So who are they?

And who defines what is working for a real living?

I work in an office. Is that working for a real living?

And who are 'the like'?

But the Scottish people don't want a referendum at this time. So you are advocating a situation that you constantly accuse the Tories of, namely having things thrust upon us that we don't want.

The only way to gauge whether we want another referendum is to ask us directly, if the government were to stand down and hold another election on this single issue and was then elected by a majority I think that would be a valid stance.

Until then all we have to go on are various polls which show the majority are not in favour of another Indy ref at this time.

Sturgeon and the SNP elite have backed themselves into a corner over Brexit as they have not defined what it is they want but continually gripe against something which is unclear. Namely a hard Brexit. We actually don't know what kind of Brexit it will be.

However, I can confidently state that even if it was the best possible Brexit they would still say it wasn't good enough.

All the while, there are real problems in devolved areas such as Health, education, transport etc that need addressed.

I merely point out that there is a vast number of politicians who have gone from studying politics or law who then go directly into politics as a career without any experience in any of the areas that they then control. They are trained in the art of political spin though.

I'm sure in your job you are not responsible for policies that affect the lives of millions?

The SNP have been in power so long that they become wrapped up in that power and folk like the FM live in their own bubble surrounded by like minded folk who basically tow the party line to one day get their own shot at the power. The longer it goes on the less it is about people in Scotland and the more it's about retaining power.

That's why, I believe there won't be another Indyref until the life of the next Parliament. The FM does not want to resign her power quite yet.

We had a nationwide opinion poll in May. The FM and the Government she leads, won it quite handsomely.

She can call a referendum when she likes. The losers don't get to dictate the timetable.

They can't as Holyrood has the power to hold referenda.

They might decide to refuse to acknowledge a referendum result.

Firstly there was no firm commitment to hold a referendum in this parliament.

Secondly the draft bill shows she's seeking Westminster's permission.

Given one of the examples was a situation where Scotland voted to Remain in the EU whilst the UK as a whole voted to Leave I don't really thing theirs much ambiguity that that trigger has been met.

If a party says they will act if certain pre-conditions are met then they have a mandate for that act should those conditions be met.

For instance the Conservative party have been elected to implement the EU referendum result. Should that require further legislation then the House of Lords will eventually have to give way on any delaying tactics they employ. If it comes to it a Bill passed in to law in the Commons will, assuming the devolved legislatures can really be overridden as casually as has been claimed, result in the UK ending it's EU membership.

I am not saying you are a member of the Conservative Party but if you are then you've given any right to claim the SNP have no mandate to hold a second independence referendum.

I'm not and they don't have a mandate... no majority and no specific manifesto pledge to hold one in this parliament.

Who doesn't?

The SNP pledge to hold a referendum should conditions change is actually firmer than the Conservatives pledge to act on the Referendum result. And I really wouldn't count on the lack of majority as the Green also put forward a conditional pledge to a second referendum. If a majority in Holyrood determine that the conditions they set for a second referendum on independence have been met and between them they have a majority then together they can pass a bill in Holyrood to hold a second referendum.

Rounds in circles we go... there was no pledge to hold a referendum in this parliament... if you want to see such a pledge look at the SNP manifesto in 2011.

They wanted the right to hold one, that's not the same as saying they will hold one and they don't have the right, hence they'll seek permission from Westminster - see their recent draft bill.

You really have no concept of conditionality ?

They don't have the right to hold a referendum that will force Westminster to negotiate independence, such as the one on AV . They do have the right to hold a consultative referendum, such as the one on the EU.

How Westminster reacts to a consultative referendum will obviously depend on how convincing the result is and how stubborn they are being.

I think that right is arguable, as it's outwith the competency of the Scottish parliament???

More important is anybody of note suggesting a consultative referendum?

Holyrood can hold consultative referenda. It's up to Westminster how they deal with the result. However not recognising it might not be wise if it's a clear vote for independence. What they can't do is implement changes to the UK constitution. However as there's no clear definition of who assumed the authority to act on Scotland's part in regards the Treaty of Union it's not impossible that a referendum result could enable Holyrood to take on that role. If they do so with the backing of the electorate of Scotland then they can simply withdraw from said treaty and thus end the union.

As to your second part. The SNP are suggesting a referendum. Whether that is consultative or binding will be up to Holyrood and Westminster to negotiate. Nevertheless if there's a will in Holyrood to hold one then there will be one.

BIB - as I said that's arguable when it's outwith the competency of the Scottish parliament.

Regarding your second paragraph, they're assuming in the draft referendum bill they will receive a section 30 order again i.e. as per the Edinburgh agreement.

Yes, I would be, as I drive 50,000 miles a year.

As the precedent is likely to be set for referendums by the Supreme Court in January, then all must be voted through by Parliament.

Much to Ms Sturgeons relief I should imagine, she can continue to rail against Westminster, knowing that she can call a referendum every ten minutes knowing parliament will knock it back.

If only the government had the balls to ask the English whether you should stay - you would get you wish immediately.

There's absolutely nothing at all in the Scotland Act that prevents Holyrood from discussion of things outwith it's competency or conducting the electorate on them. Nothing whatsoever. The mandate for the last time was for exactly that kind.

It's a safe bet that May knows where this is heading which is why there are rumours of offering that in exchange for delaying it till after Brexit is complete. Not something I'd trust as if Keen is correct there's every chance that legislation might be brought in to cancel such an order or if Holyrood have already done so repealing the Act ..

Of course the Presiding Officer might attempt to impose your competency criteria but that won't go anywhere. Westminster might strike down or attempt to prevent even a consultative referendum. They'd just have to hope doing so doesn't wind us up so much Yes would be near certain to win.

The majority of Scots don't want another neverendum, so in actual fact you may find that they are doing a favour by saving you from another crushing No vote.

Doubt it. What it will probably say is that unless a referendum specifically says what should happen if a certain result occurs then the organising body have to decide. The myth that referenda are only consultative is easily disposable given the obvious example of the AV referendum which did have a consequence depending on it passing.

You still have not explained who these Scottish elite are?

Perhaps my job does mean I am responsible for policies that affect millions of people!

If you're referring to the recent YouGov poll then the figure is for those who don't want a referendum within 2 years. A similar number don't want the SNP campaigning or independence during that time either. The figure, once Don't Knows are removed, for yes is 44% if the vote was held tomorrow. All might be subject to change as that poll was shortly after the original Brexit ruling and during a week when the BBC were going all out about trains.

Not that I wouldn't treat that Polk with caution as it's got around 3 times as many non Scots respondents as there population share merits. Even after adjusting the question remains about whether there's an inherent bias in the selection or the reponses.

Ha ha... after all that bluff and bluster, in in the final paragraph you admit I'm right and the presiding officer might say it's not within the competency of the Scottish parliament.

He'd have to explain why such a bill was accepted even before 2014. Besides which if you're pinning any hope on the Presiding Officer being able to prevent any Bill being presented you're on to plums. He can only advise that in a given form that is so but given one purpose of debating a bill is to propose amendments it's only the final form that he might be able to "veto". Even then he's already indicated when asked that it'll be a matter for others to raise and not him.

From 2012, still applies. Presiding officer certifies if a Bill is within the competence or not in their personal opinion. Obviously he might be easier to explain why.


Even if the Presiding Officer was able to ‘veto’ an incompetent Bill, allowing it to proceed would still not be a decision that could be challenged in court. Any such legal action would almost certainly be thrown out as hypothetical and premature, as it would still be open to the Parliament to vote the Bill down (however unlikely it might be that the current Parliament would vote down this particular Bill!). For the same reason, while the Law Officers can challenge a Bill after it is passed but before it receives Royal Assent, anyone else would probably have to delay a challenge until the Bill became an Act.

But there won't be a referendum as the clear will,of the Scottishnpeople to want one isn't there.

You can talk all day about conditions for one and whether it's consultative or not but the plain fact is that Nicola Sturgeon does not want to risk losing her power by losing a referendum.

there won't be a referendum in this Parliament, what is the reason to hold one?