Would you be in favor of keeping your country together with force

[garbon]

Because of the severe ramifications involved? Bit more of an impactful vote than most things people vote on.  Also pool of votes is almost always smaller than pool of citizens so if it were a supermajority that suggests it really is the will of the people and not just those who could be bothered to vote.

Okay. But that doesn't address my issue of legitimacy. If having considered the severe ramifications, 55% of the people who can be arsed to vote on something this important, decide for independence why should that be ignored. Or, indeed, even 50%+1.

Not ignored - further discussions needed on how to work things out.

[garbon]

I agree with the premise of keeping my country together by force, preferably by columns of United States forces like the days of yore, their horses long ago traded in for APCs, roaming the West and disarming fucking goofy ass mouthbreathing dumbass racist redneck inbred Dumbfuckstani cracker fuckstick yahoos running around with guns, interfering with the legal conduct of Federal business.

I mean, why force some of the shitty places to stay if they don't want to? BUILD A WALL!

[garbon]

The worst part is if the vote is no, they can turn around and repeat the whole dog and pony circus a few years down the road.

I mean it would probably not be so great if people were prevented from being allowed to vote as stances could change further down the line.

[Ideologue]

If the spin-doctors can drum up enough support to get that 50.000000001% majority which clearly has very shallow depth of conviction.

Scotland must be pretty densely populated.

[jimmy olsen]

Hold on. The SNP are the legal government of Scotland. They've won a majority - with 45% of the vote in a four party country with a Parliament designed to avoid majority government. They have the right, if they can pass it through Parliament, to have any referendum they want. It wasn't 'allowed to move forward' like some furtive dash for freedom, but was part of their manifesto, publicly debated at length and then passed by Scotland's government.

Obviously in the UK the Westminster Parliament is sovereign and could theoretically ban it, or refuse to recognise it but as I say what democratic legitimacy does that action have? It'd be a disgrace.

The same way the American government ignored the Texas secession referendum which passed with 46,129 in favor to 14,697 against.