I don't see how the SNP don't have a mandate for calling another referendum. Scottish voters overwhelmingly elected an SNP government in 2016.
Looking it up, that solves a lot of my confusion:
The SNP stresses that independence will only be achieved when the majority of people in Scotland want it to happen.
It says the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is "clear and sustained evidence" that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people - or if there is a "significant and material" change in circumstances, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will.
I can see where you're coming from, however I have some issues with this. The first and foremost is the assumption that the majority of people in Scotland want it to happen, evidence does not suggest this is the case. The second is that they believe the changing of circumstance gives them a democratic mandate, misunderstanding that a democratic mandate comes from their electorate and not from circumstance. BMG shows the majority of Scots oppose a second referendum, leading me to wonder how Sturgeon came to the conclusion that she can ignore the wills expressed not just by the southerners, but northerners too - seems dodgy twice over.
The first bit is from 2015, so... not sure of the relevance to now. I'll accept that support for independence is less than support for the union at least from the relatively small sample in the second link. However, that sample does not say that the majority of Scots are against independence. They had to take out the 15% of people who either weren't sure (13%) or wouldn't say (2%) before coming to that conclusion. 15% is a pretty significant margin for error. It was 44% against and 41% for before that.
The third is the timing, trying to block Brexit only 2.5 years after Scotland decided no is not justifiable, by what right is that fair or democratic?
She's a Scottish politician representing the Scottish people. What do you propose she do when her constituents categorically reject something their bigger, louder neighbour is forcing them to do?
Bearing in mind, of course, that Better Together did campaign that the best way for Scotland to lose its EU membership was to
vote yes.
The fourth is in her speech:
The first minister went on to say there was a "triple lock" on a further independence referendum, adding: "Before it's inserted in a manifesto, something has to change. Then people have to vote for the manifesto - if it is in it - and then people have to vote for independence."
Before it's inserted in a manifesto, something has to change. Then people have to vote for the manifesto. Yet looking at her conduct, she completely skipped this, failing to provide a manifesto to the Scottish people that said she intended to campaign for a second referendum. I wonder how it is she forgot this? Why is she now claiming the SNP campaign has nothing to do with independence?
Why would it be? It's a British election. Last time out the SNP won 56 of the 59 Scottish seats. What did that say about independence? How will those 59 seats, representing a touch over 9% of the seats in parliament, influence British politics to favour Scottish independence?
Her intervention came as a new opinion poll found support for independence has dropped to 40 per cent and only one in four Scots support her demand for a second referendum between autumn next year and spring 2019.
It's awfully mercenary to recognize that an independence referendum would need to be put before voters in a manifesto only to ignore that when you dislike your voters' intentions.
There was mention of the "material change" in the
SNP manifesto for 2016 (on page 23, if you don't care for the rest
) with the example used as Scotland being taken out of Europe against its will, which I mentioned in my previous post was something they had been talking about since the 2015 British elections concluded.
(As an aside, the only reason they didn't get a majority was because of a quirk of the election system put in place by Westminster, in which the number of regional votes a party receives is divided by the number of constituency seats they won in that region, plus one. There are seven representatives per region, so this continues until all seven are chosen, with the divisor increasing for the parties that receive a regional seat. The SNP won 59 of the 73 constituency seats, hamstringing them a bit in the regional vote.)
That they also didn't get a majority of votes no doubt helps, woe is the south - the SNP won 56 parliamentary seats with 4.6% of the vote, UKIP with 12.6% of votes got 1 seat 
The pain is real
We went over that at the time
the
SNP won 50% of the vote in the 59 seats they stood in, while the UKIP vote was spread out over the hundreds of seats they stood in.
Also, the Tories got a majority with only 37% of the vote. I'll agree that the British system is worse than the Scottish system
The SNP didn't hide from the fact that they lost the 2014 referendum.
I'll have you know I have shown extraordinary restraint in making jokes in regards to the whole once in a lifetime referendum every 3 years
Let's not pretend that the SNP have a monopoly on misleading rhetoric It took until March - 9 months after the EU referendum - for the SNP to bring a vote to the Scottish parliament on a second independence referendum, during which time the UK government ignored their offer of a compromise.
When she put indyref2 on the table, it would be little consolidation that she wanted to block Brexit in return. What has Sturgeon ever offered in compromise? Seriously m8 she's compromised on nothing I've seen, even tried blocking the Great Repeal Bill and stopping the triggering of article 50. British when she wants to override the British, Scottish when Westminster needs her help, says Theresa May doesn't have a mandate to Leave the European Union despite Leave winning yet claims to have a mandate for indyref2 or blocking brexit despite not having a mandate.
As mentioned previously, she's a Scottish politician, Scotland voted to Remain. She doesn't want to block Brexit in return for an independence referendum, she wants the Scottish people offered the choice between leaving the EU and being independent. She doesn't want Brexit stopped, she wants to stop Scotland being dragged out against the wishes of its people.
She said there's no mandate for a hard Brexit, not that there was no mandate for Brexit. This was at a time when it wasn't clear that May was of the opinion that a hard Brexit was the only option, though.
What unreasonable resistance has she offered anyway? There's 56 SNP MPs in parliament, nowhere near enough to have any great influence on anything. They can table amendments, which get voted down by the other 600 MPs. The Scottish government got a say in the supreme court case, but so did NI and Wales. The Scottish parliament rejected Brexit in a purely symbolic vote.
There is nothing that she can reasonably do that will affect whether or not Brexit happens. This doesn't mean she won't fight for what Scotland voted.
My expert says otherwise
I think the EU has precedence over experts
I didn't say it would be easy, and neither are the SNP. It would require a great deal of compromise between Scotland and the UK, and the UK and the EU.
That's not a compromise, the SNP would assume de facto full sovereignty despite losing indyref and euroref, England and Wales would remain subject to EU law, sovereignty and would lose control of its borders to the EU. That's not a compromise, that's a list of surrender terms haha, Britain would lose everything despite the British voting against every single one of those proposals
Should you want to read it, the Scottish government's position on Scotland's place in Europe.
Cheers, that was helpful. The Greenland-Denmark example they bring up is not particularly helpful, given that Greenland is a Danish territory, while Scotland is not - the free trade deal the UK is negotiating is for the UK, of which Scotland is constituent. In particular this:
As we set out in more detail later in this chapter, nothing in this proposal prioritises the European Single Market over free movement and free trade within the UK nor places such free movement and free trade on any different footing from presently undertaken. Our proposal would secure for Scotland the benefits of the European single market in addition to – not instead of – free trade across the UK.
Is the critical divergence between Westminster and Holyrood. There is only one way in which Scotland can remain a member of both the UK and the ESM, and that is if the UK is subject to the EU. The only alternative is if Brussels compromises, which they refuse to do. If Brussels allows Scotland to remain in the ESM without the UK, then Britain will able to as a European country, have total free trade with the EU without any of the obligations or sovereignty loss other European countries face in order to have free trade with the EU - simply by exporting to Scotland and from Scotland to the EU. Hence why the EU told us it's not on the table, it would be entirely to our advantage.
I will be blunt and say my hope is that the various EU officials know that pretty much any discourse they've had with or about the UK since the result is going to affect negotiations. They can be hard on Scotland because they know there's a pro-independence, pro-EU government in power there, and that the Scots want to stay in Europe. By being hard, they can weaken the UK's position (I imagine it's quite hard to to concentrate with a highland terrier nipping at your ankles, yipping loudly) and potentially strengthen their own.
Taking that into account, I don't think there's anything stopping the EU from amending any of the rules that apply to the UK and applying them to Scotland instead, though probably sans vetoes and opt-outs. New regulations can be put in place to deal with the new situation (for example, stamping products from rUK saying they were produced there, applying necessary taxes and tariffs even if they are exported via Scotland) as part of the negotiations that will be happening anyway.
All it really requires is the UK government to bring it to the table and push for it, which won't happen because none of the major parties really have anything to lose in Scotland.
He was invited in July and December last year, both times his office said he was busy. He was even offered the chance to have a video conference than have to travel to Edinburgh...
His assistant was offered instead... he backed out too, until after Article 50 got triggered.
The committee in question would be remiss in their duty to examine Brexit and what it means for Scotland by talking to the British minister responsible for overseeing withdrawal negotiations. A duty they can't really perform if he won't talk to them.
From your link:
It is understood UK Government ministers involved in Brexit have been ordered to cancel visits outside London around the March date in case the House of Lords rejects their Brexit plan.
Before article 50 was triggered the UK Brexit plan could have died in the HOC or HOL, meaning neither would have been able to give any answers as to what was going to be, as they had no idea whether the gov's plan would actually go through. I certainly know the SNP haven't been in the dark on this, having seen Salmond yesterday morning in the Parliament Brexit talks, or for that matter trying to kill those plans in the HOC. Thus there is no insult, it would be rather embarrassing to send a top minister with nothing to say, or worse, to say and risk undermining the government whilst negotiating with yurop
PPE: this next bit reads a bit passive-aggressively, but I'm too tired to change it. None of it directed at you, just so you're aware.
Why should it matter if their plan may or may not be voted against? If they have a plan, they should be sharing it with the devolved administrations (all of them, not just Scotland) so they, in turn, can make plans on how to deal with various degrees of success of the UK government's plan, as well as the people of Britain, considering there's a vote about to happen on what direction Brexit is going to take. Really, you would hope that the various parties have an idea of what they want to happen during the next two years, 'cause that is pretty much what the election is about.
I mean, there was 9 months between the result and Article 50. They had a bit to deal with: Tory leadership drop-outs, court cases, various back-and-forths with Europeans and belligerent natives. They made a shady deal with Nissan, who were essentially threatening to shut down a factory that employs 7,000 people and has impact on 28,000 more jobs, but also refuse to release any details about that deal, 'cause Tories apparently don't know how to redact sensitive information from a letter.
Perhaps all that means is they don't actually have a plan to share, yet, 'cause there's no reason they shouldn't be sharing what they want to happen during negotiations.
I think engaging in discourse would be a good start, but it's been almost a year since the referendum, and Article 50 has already been triggered, so it'd be a token gesture if anything at this point. The SNP aren't saying the Tories should fuck off and die, they want what's best for Scotland, and if the Tories aren't even willing to talk about it... what's the point of Scotland having any say at all?
Westminster is chock full of SNP MPs who've been exceedingly involved in Brexit, if they don't want to have a say in how things are run then they're doing it in an awfully loud way. As to why, it should seem obvious. As we approach negotiations our ministers must have a clear understanding of what industries are at stake, thus all the MPs have been voicing concerns for their local constituents' industries and services needs. If the SNP wants the UK to remain in the EU, Westminster can't deliver on that without becoming arbitrary and despotic, however it can ensure Britain gets a free trade deal that suits Britain and Europe. By not participating, that would make it exceedingly difficult to do a deal bespoke to Britain, there'd be an information blackspot in the shape of Scotland, which is naturally helpful to no one.
Westminster has 56 SNP MPs, out of a total of 650. That is not "chock full", and there's no reason for the SNP MPs that are there to not take part in debates and such re: Brexit. I'm not sure how you think that's what is (or that I think should) be happening.
What I was talking about was the abject silence that the UK government have given the Scottish government in regards to the proposals that they've presented in order to start a discussion on what should happen. How are they supposed to interpret that?
Author
Topic: Brexit! Conversation Continued (Read 182443 times)