Electorally the Tories are in the same position in terms of vote share and seats as the SNP were 13 years ago. They've seen a big rise in support and representation and many SNP MSPs including John Swinney will be watching carefully what happens as they are extremely vulnerable to any further increase in Tory support. Your party lost its majority as a direct result of Tory defections from the SNP. The numbers speak for themselves.

If you wish to live in delusion and denial about the state of Scottish Politics that's your right but it does you nor your party any favours.

They were elected on a pledge to hold a referendum if the situation warranted. The only quibling possible is in whether the change in circumstances is one mentioned in their manifestos. They have a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum at a time of their choosing rather than holding one regardless of it being doomed to failure which might make it near impossible to hold one again for the foreseeable future. That last part is why some of the unionist parties are so keen to have the SNP go for it again before the time is right.

Saying you want the right to hold a referendum, is not the same as saying you will hold a referendum in specific circumstances.

Look back at their 2011 manifesto pledge, that is unambiguous... "We will give Scots the opportunity to decide our nation’s future in an independence referendum"

If the Scottish Government puts forward a bill to have a referendum and a majority in the Parliament pass it, then there will be a referendum. If there is not enough support there won't be one.

It is not too difficult to figure out.

Is it that simple... will the presiding officer allow it on the basis of whether it comes within the competency of the Scottish parliament.

Yes. The precedent has already been set.

I'm not sure that's right... last time it happened becuase both Scottish and UK governments came to an agreement to make an exception to the Scottish devolution scheme, which ordinarily reserves constitutional matters to Westminster.

Westminster would be very foolish to try and block it. The 'Mother of Parliaments' trying to block a democratic decision would only serve to bolster the independence vote immeasurably.

No it wouldn't. I think this is where the nationalist Gov thinks it has an Ace up its sleeve ie the clarion call of a referendum whenever something happens that it doesn't like. It's claptrap. It is not in the interests of anybody and it wouldn't be unreasonable for the application for another to be jettisoned seeing as there was one just two years ago.

We are talking about the reality of the situation. Not the delusional wishes of hardcore unionists.

Yep, we are indeed talking about the reality of the situation, and the SNP thinking it calls any shots with another referendum is fantasy football league.

The SNP don't. They need the support of members in other parties to pass any bill. But they will get it.

Therefore, it is not the SNP that Westminster would be denying it would be the expressed will of the Scottish Parliament.

Once article 50 is triggered then all sorts of shit will hit the fan and thats when the best time to have a referendum. While the ship sinks and the WM in squabbling reaches boiling point and the news is filled with horror stories for the uk along comes the scottish parliament with a lifeboat and their will be more than the 6% needed from last time at that point. Thats what I would do anyway

Are you saying that the sovereign will of the Scottish people can be trumped by the express will of the Scottish Parliament?

Only the SNP keep saying that in Scotland the people are sovereign and given that it's only 2 years since the Scottish people expressed this sovereign will in huge numbers why then should the Scottish Parliament be able to ever ride this?

Seems a wee bit undemocratic to me.

The best time to have a referendum would be when the polls consistently show a majority support for it.

Any other circumstance is fraught with the risk of it failing and indeoendence being consigned to the bin for a hundred years.

Yet another example of why the SNP aren't different from any other mainstream political organisation.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politi...ference_perks/

Take out the word independence and they seem to resemble the rest when it comes down to business.

Then you seem to have a rather fuzzy view on democracy. If the result is different or the same; then that only shows the expressed will of the people at that time.

Once Scotland is independent I would have no problem with a political party that campaigned to rejoin the UK trying to get enough votes in Parliament to hold a referendum.

The sovereign will of the Scots was not to become indpendent in May 2016. That will has been respected. We didn't vote away the right to change our minds surely?

Annoying perhaps but one of the driving principles of democracy is the right of the electorate to change their minds. In Westminster the HoC has primacy because it's the elected body. It's also taken as read that no government can dictate to its successor which is why Cameron was unable to legislate for a referendum to be held after the GE. Which was either arrogance on his part of a clever piece of politics.

Nor would the SNP be overriding the 2014 result given all we were asked was whether Scotland should be independent without any rider that we would never be asked again or any limit on when we could be asked again. Just as parliament s can't bind their successors electorates can't either.

If you thing that democracy involves removing freedoms from the populace and restricting their choices then I think you're missing the point. Obviously there's a slight problem in an FPTP election or even in a party based PR system but given the SNP are polling above 50% it's obvious that your protests that they act against the will of the majority of electorate are nonsense.

People change their minds from one minute to the next, one hour to the next, one day to the next, one year to the next, one decade to the next.

What cannot happen, and is what you both seem to be advocating, is that another referendum (on anything really) should be done on the whim of [whatever] so soon after the original. It's really to argue that there should just be constant referenda swinging with whatever way the wind is blowing.

If the people vote for the situation to arise where a referendum is held a few years after the last one, then who has the right to complain?

That is democracy.

People don't vote for that so you're chatting shit.

Argument lost - throw insult.

Scotland is being taken out of the EU against the will of the electorate. Any future referendum is certainly not on a whim.

That wasn't an insult, that was just matter of fact.