[SCOT goes POP!] If Rachel Reeves' rejection of an independence referendum "carries little weight", how can there by any remaining argument against a de facto indyref?

[ALBA-Bot]

If Rachel Reeves' rejection of an independence referendum "carries little weight", how can there by any remaining argument against a de facto indyref?

Stephen Flynn has said that Rachel Reeves' rejection of an independence referendum in the event of an SNP overall majority "carries little weight", but if it really doesn't matter what the UK government think, what is the remaining argument against, say, using an election as a de facto referendum?  It turns out that what Mr Flynn really meant is that Rachel Reeves' views don't matter because she won't be Chancellor for much longer, and Keir Starmer won't be Prime Minister for long either.  That of course implies that Mr Flynn thinks the views of the next Labour leader and next Labour Chancellor very much *do* matter, and indeed will be far more decisive in determining Scotland's future than any decisions made by the people of Scotland themselves.  In the video below, I explain why that's hard to reconcile with the SNP leadership's own campaign for "Scotland's right to choose", and I also suggest a way forward that would not require any direct reversal of the strategy agreed at the SNP conference two months ago.

*  *  *

Scot Goes Pop: The Final Fundraiser is underway (you can read more about why I anticipate it being the final one HERE) and it's already pretty close to halfway to its target figure of £1700.  A million thanks to everyone who has donated so far.  Card donations can be made at the GoFundMe page HERE, or if you prefer to cut out the middle-man, direct PayPal donations can be made to my PayPal email address, which is:   jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Source: If Rachel Reeves' rejection of an independence referendum "carries little weight", how can there by any remaining argument against a de facto indyref?