The floor’s highest-rated argument came from Yes, even as No won by more than two to one. That mismatch matters: the vote was decisive, but the room’s strongest single intervention treated Westminster’s veto as “suppressing basic democracy”.
No voters built their case around finality, mandate and the cost of reopening the question. One blunt voice said, “They had a vote. Ask me again in 100 years”; another argued that a fresh campaign “would divert focus from real priorities”. The emphasis was less on defeating independence than on refusing another constitutional detour.
Yes voters answered that a pro-independence Holyrood majority could not be dismissed as an ordinary electoral result. The floor’s most-respected Yes case appealed to “the right to self determination”, while another argued that Scotland had been “dragged out of the EU against its clear democratic vote”. The two sides were often addressing different tests: No wanted durable consent and constitutional stability; Yes wanted an immediate democratic mandate to test consent again.
That is where this debate sits inside the wider argument over devolution: whether autonomy is meaningful if the central government retains the final say on its limits. A Yes reply described refusal as turning “a voluntary partnership into a compulsory trap”, while No voices saw repeated votes as a route to permanent instability rather than self-government.
The chamber rejected the referendum, but its sharpest argument was not a defence of the status quo; it was a warning about who gets to decide when the question may be asked.
40 Opinions
If Holyrood holds an indisputable pro-independence majority, denying a Section 30 order isn't protecting the union it's suppressing basic democracy.
Scotland does use a proportional voting system which is good starting point for a binding decision. There doesn't seem to be any definite trend in the polls, except that the number of "don't knows" is rising.
They hade a vote a decade ago, and voted to stay. Furthermore, it's clear that there will be large amounts of foreign interference - when the US attacked Iran earlier this year and the Iranian bot farms went down many major pro-Independence accounts on platforms like Twitter stopped posting.
They had a vote. Ask me again in 100 years.
NO Because the establishment won't give the britsh public a fair vote. They will without doubt exclude GB citizens from England, Wales & NI from a vote on a massively major issue of Great Britain's future. That is not democratic, therefore it shouldn't happen.
The Scottish parliament has more moral authority on this issue than Westminster. It is an anomaly that the Westminster parliament has the power of veto and it should be used, if at all, with extreme discretion.
While I don't want to see the union broken up, if I was Scottish, I would want the right to choose full autonomy if I felt the union wasn't working for me. This is the reason I voted yes. How soon they should be allowed to hold one is another matter. You can't have the feeling that they will keep holding referendums until a desired result is achieved. So perhaps there should be a time frame established where, and if polls show a desire for it, a new referendum can be held.
Yes, let them overwhelmingly vote “no” again. They know exactly where their bread’s buttered.
One one hand, I believe they should have the right to a vote + self-determination. We definitely need more regional devolution. That being said, it would lead to another brexit-like period of tedious negotiations. It’s also a fact that England (mostly London), essentially subsidises the rest of the UK. You can link this back to a lack of regional investment, but that is the current reality. Would also likely bring capital flight from Scotland.
Yes, because they have the right to self determination. However, I believe that it will be harmful to both Scotland and Britain as a whole.