Would you agree with Smudges Dad then that Labour are irrelevant?

Of course they're not. The two political unions are in themselves so different. When Brexiteers used the language of Yes campaigners and the arguments from the Scottish Referendum it exposed how bogus their arguments were. The spoke about British independence, as if the UK was not independent. Scotland spoke about becoming an independent state within the EU, just like the UK currently is. Scotland was voting to become what the UK has voted to reject.

Not quite irrelevant because they're remaining voters are required to secure independence. They are becoming increasingly irrelevant and likely will remain so until they are able to find a way to adapt.

I think you need to read the thread and posts in it. I stated that the two groups had similarities, that is the Groups wanting a Brexit and the Group wanting a Sexit. Both groups claim a democratic deficit and wanting to control all economic powers as a driver for their movements.

I can't imagine how you cannot see similarities between these groups of campaigners even if, like me you don't agree with some of them.

So you believe labour voters will be required to secure independence? What is it they have to adapt to? They are trying to position themselves to the left of the SNP and Tories but still no one is voting for them in larger numbers and so perhaps they need to have policies more in line with the SNP and Tories to be more successful.

With the SNP slowly morphing into New Labour perhaps they will find somewhere but the days of huge support for them seem to be over.

They need to convince Scottish voters that they are working in Scotland's interests rather than in their own. They need to adapt to a Scotland where traditional voters reject Britain, Union and back independence. How can they adapt to that? I don't know that they can.

Given the lack of a change in the age of consent then that scenario simply doesn't enter in to it.

The current Human Rights Act prohibits the prosecution for a crime that didn't exist. If it's abolished then pray it's reintroduced in the proposed Bill of Rights. Otherwise don't be absurd.

As a justification for discrimination though your falling foul of something like this

La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain.
In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.

At the least they should get rid of the Jimmy Hood attitude prior to the first independence referendum, where he stood in parliament and said that even if it was in the interests of Scotland, he would reject independence as a matter of principle.

He then got promptly voted out because if you aren't looking to act in the best interests of your constituents then what use are you to them? Most people at that time want someone to argue them into a position through reasoned debate and solid arguments and the ''I'd rather we were all worse off than independent'' line turned me against him.

At least have decent reasons for positions (politicians of any side or position) and be a bit smarter than that and remember who you are supposed to be serving. It was a problem of Labour post-Blair where the electorate seemed to get dictated to more than listened to. I don't expect Labour to switch position but they can't be that stupid. They charged to the front-lines in the independence campaign and got used as a human shield by the Conservatives on the issue (who also did the same thing with the Lib Dems in the previous GE).

The smarter line would have been to take the position that you'd always ''want what's best for your constituents which you are certain at the time is x and here's why'' and argue that.

that comment kinda got me thinking about something jim and what i think could be the biggest advantage the independence campaign will have should there be another referendum in the near future

i really dont think a post-brexit, theresa may led UK government will campaign as vigorously against independence as we saw from Better Together 2 years ago

Maybe. I find it hard to predict anything these days. My early impression of May is that's she's a bit shrewder than Cameron but she's started in weird political times (domestic and abroad).

Which is another question on the independence debate -- does uncertainty in the world in general make going independent easier or harder? I'm really not sure. If independence is a leap, then is a country more likely to make it on stable ground, or do you leap because you lose faith in your footing entirely? I always thought the stepping stone approach of gradualism was easier to imagine as each subsequent jump would be less but as far as politics goes at the minute.....as Yoda might say. Doubt on everything, filled with, I am.

Patrick Harvie on Sunday Politics destroying the idea that his party will demand terms from the Scottish Government for the Greens to support a referendum.

i find it harder and harder to predict anything in a year where we saw people ignore common sense imo and vote for brexit and the trump phenomenon thats going on in the US

i know we wont agree on this re scotland but when people are ignoring the so-called experts and voting for isolationist causes because of some skewed view of sovereignty then anything can happen should a 2nd ref take place

Depends on what you mean by post- Brexit. If the speculated attempt to lure the SNP into postponing indyref2 till after the UK formally leaves the EU then that shuts off the possibility of Scotland inheriting the UK's membership. You'd also get the optimist/pessimist alliance going on about prolonging the uncertainty not allowing economic recovery which will improve if we'd only be patient.

All assuming May isn't thrown out of office after a vote of no confidence and a genuine Remain supporter is actually elected leader of the Conservatives in order to salvage at least some access to the single market. The way things are going it'd surprise me if she wasn't. May's present public persona is one of a bully being backed by only the tough kids. She only has a majority of 12-16 depending on how you count it. Her party relies on backing from industry an commercial interests who will no doubt be along soon to remind her not all those who voted Leave did so in favour of a hard Brexit never mind that her MPs may not all be in favour either.

Sorry, you just not making much sense, you seem to be arguing a stance that I don't have as I think I actually agree with you but I'm not even sure what your talking about to be honest.

Why would they adapt to a Scotland where traditional voters reject Britain when the majority of Scots voters clearly don't reject it?

Im not sure what they do too increase their voter base but I have a suspicion that most of that base right now are anti independence voters too and the majority of those that aren't have joined the SNP.

I think May should just go for it and let Scotland decide before even triggering Article 50. Hold Indyref 2 in Feb 17 and see what the Scottish voting population wants.

Then if it is independence we can go to the EU and ask them directly if we can retain the UKs membership for Scotland, if they refuse at this point then at least we will all know where we stand and start to make plans for Scotland to leave the UK and apply for EU membership.

This would give us 2 years to prepare for the end of Barnett, get some borrowing in place, start up our institutions and have a new Scottish election to elect an independent Government.

I somehow doubt that Ms Sturgeon would be in favour of any of this though, she seems quite content to ride 2 horses at the moment and all of this Brexit talk does help detract from domestic issues.

I assume you meant "ask" . The problem some might be having is that all Westminster get to do is decide whether they will recognise the validity of a referendum or not. Whilst it might be nice to have that commitment in writing there's no requirement for it.

However you're right, Westminster could pre-emt the SNP. Although if they did I'd read the small print on all options just in case they decide to go against any promises that there'd be no tricks. She'd also need to be careful about her and other unionist MPs not amending any bill to include a clause that might provoke Scotland returning a majority for independence.

The trouble is I don't think the SNP have the appetite for a quick Indyref and the possibility it results in failure and the resignation of another leader with Robertson taking over but truly unable to hold any further referendum for a very long time.

In that situation what would the SNP even talk about for the next 5 years? Domestic policies

The quote concerns laws that on the face of them are fair but under scrutiny affect only a minority. The examples given concern only the poor because the rich need not steal food to survive.

OK so having sex with an 18 year old isn't essential but if I wanted to I could as long as I had consent. Until the law was changed the same was not true if I was a man and so was my partner. That law was unjust even though it supposedly affected me in reality it didn't.

That is where the reason for not allowing the law to pass based on underage sex offences has to be challenged. This is about justice rather than law and more importantly fairness.

I always vote for what I think are good reasons but I can't say the same for everyone else. I would think that though, I suppose, as we all must think we make reasoned choices and make ourselves the hero in our own perception. Ultimately everyone gets one vote and everyone gets one opinion so you get whatever you get from the result and that's probably still better than any other system.

I've read well-reasoned arguments either way on most things but I'm sure there is some witty quote from Churchill or similar comparable politician of note about generally despairing if you listen to enough reasons on how people vote. Something about the average voter. It's hard to disagree right now.

Re: indy and me. I'm not really a big patriot or nationalist. Culturally, I see the UK nations as separate and think they'd be better self-governed as I do still think there is sufficient difference politically, culturally, socially to warrant that. I doubt that will change as I just see broad geographical differences on different issues (by majority) which are increasingly at contest, and my attitude now is that they'd be better off separate on that score. It would remove the chips on respective shoulders.

Economics -- murky to me at the best of times and this isn't the best of times. I'm of the short-term pain for long-term gain logic but obviously that's the more movable position for me because a ton of pain on it's own would put me off the idea pretty fast.

How ironic would it be if Scotland went independent due to a referendum proposed by The Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party? Scotland.....a country a contrarians - see national football team.

If that happens then we definitely have entered some sort of matrix world! All bets are off.

(I just got a funny image of a Scotland in 100 years time with a statue of David Mundell - father of our nation. Ha ha ha. Alternate reality where he is the proposer of the bill.)

That's nothing to do with appetite and everything to do with timing and strategy. To secure an easier path to full EU membership in it's own right Scotland will need to have voted for independence whilst the UK is still in the EU.

Even so sometimes you have to go to war even if you have no appetite for it. Britain didn't have an appetite for WW2 but still got involved. A fair number of those who fought for the Jacobite cause also had no appetite for it.

Slightly more relevant given it's anniversary last week might be the Battle of Hastings. Won in part because either appetite or frustration prompted some of the Saxons to chase supposedly retreating Normans leading to their own deaths followed by defeat of their army.

Another predictable anti-SNP rant.

The Scottish Parliament isn't going to vote for a referendum until the shape of Ms May's negotiations becomes obvious - end of. The Tory Government have sent more mixed signals than woman fondled by Donald Trump.

Will you be ex-patting yourself to Brexit England? There is talk of them bringing back fox hunting you know...

I like Harvey, had he threatened to block a referendum for Green Party gain on policy, he would have had credibility issues. You either believe Scotland should be independent or you don't. Where we might differ is in the timing of a new referendum.

I believe Sturgeon was 100% behind keeping the UK in the EU, while playing the long game regarding Scottish independence. I believe she is looking to open a Scottish embassy in Berlin, as she looks to untangle the union and secure as much power from Westminster as she can.

Brexit gives her the chance to get more powers delivered using the threat of a 2nd independence referendum as a stick to prise these powers from an under pressure PM's death grip. Of course the referendum is a real threat and genuine option for Scotland, and Brexit could nudge the pendulum to swing towards the 50+ required. Westminster know only to well what the Scottish independence movement can do with a bit of momentum.

The Scottish economy and deficit seem to be the unionists only threat left. Scotland would have a deficit there's no doubt about this, mostly caused by the union and shocking miss management of Scotlands resources by Westminster. Can the biggest oil producing country in Europe be better managed by a Scottish government than the current depressing state the Westminster regime has left us in? I don't really think there's any question about it. This along with currency will be the battleground.

I believe we would win a close run race with a referendum within the next 2 or 3 years, I also believe the long game would be even more emphatic. Sturgeon has as strong as hand as she could ever hope to have.

The difference is that Scotland's democratic deficit is undeniable and the notion that the UK had a democratic deficit in contrast to Scotlands situation is utterly laughable.