Look, can we have a serious discussion about this..There was plenty of discussion from both sides pre IndyRef 1.
Over the years, it has slowly morphed into a very one sided affair.
We are not discussing an issue that can be settled by a marginal preference.. to contemplate a major change in society such as the creation of a new nation state is not something that you want to enter into with such an evenly divided society. The fragility of the outcome is so dangerous to all the parts of the resulting society that the cure is likely to be more damaging than the complaint..
In most democratic systems there is usually a safeguard to reduce the dangers inherent in creating fine divisions, which simply do not resolve themselves. Typically the case to overthrow the status quo has to achieve a significant margin to secure the change such as a 2/3 majority to change a constitution.
Most of the "discussion" you are referring to was between a tiny percentage of the nation, and mostly with huge personal and hidden agendas, and minimal responisblity for the outcome!
Can you not see that it is the process of bickering over tiny differences that is the real danger? Entering into independence with such a divided community would be incredibly dangerous, and given some of the depth of resentment that has been stirred up, highly likely to result in violence.
Ulster took 30 years to bring it back to a level of sensible abuse...
Do you really want this?