No, because we really don't know the outcome.

Do you advocate an Indyref as soon as possible? If so, what are the factors driving you to think that we would be better off outside the UK following Brexit without any information on what Brexit looks like?

My eyes are wide open.

What does the EU want?

We all know the starting point we want to leave whilst making it as painless and as amicable as possible whilst not having them calling the shots they wanted us to stay and become further integrated and now we are not they either want us in a Single Market where we continue to pay and they continue to call the shots or we have to pay a price for leaving.

According to them they cannot allow us access to anything unless we pay through the nose for it basically , at the same time whilst telling us we cannot leave and have a free trade deal they have and are negotiating further cheap and free trade deals with other countries .

To know what the UK wants, so it can prepare for negotiations.

But you want the SNP government to be doing their best to get the best Brexit deal for Scotland, yet you admit we don't know what the outcome will be?

I would like a second referendum when it is winnable. I have no idea when that will be.

Is there an equivalent to Article 50 in other international treaties?

Nothing like it existed in EU treaties prior to the Treaty of Lisbon.

It's purpose is to facilitate an agreement between the UK and the EU.

An agreement on what?

Whatever it is, the agreement will require a super qualified majority.

Spain would need to persuade several countries to vote with them.

Any Brexit deal would need the equivalent of 65 percent of the population to agree on it. Practically though I can't imagine part of the UK being inside the EU while the majority was outside, while desirable on a personal level how would it actually work?

On the subject of an independent Scotland joining the EU things are different because then every country has to agree, in this case Spain would have a veto.

Anything could happen..

The new SQV procedure was introduced six weeks after the Scottish referendum, which I can't help thinking is linked to that result.

At the same time, the EU said there would be a transition period for countries who preferred to use the existing method? Maybe it is for that reason, but a more likely explanation is that it is not intended to be used until Article 50 is activated.

Only the new SVP will be used after the 31st March 2017.

Coincidence?

Which raises the question of what part of Article 48 might require an amendment as part of any agreement?

if the majority of the EU countries support an amendment to the Functioning of the European Union Treaty (the new name for the Treaty of Rome), one of the consequences could help bring about the internal enlargement of the EU.

If an agreement can be reached on Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar, remaining in the EU, it could potentially resolve issues surrounding some of the Balkan countries waiting to join, and in particular the disputed territory of Kosovo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access...European_Union

"The Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) between the EU and Kosovo was signed on 26 February 2016 and went into force on 1 April 2016."

Spain would not veto Serbia (that includes the disputed territory of Kosovo) joining the EU. As a part of the EU, the new agreement on the internal enlargement of the EU will apply to Serbia. If the territory of Kosovo reaches an agreement with Serbia on its independence, that would mean Spain cannot use its veto.

Another consequence of an amendment to Article 48 could see demands from all the regions of Spain for a change to its constitution that would enable regions to follow the same path to independence from Spain and remain within the EU.

Will Sturgeon call a new Scottish Independence referendum or is she all talk? Support for Scottish Independence is Scotland is slipping so what would be the point? Only a small proportion of the Scottish population voted in the Brexit referendum so maybe she has underestimated just how popular leaving the EU is among Scots.

Of course she will call for a referendum. But the SNP government will only look to have won when they are convinced they can win it. That may be a few years away yet.

Brexit hasn't even happened yet.

No, Brexit hasn't happened. But the ball has been set rolling and as the PM said - 'Brexit means Brexit'. I rather think that Sturgeon has over reached herself and as the polls now predict, the people of Scotland would rather Brexit than have Independence.

I wonder if the UK Government could force the issue here and call an independence vote prior to Brexit. The SNP couldn't refuse one, they would highly likely lose and Sturgeon would be gone.

It's a risk for the UK Government but is it a smaller risk than waiting until Sturgeon thinks she can win?

I would add that I see this option as highly unlikely as no side really wants it as far as I can see.

'Brexit means Brexit' is as meaningless a political statement as ' Red, white and blue Brexit', 'hard Brexit' or 'soft Brexit'. They mean nothing.

Brexit hasn't happened yet.

The UK government will not call a second Scottish referendum. They are mired in the disaster that is Brexit. That is an all but impossible task. Adding the potential of Scottish independence into that mix would be utterly madness.

In saying that, voting for Brexit is utter madness, so you never know!

The U.K. Government has no mandate in Scotland for government nevermind to impose a regerendum over the head of a government that Scotland actually voted for. I hope as committed supporter of devolution the suggestion that the British governent would take such an approach in their dealings with Scotland would appall you. Somehow though, I think it would thrill you.

I did say it would be unlikely to happen but the UK Govt could offer an early referendum.

I'm committed to Scotland being the best country it can be either in or out of the Union and whatever I think would make us most economically prosperous I would be more than willing to vote for.

Have a Happy Hogmanay and I wish you all the best for the New Year.

The SNP don't have a mandate in Scotland.

Presumably Salmond was convinced the first time around ? What went wrong ? What will be different next time, of there is a next time ?

The Scottish parliament was designed to not allow a single party an overall majority, particularly a SNP majority. The 2011 election effectively 'broke' the system and gave the SNP a majority.

As far as Salmond was concerned this was going to be the only opportunity for a majority SNP government to call a referendum. He had to have the referendum. For him to not call one, under these circumstances, would have been a nonsense. To win the referendum was always going to be exceedingly very difficult. To come so close to winning was pretty remarkable.

It was designed to give more say over how money is spent in Scotland. The big furore of the time being decisions affecting Scotland being made in Westminster. And so, devolution was born.

But, that's not what nats wanted to hear, and so, they live in the delusion that it was some big means of thwarting anything independence-ish.

You say the SNP won't hold a referendum unless they are "sure" they can win it yet tell us that in 2014 Salmond did just that - called a referendum but for a very different reason. But presumably they hope to have another referendum sometime down the road because that surely is the reason they exist as a party?

But isn't it also a risk for the SNP that they, like all parties over time, slowly lose support generally and the chance will, in any event, be gone?

Surely constantly talking about another referendum (maybe) but then nothing happening cannot go on for ever as it will become apparent to all, if it isn't already, that it is nothing but a bluff?

the constant talking about another referendum in Scotland is mostly by unionist MSPs .... it seems to their obsession!

About the only thing I agree with Nicola Sturgeon on is that Theresa May should guarantee EU citizens already here their rights after we leave. This can be done before any Article 50 or negotiations and whilst some EU leaders want us to do that for their country people the EU is refusing to say Brits already in other EU countries will be ok. I say we should state now we guarantee EU citizens here now their rights and show we are better than those at the top in the EU .

The only reason May hasn't already done it is because she wants to be sure that it will be reciprocal across the rest of the EU. That is all. And I think that's a wise thing for her to do. Yet Sturgeon is huffing and puffing over it as if she can't see that, and if she really can't, then she's not fit to be a FM.

Sturgeon is asking as there are a number of EU nationals living in Scotland who also want this question answered.

I see the Herald is reporting a poll that claims that a majority of Scots don't want another referendum in 2017. Which is just as well, as there is hee haw chance of a referendum in 2017.