FREEDOM!!!! [4]

{{{ Transcript of Sturgeons speech for those who cant watch it }}

'Before the end of this month - and very possibly as early as tomorrow - the Prime Minister will trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, setting the UK on course to leave the EU in March 2019.

It is important, therefore, for me to report now on the Scottish Government's attempts to find compromise with the UK government and set out our plan to protect Scotland's interests.

Right now, Scotland stands at a hugely important crossroads.

We didn't choose to be in this position.

In common with most people across the country, I wish that we weren't.

But we are, and the stakes are high - so we must have a plan for the way forward.

For better or worse - depending on your point of view - the future of the UK looks very different today than it did two years ago.

As a result of the Brexit vote we face a future, not just outside the EU, but also outside the world's biggest single market.

In addition, the collapse of the Labour Party means that we face a prolonged period of uninterrupted and unchecked Conservative government at Westminster.

Some predict that the Tories could be in power now at Westminster until 2030 or beyond.

And after a period which has seen the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and, more recently, hard won extensions to its responsibilities, we now face the prospect of a centralization of power at Westminster.

Indeed, the Prime Minister herself has been clear that the Brexit process will see the UK government reserve for itself powers in areas that are currently wholly devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

All of this has massive implications for Scotland.

It has implications for our economy: for jobs, opportunities, public spending, and living standards - and for our ability to protect and advance our vital day to day priorities in education, health and business.

It has implications for our society - how open, welcoming, diverse and fair we will be in future?

And it has implications for our democracy - to what extent will we be able to determine our own direction of travel, rather than having it decided for us?

In short, it is not just our relationship with Europe that is at stake.

What is at stake is the kind of country we will become.

At times of change and uncertainty, the instinct to do nothing and just hope for the best is understandable.

But, in my view, it is not the right one.

At times like these, it is more important than ever to have a clear plan for the way ahead - to try, as far as is possible, to be in control of events and not just at the mercy of them.

That is what I have always done. It is what I have tried to do since the day after the EU referendum last year. And it is what I am determined to continue to do.

Since last June, my focus has been on trying to find an agreement with the UK government that would reconcile the UK wide vote to leave with the Scottish vote to remain.

I was encouraged in this approach by the Prime Minister's commitment last July to seek agreement with the devolved administrations on a UK wide approach before triggering Article 50.

The Scottish Government's paper, Scotland's Place in Europe, was published in good faith.

Our proposals represent significant compromise on the part of the Scottish Government.

We accepted that Scotland would leave the EU - despite the 62% vote to remain - but argued that the UK should either stay in the single market or seek an outcome that would allow Scotland to do so.

And we set out how greater powers for the Scottish Parliament could help protect Scotland's interests in a post Brexit landscape.

Over the past few months, we have worked hard - really hard - to try to find agreement. The Prime Minister and her government have been given every opportunity for compromise.

But today as we stand, for all we know, on the eve of Article 50 being triggered, not only is there no UK wide agreement on the way ahead - but the UK government has not moved even an inch in pursuit of compromise and agreement.

Our efforts at compromise have instead been met with a brick wall of intransigence.

UK membership of the single market was ruled out with no prior consultation with the Scottish Government or with the other devolved administrations - leaving us facing not just Brexit, but a hard Brexit.

There has been talk of special deals for the car industry and others, but a point blank refusal to discuss in any meaningful way a differential approach for Scotland.

And far from any prospect of significant new powers for the Scottish Parliament, the UK government is becoming ever more assertive in its intention to muscle in on the powers we already have.

The language of partnership has gone, completely.

And there should be little doubt about this - if Scotland can be ignored on an issue as important as our membership of the EU and the single market, then it is clear that our voice and our interests can be ignored at any time and on any issue.

That cannot be a secure basis on which to build a better Scotland.

But it is where we stand today.

Now let me stress, even at this late stage, I am not turning my back on further discussions should the UK government change its mind and decide it is willing to agree to our compromise proposals.

And, in any event, I will do everything I can to ensure that Scotland's interests are represented in the EU negotiations that lie ahead.

But I cannot pretend to the Scottish people that a compromise agreement looks remotely likely, given the hardline response from the Prime Minister so far.

That means I have to decide on the best plan to protect our interests now.

It is time for me to set out decisively and with clarity the way forward.

Doing nothing at this stage - in many ways, the easiest thing for me to do - would mean letting Scotland drift through the next two years, with our fingers crossed, simply hoping for the best.

And, of course, I do hope for the best.

I want the UK to get a good deal from the EU negotiations. That is clearly in Scotland's interests as well as in the interests of our friends in other parts of the UK.

But I am far from alone in fearing a bad deal or no deal.

Nor am I alone in fearing that even a so-called good deal will turn out to be significantly inferior to membership of the single market - and that it will set Scotland on a course that will not only damage our economy, but change the very nature of the society and country we are.

The problem with doing nothing now is that, by the time these fears are realized, it will be too late for Scotland to choose a different path before the damage is done.

That would not be right or fair.

Whatever path we take, it should be one decided by us, not for us.

So let me set out the plan I intend to pursue.

First, I will continue to stand up for Scotland's interests during the process of Brexit negotiations.

Second, I will now take the steps necessary to make sure that Scotland will have a choice at the end of this process.

A choice of whether to follow the UK to a hard Brexit - or to become an independent country, able to secure a real partnership of equals with the rest of the UK and our own relationship with Europe.

The Scottish Government's mandate for offering this choice is beyond doubt.

Last year we were elected, with the highest share of the constituency vote won by any party in the history of devolution, on a manifesto that said this:

"The Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum...if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out the EU against our will."

So I can confirm today that next week I will seek the authority of the Scottish Parliament to agree with the UK government the details of a section 30 order - the procedure that will enable the Scottish Parliament to legislate for an independence referendum.

The UK government was clear in 2014 that an independence referendum should - in their words - 'be made in Scotland, by the people of Scotland'.

That is a principle that should be respected today.

The detailed arrangements for a referendum - including its timing - must be for the Scottish Parliament to decide.

However, in my view, it is important that Scotland is able to exercise the right to choose our own future at a time when the options are clearer than they are now - but before it is too late to decide on our own path.

Let me be clear what I mean by that.

The timing of the Brexit negotiations is not within the control of the Scottish Government.

However, we must plan on the basis of what we know now.

And what we know is that on the timetable set out by the Prime Minister, the shape of the Brexit deal will become clear in the autumn of next year - ahead of ratification votes by other EU countries.

That is therefore the earliest point at which a referendum would be appropriate.

However, it is just as important that we do not leave it too late to choose a different path in a timely way.

If the UK leaves the EU without Scotland indicating beforehand - or at least within a short time after it - that we want a different relationship with Europe, we could face a lengthy period outside not just the EU but also the single market. That could make the task of negotiating a different future much more difficult.

These considerations lead me to the conclusion that if Scotland is to have a real choice - when the terms of Brexit are known, but before it is too late to choose our own course - then that choice should be offered between the autumn of next year, 2018, and the spring of 2019.

The third - important - aspect of planning ahead is this.

I have already said that by the time a choice comes to be made, there must be greater clarity about Brexit and its implications for us.

It is just as important that there is clarity about the implications of independence. And there will be.

We will be frank about the challenges we face and clear about the opportunities independence will give us to secure our relationship with Europe, build a stronger and more sustainable economy and create a fairer society.

Scotland's choice must be informed and up to date.

There is a great deal of talk - by all of us - about mandates from the referendums in 2014 and 2016. And neither of those results can - or should - be dismissed.

But the fact is they tell us only so much about the circumstances we find ourselves in now.

In 2014, we didn't know the UK would vote to leave the EU - had we done so it is likely that some, perhaps on both sides, would have come to a different decision.

And in 2016, independence was not on the ballot paper. We cannot simply assume that because someone voted to Remain in the EU that they would vote Yes for an independent Scotland.

What Scotland deserves, in the light of the material change of circumstances brought about by the Brexit vote, is the chance to decide our future in a fair, free and democratic way - and at a time when we are equipped with the facts we need.

It is - above all - about informed choice.

We know that Brexit has made change inevitable. The option of 'no change' is no longer available.

However, we can still decide the nature of change.

Having Scotland’s referendum - at a time when the terms of Brexit are known - will give the Scottish people a choice about the kind of change we want.

And it must be a choice for all of us.

I know there are some who want me to rule out a referendum completely or delay the decision until much further down the line.

I understand why some take that view. And of course these views weigh heavily on me.

But so does this. And this, for me, is a key consideration.

If I ruled out a referendum, I would be deciding - completely unilaterally - that Scotland will follow the UK to a hard Brexit come-what-may, no matter how damaging to our economy and our society it turns out to be.

That should not be the decision of just one politician - not even the First Minister.

By taking the steps I have set out today, I am ensuring that Scotland's future will be decided not just by me, the Scottish Government or the SNP.

It will be decided by the people of Scotland.

It will be Scotland's choice.

And I trust the people to make that choice.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{{ Transcript of Sturgeons speech for those who cant watch it }}

Once again, thanks!

She makes a very good case. At the same time, I can't help but hear echoes of the Declaration of Independence of 1776...

{{Interesting differences to be seen in the Scottish newspapers- the solely English based ones are all anti-Sturgeon, no to a second referendum, obsessed NATS ect.
But the few published in Scotland with Scottish editors-  The Daily Record, The Herald, the National ect- all take a very different approach.

This for example from the Record today (thats a pro-union paper that carried Browns'  'Vow' last time out) -

'Theresa May last week had 
the brass neck to say that it was not time for Scottish independence because we have the Brexit mess to deal with. That’s right – we can’t leave because we have to help them fix the mess that her party made and that we voted against....
...They can keep their little England with its racism, its spiraling prices, no freedom of European movement and private healthcare. Where the new bible is the Daily Mail and its flag is the sneering face of Katie Hopkins.
Good luck to them.'

Even the Scottish Sun which is a thinly veiled version of its English Murdoch paper, and pro-Union had this to say-

'WHEN Theresa May announced that “now is not the time” for a second independence referendum, she should have realised that it raises an obvious question: “When is the time?”..
..Mrs May was deluded if she thought her simple “because I say so” statement would shut down the debate.'

And the Herald are running with a story about a German petition to keep Scotland in the EU if we go independent-

' A petition calling for Scotland to be allowed to remain in the EU in the event of independence has been launched in Germany.
Addressed to President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker, the petition to "Let Scotland stay!" on WeMove.Eu has already garnered nearly 16,000 signatures.
The petition demands the EU changes its rules so that Scotland can remain as part of the EU should the country vote for independence in a prospective second referendum.'  

and also this - 'A CONSERVATIVE government minister has described Scotland as "another country" saying the "sense of nationhood" in Edinburgh "is palpable.'

Whereas some flavour of the English led media commentary goes with phrases like "Humilated Sturgeon'

Weirdly the Express seem to be trying to spin the EU vote in Scotland as a victory for Brexit!!!-

'Members of the Scottish National Party (SNP) have unashamedly bowed to Brussels and almost begged to be kept on as an independent member....More than 1m people in Scotland backed Brexit.'

True but there are more than 5 million of us and the rest who voted voted to remain! }}

well its not the time is it? you already had a referendum recently, and at the moment the UK is the UK which means you will have to wait. its not like May has refused a referendum she hasn't refused one, its just not now. it will be later. its not as if you can stay in EU if you have a referendum, so what's the rush. and if you have another referendum why not a second brexit referendum, hell lets have one every year until we get it right.

Reading those quotes is like night and day with how most papers, even Scottish ones, talked about the first referendum.

{{Reading between the lines a bit Sturgeon might have got May a bit closer to the negotiating table.

Turns out first in a clumsy move given the current mood, May 'forgot' to notify the devolved parliaments of the date for triggering Article 50- they found out from the press.

This obviously gave an opportunity for complaint-

'A spokesman for First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: "The fact the UK government failed to properly and fully inform all of the devolved administrations on the plans for triggering Article 50 speaks volumes - and totally exposes as empty rhetoric Westminster's language about equal partnership."

Laying on the SNP's strong criticism of May's lack of engagement again.

In response when asked about snubbing the devolved parliaments this way a spokesperson for the PM said-

'"What we have done today is set out the date when we are triggering Article 50.
As the PM has said, there will be opportunities between now and the actual triggering for more discussions with the devolved nations."

In other interesting tidbits the former Governor of the Bank of England said this about the currency issue that was such a big argument used by the NO side last time -

'Lord King, who headed the Bank of England between 2003 and 2013, said there are plenty of small countries the same size as Scotland.
It has... the people, it has a capital city, a history and culture, it could be an independent country. The question is, does it want to be given the consequences of it?" he said..... "I myself don't think there are any major problems in terms of currency, that was the thing project fear focussed on last time, but there is an issue about public finances."

A very different tune to that sung by the Bank of England last time!! }}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{{ Transcript of Sturgeons speech for those who cant watch it }}

It's not that I can't watch Sturgeon, it's just that I choose not to, that woman really annoys me...

{{Well looks like Sturgeons gambit to get May to the table is working-

'Theresa May will meet Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland.....BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg told BBC Radio 4's Today that Mrs May will be treading a fine line in her conversations with Ms Sturgeon. "One of the dizzying aspects of all of this is how does the prime minister extricate us from one union, while trying to preserve the other.
She will reinforce the possibility that as powers come back from Brussels, whether over fishing, farming or anything else, they could go to the devolved administrations.."- BBC

Sturgeons even making May come up here to her. }}

{{ To make things worse for May on the day she has come up to get told whats happening by Sturgeon the oil markets are starting to recover and a major new find has been discovered in Scottish waters- 'An oil exploration firm has made what it has described as the "largest undeveloped discovery" of oil in UK waters.
Hurricane Energy said one billion barrels of recoverable oil could be contained within the Greater Lancaster Area, 60 miles (97km) west of Shetland.
The company hopes to begin production in 2019."- BBC

No doubt we will be told all that oil is not worth having if your Scottish- yet somehow find its way into the coffers of the Treasury in London, just like all the other oil revenue shamelessly squandered before it.

And even worse for May the GERS figures are out-

' Scotland generated £800 more in tax per person than the UK average during the last financial year. Scotland’s spending was also lower than the UK average over the past 5 years. Scotland’s spending was 44.2% of GDP over the last 5 years. The UK average was 45.4%.
Spending on social security last year was also lower in Scotland than the UK average. In Scotland it was 15.5% of GDP compared to 16% for the UK.
The front page of The Herald today reports that Scotland’s economy is 11% better off in terms of GDP per capita than the UK.
The Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland Report continues 33 years of strong performances by the Scottish economy. Had Scotland been an independent country, it would currently have a net cash surplus of over £50 billion and no public debt.
Scotland’s economic position, relative to the UK finances, would have been £8.3 billion better off in the past 5 years alone.'- Business For Scotland }}}

{{ Well looks like Sturgeon got May to the table but May still aint willing to talk }}

'Speaking after the meeting, Ms Sturgeon told BBC Scotland that she had been frustrated by the talks, which she said had been cordial but had not seen Mrs May make any concessions over the first minister's demands for a distinctive Brexit deal for Scotland.'- BBC

{{{ The Daily Mail have proved their worth yet again.
The UK's two most powerful politicians meet up to debate the future of the country- how do the Mail cover it? With this demeaning rubbish-



{{which after outrage from all quarters they changed, a bit, to try to pas it off as a joke or something}}



from the paper- "What stands out here are the legs - and the vast expanse on show.
There is no doubt that both these women consider their pins to be the finest weapon in their physical arsenal....(May's are) "demurely arranged in her customary finishing-school stance.....(Sturgeons pose is) "a direct attempt at seduction".

It really is a hideous, racist, sexist, homophobic disgusting little rag the Mail.   }}}

I wish I could say I was surprised but yeah ... the Mail is shit.

{{Sturgeon turns up the pressure on May- Scottish Parliament just voted  69-59 in favour of a second referendum.  A referendum call just went from the favoured position of the SNP to the settled will of the Scottish Parliament representing the Scottish people.
Your go May!}}

Sturgeon is not respecting the 'will of the people' though is she?

The will of what people? The Scottish equivalent of the daily mail??

Sturgeon is not respecting the 'will of the people' though is she? - Figg

{{That rather depends through which glass you view it.

If you mean do the polls show more than 50% of people want a referendum now then no she is not.

If on the otherhand you view it in parliamentary terms- the SNP were democratically elected by the people saying they would do exactly this in these exact circumstances if it came to it.
And today the Scottish Parliament democratically put that to a vote and passed it as the whole Parliament.
So then yes, she is representing the will of the people as expressed through the ballot box. }}}

Interesting piece from The Guardian about the implications of the EU's stance on the potential Scottish referendum, and why it could delay the holding of said vote.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/31/sturgeon-tells-may-no-rational-reason-to-block-scottish-independence-referendum

I think Sturgeon's stance on wanting the details of would either option would entail to be clear is the right one (and stands in stark contrast to the deliberate obfuscation that characterized the UK government's strategy for both the Scottish and EU referendums). From a strategic perspective, I suppose the question is whether the extended timetable would hurt support for independence as people become accustomed to the idea of Brexit. Though unless May is somehow able to convince Tusk and co. to change their minds about the terms of the deal I think that's less likely than the alternative.

{{ I am still certain the strategy remains the same- get Westminster to negotiate, get Scotland a bigger seat at the Brexit table.
There is some evidence its starting to work- May of course is sticking to her No line and saying nothing, but Mundell her Scottish Secretary is sounding more conciliatory notes among the rhetoric- guaranteeing in the Commons that Scotland would get new powers post Brexit and there has been further talk from him about involving the Scottish Parliament in negotiations and opening 'lines of communication'.

What I hope, and now largely expect to see the outcome being that May gets to claim triumph in no new referendum at this time- and Sturgeon will be able to save face and say she put the interests of the country ahead of party and can stand down the referendum for now until her government has negotiated the post Brexit deal with Westminster.

The only way I see the referendum going ahead is if Westminster doesn't involve the Scottish Parliament fully in the process and tries to present a fait accompli on them at the end of it.
Sturgeon isnt bluffing about holding a referendum, but she is using it as something to negotiate her position with. As I mentioned before she has too, its the only card she has to play with any leverage}}}

{{ I am reminded of an exchange in the Wickerman between Lord Summerisle and Sergeant Howie (paraphrasing slightly)-

Howie- What about the one true God? To whom churches have been raised in these lands for generations? What of Him?'

Summerisle- He had his chance and in the modern parlance, blew it.


Why am I quoting this? Because figures for Church attendance in Scotland were out today - out of a population just over 5 million only 390,000 attend a church and 42% of them are over 65. So give it another 10 years you can pretty much half that again.

Its a 50% drop since they started counting in 1984.

Now we are no longer a Christian country, can stop giving automatic seats in the Lords to churches? And all those tax breaks too?}}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{Now we are no longer a Christian country, can stop giving automatic seats in the Lords to churches? And all those tax breaks too?}}}

And if you did, would the Highlands call for their own independence referendum? Or has that changed too?

{{I shouldn't think so, apart from the fact almost no one lives in most of the Highlands.
Also a part of the figure for those who do still go to Church is down to Polish immigrants setting up their own. If it was not for them the number would be even smaller.
As it is the percentage of Scots regularly attending a Church is now just 7% of the population.
Religion has been on the wane in Scotland since the Enlightenment- this is just the final days of it. Taken its time to die admittedly but not before time in my view. }}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{I shouldn't think so, apart from the fact almost no one lives in most of the Highlands. }}}

Isn't that that what England says about Scotland when they're deciding where to put the nuclear bases?
When I hitchhiked around the Highlands years ago, attending Kirk each Sunday wasn't so much about religion as about a weekly town-hall meeting of the entire community for 20 miles around. It was the local government. They talked about the Clearances and the Lowland Lairds as if it had all happened last week. I'm sure back then, trying to phase out the church would have been seen as just another conspiracy, along with taking the land and the language. (Oh, and they still had the Black Watch which was mostly Highland boys.... Would have made an interesting fight! )

{{The Highlands are much changed- a lot of the properties were bought up by retirees from England or the cities in Scotland. Most rural churches are gone or fighting to stay open and repaired.
Even in my town we still have plenty of churches- two big ones in the main town and several in th immediate surrounds- but they are big buildings with almost no one in them.
In the age of internet and instant communications the importance of a weekly gathering point is much less than it once was to these communities.

And re nuclear- sadly no- they didnt put them in the Highlands- they put them within range of the most densely populated part of the country the Clyde valley- I for example live in the 'instant annihilation' zone. They would never have done so in England- in fact they rejected putting them in Portsmouth precisely for the reason it was too close to population centres- despite then placing it in the heart of Scotlands population centre. }}}

Sorry to hear that, but not surprised. The same things are happening here, but we're not going without a fight.

{{I dont think the loss of Churches and religion is necessarily a bad thing here- even in regard to community spirit and as a focal point.  Its perhaps not as pessimistic a future as you imagine Dave if things here are any indicator.
My own town is a good example- online community groups are plentiful- and effective- it was such a group got one of the towns oldest and most important unused buildings, the Burgh Hall in the heart of town, to be renovated, repaired and is to reopen as a community centre, with exhibitions, art galleries, cafe ect
Similarly local groups have applied sufficient pressure to prevent the closure of the last council run care home in the town, the renovation of the Victorian Pier, the rejuvenation of the Promenade and demolition and rebuilding of a new Hall and Theatre to replace the ugly as sin concrete block one they put up in the sixties. All organized online by folks living here who want to make a difference and improve the community. The desire to do that, the desire to have a sense of community has not gone away, its changed how its expressed and the means to do so. And God and church buildings just aren't needed in that mix any more. }}}