Nicola Sturgeon signals no Indyref2 without Westminster backing

There will be no second independence referendum unless Westminster agrees to one, Nicola Sturgeon has suggested.

The First Minister was appearing at a Women For Independence conference when she was asked about the prospect of a second independence referendum without Westminster approval.

Voicing her concern that Unionists would claim an independence referendum under such circumstances illegal, she said: “The beauty of 2014 was that it was an agreed process.”

The SNP leader added: ” We may get into a situation where the UK government says no, we’re not going to agree order and I think if that happens we need to rise above that, we need to make the case of how unreasonable that is.

“And ultimately if the only way through that is to take that to an election and ask the people of Scotland to use an election to say no, we will have absolutely our right to choose, I think that’s what that will take.”

The comments will be seen by many as confirmation that the current mandate, won in the 2016 Holyrood election, will not be implemented.  The SNP manifesto contained a pledge to hold a second independence referendum should Scotland face the prospect of being dragged out of the European Union against its will.

That manifesto pledge was strengthened by a Holyrood vote in March 2017 which backed calls for a second independence referendum.

However a subsequent snap election call by Theresa Ma,y which resulted in gains for the Scottish Conservatives, stalled the Indyref2 process.

Some independence supporters have urged the SNP to substitute a Scottish election or a UK general election for an Indyref if Westminster refuses to acknowledge the current mandate.  However the comments from Nicola Sturgeon suggests the SNP will seek a fresh mandate instead.

What the party does if Westminster still refuses to grant a Section 30 order has not been explained.

Please follow and like us 🙂

24 thoughts on “Nicola Sturgeon signals no Indyref2 without Westminster backing

    1. Tim Chapman

      Lol, mandate you mean the 21 seats lost at last GE some mandate that btw, call one you’ll lose again anyway, us unionist would love yo to call one as we know it will be the end of that bitch sturgeon just like it was the end of salmond (the beast) in 2014 so us unionist say “bring it on”

      1. Jas

        Hey, Tim, so you’re an ‘us unionist’. But what kind of ‘us unionist’? Are you the Tory sort, in love with Boris and his posh, elitist chums? Or maybe you’re a Corbynite? Demanding self-determination for every small country struggling for freedom and democracy, EXCEPT for Scotland that is. Cos Scotland’s just a wee diddy region, ain’t it Tim? Full of sub-humans who don’t deserve a voice. That’s how you want to live, eh Tim? That’s the label you desire? To be a person whose life can be trampled over as it is worthless in the great British scheme of things?

        So what are you a Boris lover, or a Jeremy lover? Whose shoes do you dream of licking’ being the subservient cretin you obviously are?

        1. alex fernie

          Well said Jas, no reply from little tim chapman i see, the “us unionists” don’t even have a clue what the bigger picture is for Scotland, ignorant sheeple amaze me!

      2. John

        Have you come over from The Scotstripe Tim now that it is going down the pan , you would be better off over at the Hermuck , you will find fellow “us unionists ” there in their droves ! .

      3. Bill

        Being a unionist hasn’t helped your basic understanding and knowledge of English or English grammar. Gratuitous ad hominem comments about the First Minister also show the paucity of your argument. Time for you to reflect on how to behave in an independent Scotland, as it will surely happen. History is not a static event and the United Kingdom is no longer functioning, (if it ever did) to the benefit of the Scottish people, you included.

      4. William Walker

        Seems like all you want to contribute to a sensible point of view is to use vile language.May i suggest you think long and hard at yourself before it’s too late for your sanity. Thank you.

      5. Roy Wilson

        What a sad wimp of a man who dose not have faith in your own nation what are you afraid of standing up for yourself and your country no thats not for you, You would prefer to be led like a dog and jump when you are told

        1. Bob

          Tim, who are the ‘us unionists’you refer to? Is it;
          a) orange order unionists
          b) LOL unionists
          c) the fascist Britain First type
          d) or just the little voices in your head type of unionist?

  1. Jason Smoothpiece

    I fully trust the SNP to take the correct course of action however independence is rapidly becoming an urgent necessity as opposed to a simply desirable political situation.

    The crisis at Westminster is a real worry and I think regardless of your politics you have to now seriously consider supporting independence.

    Let’s become a normal country as soon as possible.

  2. John

    Let the Tories keep digging away in their own hole and see where it takes us , let’s see if Corbyn has the guts to come off the fence he is glued to and make a choice one way or the other , by that time the all the Scottish people will be crying out for Independence , now is not the time !.

  3. Brian Powell

    Hang on, she has told the virulent opposers of Ind that she won’t go for one without their permission? Then they won’t give it.
    This is like Labour in Scotland saying there are no circumstances where they would support Ind, that gives Unionists carte blanche to do whatever they want.
    I don’t believe she said that.

    1. Brian Powell

      So if Westminster keeps the EU powers, strips Holyrood of more powers, overrides the Scottish Courts and says it will reduce Holyrood to an office, she will just say that’s unreasonable?

  4. Cubby

    Independence is normal and advocating dependency is very very abnormal. Chapman above is clearly a very troubled abnormal person.

  5. Martin Tierney

    It looks to me like she is saying should Westminster refuse Article 30, which is obviously a rhetorical point, then, as she says: ‘if the only way through that is to take that to an election and ask the people of Scotland to use an election to say no, we will have absolutely our right to choose, I think that’s what that will take.” It would be unlikely in the extreme that she is unaware of this.

  6. Lochside

    I hope NS is going for an Independence General Election…a binary choice between Hope and Hopelessness as demonstrated by the half witted toffs running Westmonster.
    It will take us back to the original basis of dissolving the Union: that of the majority of seats..even by one…that is the paliamentary democracy template championed by the Britnat boasters and their apologists. The one that Magaret Thatcher agreed was the basis for Independence.

    No more bent referendums…just first past the post as a means to regaining our sovereignty.

    1. commenter

      This new position of many internet commenters seems like an acceptance that we can’t get a majority of support for independence, and so are resorting to winning with a minority instead.

      An independence bid without an above-board process that delivers majority support just wouldn’t work.

  7. Patrick Wight

    Does it ever occur to anyone that the SNP may be in collusion with Westminster? It is well known that MI5 have infiltrated the party.

    1. Duncan Strachan

      i think that is probable. westminster is so cock sure of its self it is not even trying to cover anything up like the recent oil finds and forecasts of their value, the viscious DWP and its appaling privatised administration, its desire to privatise nhs , it despises Scotland and the Scots and wishes to obliterate the Scots brand. etc etc. it is very sure of itself. Unnaturally.

  8. Rosemary Hunter

    This is a complete misrepresentation of what the FM said at the WFI AGM. I genuinely can’t see where you are getting this ‘suggestion’ from.
    The point she made was if we declared UDI it wouldn’t be recognised in the world and therefore isn’t a possibility. Also that if they didn’t agree a Section 30 then we can go to the electorate and if the majority agree a position it would be very difficult for the UK govt to continue saying no to our position.

    Stirring like this isn’t useful for the movement or the furthering of self-determination.

    No idea what you are trying to prove with this ??

  9. commenter

    A not-agreed referendum Yes result probably wouldn’t go anywhere. You might see legal challenges to it, some councils might not cooperate, No voters might be urged to boycott it.

    Nicola’s comments on it do make sense IMO

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By :