why your desperate to block it now.

So you'd disagree with what Farage said about a second referendum before the result? And what exactly are you referring to that remain has said that's turned out false?

You could argue people were asked by the party they voted or even just the people they elected. You will probably be thinking when you see that "well it was in their manifesto", well perhaps people shouldn't then revote that party if the EU was such a big concern. The problem here though is ultimately FPTP, which I'm curious where you stand on that.

We also may have been taking in without a referendum but we got one just 2 years later which showed clear support. I think it should be obvious that I'm very against referendums though.

There's also no guarantee of a Norway option. Do you actually want to know why I don't want to leave? I don't want to leave because we actually have a fairly comfortable position in the EU; a rather large member with lots of exclusions which benefit us, and lots of inclusions which benefit us. Perhaps we can't make trade deals on our own, but we pretty much act as an almost access country for a lot of things, like being one of two native (if you count Ireland as native) English speaking countries in the EU which attracts thanks to English being the lingua franca and for financial services, which you certainly know about.

Tell me, in all honesty, what's actually going to be different? What will you, in your day-to-day life, actually notice? Because that's the problem I see is that most people voted out won't see the difference, but those who voted in will. Want to go to France? Visa! Want to study in Switzerland for a year? Visa! Want to work in Spain? Lol, visa! Need that science funding? Oh, bad luck because it doesn't seem like the UK government has any intention to actually increase it! But that's probably a good thing for you since private = magically better in all ways. Let's not also forget we will probably see prices rise if May goes hard Brexit not just from the drop in the pound (which was going to happen anyway), but from the fact we won't be part of a larger market.

[AgnesIO]

If Scotland wants to go, let them go.

Drain on our economy, anyway. Ironically, just like how Brexiteers like to say about the EU.

[FlyingJesus]

4real though I am so confused about the lampshade thing