The Results of the UK's European Members Election 2019.

[BIAD]

Timely article.

Indyref2 'framework' bill published at Holyrood. (Indyref2 = Second Independence referendum)

'Legislation which could pave the way for a new Scottish independence referendum has been tabled at Holyrood.



The Scottish government wants to put the question of independence to a new public vote in the second half of 2020.
However, the Referendums (Scotland) Bill does not set a date or question, with ministers seeking agreement with
the UK government

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said "now more than ever it is essential that we keep Scotland's options open".
Constitutional Relations Secretary Mike Russell gave a statement to MSPs on Wednesday afternoon about the
bill and plans for a "citizens' assembly" to discuss Brexit and independence.

The Scottish Conservatives said the "latest stunt" was "all about Nicola Sturgeon pandering to her party, not
speaking for the country". Ms Sturgeon announced in April that she wanted a new independence referendum to
happen before the end of the current Scottish Parliament term in 2021.

She told MSPs that she wanted to secure a "Section 30 order" - an agreement similar to that underpinning the 2014
referendum - from the UK government before doing this, to put the vote "beyond doubt or challenge".

The UK government has so far rejected such an agreement, but Ms Sturgeon said she would bring forward legislation
to "set the rules for any referendum that is now or in the future within the competence of the Scottish Parliament".
She wants the legislation to be passed by the end of this year, with a view to applying it specifically to a second
independence referendum in the event a deal is struck with UK ministers.

If such an agreement is secured, then the question, date and referendum period could be added to the bill via
secondary legislation. The bill as it stands has been ruled within Holyrood's remit by Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh.

Speaking ahead of Wednesday's statement, Ms Sturgeon said that "Scotland must have the chance to choose a
better future than the one being offered by Westminster". She added: "An independence referendum within this
parliamentary term will give Scotland the opportunity to choose to be an independent European nation -rather than
have a Brexit future imposed upon us.

"We will seek agreement to a transfer of power at an appropriate point to enable an independence referendum
that is beyond challenge to be held later in this parliament. "It is essential the UK government recognises that it
would be a democratic outrage if it seeks to block such a referendum - indeed, any such stance would, in my view,
prove to be utterly unsustainable...'

BBC:

[Ninurta]

Well, being American, I've got no business weighing in on European politics, but I do have a few random thoughts that are probably worth less than I paid for them.

First, it appears to my untrained eye that all of the parties opposing Brexit are left-wing parties. They have descriptions like "social-democrat" and "democratic socialist", both of which mean exactly the same thing to my mind. If it's the case that only the left wing is opposing Brexit, then that tells me all I need to know about it.

On the subject of Scottish Independence, I can certainly see why the Scots are a wee bit pissed off at Westminster. I can see that, actually, going back several hundred years. As Gordi says, they seem to need Westminster's approval to separate, but if you gotta ask permission to be free, how free are you really gonna be?

As an aside, there is a running joke around here that I am the boss of my house... because Grace said I could be! Think about that just a couple of minutes, then read on.

Once upon a time in America, we too found that England thought we needed permission to separate from them, and that got just a little ugly before it was all said and done. Is Scotland prepared for that sort of ugliness... AGAIN?

As Wallfire said, the aftermath was nearly as ugly. The next 10 or 20 years was pretty nasty at times, until we got the pecking order settled here. Hell, even George Washington sent his troops to draw blood from some unruly upstarts out on the frontier who somehow got into their heads the notion that when the words "freedom" and "liberty" had been applied to them, it meant they were free men. They (and we) weren't free at all, something that Washington pounded into our heads with no small amount of force. What those words REALLY meant was that we had just traded one Master for another, the former being far away and negligibly irritating, the latter being right on our doorsteps, and thoroughly troublesome and vexing. In hindsight, I'm not entirely sure it was a fair trade, or worth the blood spilled. See "The Whiskey Rebellion" in history books.

So is Scotland prepared to trade a UK Master for an EU Master? It sounds like they are, but take it from me, that's not all it's cracked up to be. A Master is a Master, no matter what language it speaks. How will Scotland fare when the Tax Man from the EU uses their resources to bolster French or German roadways and water supplies? How will that make Scotland better off?

I reckon that's a question that only the Scots can answer.

Speaking of resources, I saw mention of North sea oil - quite a valuable lot of it, I understand. Do the Scots really think that the UK is just going to let that go, gratis? Do they really think that the EU isn't going to seize control of it (whether de facto or de jure matters little)? After all, they're building their army and police forces for SOMETHING... one might ask an old whiskey maker on the frontier just what he thinks that "something" might be, but being dead he'd be unable to answer, I suppose.

All in all, we, you and I, live in interesting times. Exchanging your alliance with a copperhead for an alliance with a rattlesnake doesn't seem, to me, to be much change. If you're going to declare independence, do it like you mean it, and tell 'em both to feck off, and let the troops fall where they may! Scotland is not "independent" when they are still subjects of the EU. That would just be a fairy tale to tell the children so that they could sleep better at night, and grow up big and strong to be proper slaves to foreign masters.

.

[BIAD]

...Scotland is not "independent" when they are still subjects of the EU.
That would just be a fairy tale to tell the children so that they could sleep better at night, and grow up big and strong
to be proper slaves to foreign masters.

That is a relevant point as the need to leave an oppressive situation is only based on a known history and joining
another relationship that is new and has no past negatives, doesn't guarantee the future will be better.

Scotland should be independent... and then create its links to other independent countries and collectives.
But the governing of Scotland should always reflect that separateness and hold its sovereignty to itself.

[gordi]

I had to look-up the Barnett Formula and even though it's only from Wikipedia, it's seems there's
doubt in the equation. Personally, I have no current opinion and I need to look at it...

Again, I need to full appreciate both sides before I'd offer my opinion, but I certainly can already see how London
is always seen to benefit first. I would like to agree with Gordi that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are well
-behind in the queue for infrastructure funding, but here in the North-East of England is also well down on the list
when it comes to looking for help from the Government.

I'm not bitching for my corner, I'm just saying that there is correlation of a certain preference for spending by
the London-based Government, but I don't (or don't want to!)... think that it's connected to the Scottish and
Welsh public not being English.
I'd prefer to say it's about distance from the capital...

Yup, that's why I try very hard to refer to Westminster, WM and London (rather than "England") when talking about this issue. ALL of WM's policies are VERY London-centric. They don't understand and frankly don't really care what happens anywhere outside of of the M25 unless they can asset-strip it!

One of the main issues with the Barnett Formula is that the proportion of monies allocated to the "regions" is based on a percentage of WHAT WM WANTS TO SPEND on services etc.
When WM privatises NHS services, or it funds Further Education by allowing Universities to charge fees, or supplements Healthcare funding by charging for prescriptions etc etc THOSE "savings" come out of, not only the English regional budgets but the Scottish, Welsh and N.Irish budgets too - Whether the other "regions" want to privatise/cut those areas of spending or not.
Scotland has a VERY different view or philosophy on Health, Education, Defense spending etc to WM's.
We believe that Further Education should be free to all of our students.
We believe that Healthcare should be free to all our citizens.
We don't want nuclear weapons on Scottish soil. etc

But WM basically forces changes to our budgets in all of these areas (and more) through the Barnett Formula and the Scottish Government has to find ways of protecting the funding of Further Education and NHS Scotland etc from it's own revenues, and they have done so very successfully:

Further Education is free to Scottish students.
Much fewer NHS services are privatised in Scotland.
Nurses wages are subsidised/protected (and are therefore higher) in Scotland.
Prescriptions are free in Scotland.
Free dental care, Free optical care, better provision of care for the elderly etc


But WE SCOTS are funding all of that from our OWN BUDGETS.
It's not FREE... it's paid for with Scots tax revenues and delivered by careful, efficient management of tight budgets.

In terms of trust/integrity... Are you sitting comfortably?
Did you know that Ministers of the Scottish Govt (led by Nicola Sturgeon) have NOT TAKEN any of the PAY RISES AWARDED to them since 2008/9?
They donate the amount of the rise back into public service budgets!
BUT, Incredibly... because "officially" their salary has risen, they DO PAY TAX on the increased Salary (so are actually worse off than 2008/9 VOLUNTARILY!) (Have you ever seen that reported on the BBC?)

Would you ever see that happening at WM I wonder?

THESE are all examples of why I think ScotGov is very different to WM and that I'd be much happier if ScotGov were in control of all of Scottish revenues and expenditure - It's a matter of integrity and trust I suppose.
(Luckily for Scotland, we ARE a Nation State and have the means to move towards Independence. A luxury my friends in the North of England do not currently have.)

[BIAD]

Admirable conduct by members of the Scottish Parliament, I agree, and knowing how the BBC twist stories,
I wouldn't expect to see it on the 9 o'clock news.

It is a sneaky action for the Scottish governance to come up with ideas that benefited their public and then
have to fund it without assistance from Westminster. Liverpool drug-addicts receive help via Government
aid, battered-wives of Birmingham can live somewhere safe through monies funded by the Government and
litter-picking around a leisure-area can be paid for because of a nationwide campaign rolled out by the UK
Government.

Chunks of money that make them look good first and have an effect on those they're supposed to serve, second.

Edit: '...A luxury my friends in the North of England do not currently have...'

Oh I hear yer'!!

[Wallfire]

Thanks wood runner for explaining better what i meant  .
Another thing that the Scots must remember is that any dealings they will have with London will not be with the people in power, but with the puppets. The mess the British government is in now shows its inability to act as a government, and its been a very long time since it has acted as a government. 
Look at the millions given to chosen countries, how people have been placed into positions to drain off money, look at the people who have been given sanctuary, murderers rapists, but a Christian woman denied a safe place.
The puppet master is not going to let Scotland and all its money get away.
So as I see it the puppet master has enough of his people in place in Scotland, When Scotland get Independence it will be weak and time for the puppet master to unleash the urban war. Scotland will be  engulfed in bombings and shootings ( think of London but with guns and bombs)
The EU wont help as they support the puppet master, England wont help because its controlled by the puppet master.
People think of Independence as running in the streets shouting and waving flags, yes there will be running and shouting but  it will be from horror and fear of the bombs and guns.
The puppet master always brings hate and killing.
Just something to remember.

[gordi]

Thanks wood runner for explaining better what i meant  .
Another thing that the Scots must remember is that any dealings they will have with London will not be with the people in power, but with the puppets. The mess the British government is in now shows its inability to act as a government, and its been a very long time since it has acted as a government. 
Look at the millions given to chosen countries, how people have been placed into positions to drain off money, look at the people who have been given sanctuary, murderers rapists, but a Christian woman denied a safe place.
The puppet master is not going to let Scotland and all its money get away.
So as I see it the puppet master has enough of his people in place in Scotland, When Scotland get Independence it will be weak and time for the puppet master to unleash the urban war. Scotland will be  engulfed in bombings and shootings ( think of London but with guns and bombs)
The EU wont help as they support the puppet master, England wont help because its controlled by the puppet master.
People think of Independence as running in the streets shouting and waving flags, yes there will be running and shouting but  it will be from horror and fear of the bombs and guns.
The puppet master always brings hate and killing.
Just something to remember.

I'm sorry Wallfire, but that just doesn't ring true (apart from the puppet-masters not wanting to lose the assets of Scotland).
At present, the UK IS Leaving the EU.
When that happens, it will very likely trigger a Scottish Referendum for Independence. (It is our sovereign right - WM cannot stop that under international law)
The EU don't want to lose the UK as members - Scotland has 25% of Europe's Oil and Gas reserves in its domain. They would welcome Scotland to remain in/rejoin the EU with open arms.
If WM tried to stop either a Scottish Independence Referendum or EU membership for an Independent Scotland, the EU most definitely WOULD help Scotland. What would they have to gain by standing by and letting the Rest of the UK begin an unnecessary civil war?
Scotland has shown how it handles hugely important referenda before.
The 2014 Indyref was described by unionists as "divisive" but not a drop of blood was shed during the entire process.
Scottish people do NOT think of Independence as running about in the streets flag-waving. Frankly - that's quite patronising. We've thought long and hard about it for many decades and when the time is right it will happen, but for all of the right reasons.
Anyone who thinks Scotland will be "weak" after Independence perhaps does not know much about Scotland right now.
G

[gordi]

...On the subject of Scottish Independence, I can certainly see why the Scots are a wee bit pissed off at Westminster. I can see that, actually, going back several hundred years. As Gordi says, they seem to need Westminster's approval to separate, but if you gotta ask permission to be free, how free are you really gonna be?

The Act of Union has no provision for asking for permission.
Permission is not required under international law.
WM is implying that Scotland has to ask permission, but legally that is not the case.
Up until now, the Scottish Government has been playing by the book. Making sure that it doesn't give WM any grounds for dispute or action. But, in answer to your question "if you have to ask permission to be free, how free are you going to be?" That, in a nutshell is our point. We do not recognise the implication that we as a sovereign state have to seek anyone's permission. If we decide that we want freedom, then we will have it. End of.

Once upon a time in America, we too found that England thought we needed permission to separate from them, and that got just a little ugly before it was all said and done. Is Scotland prepared for that sort of ugliness... AGAIN?

It is now 2019.
By provision of the Act of Union, Scotland is an equal partner in UNION with England.
We are NOT a colony or subservient state like the US used to be.
To achieve Independence, all we have to do is dissolve the Union by voting to do so and letting the rest of the world know.

So is Scotland prepared to trade a UK Master for an EU Master? It sounds like they are, but take it from me, that's not all it's cracked up to be. A Master is a Master, no matter what language it speaks. How will Scotland fare when the Tax Man from the EU uses their resources to bolster French or German roadways and water supplies? How will that make Scotland better off?

I reckon that's a question that only the Scots can answer.

I'm not sure that you've completely understood our current or future position in relation to the EU.
We are already in the EU (as part of the UK).
They most certainly are NOT our masters (in the way that WM thinks that WM IS our master.)
The EU has no say/control whatsoever over how we spend our tax revenues (WM does!) I don't know why you'd think that they do, because that's not how it works.
The EU has no right to any of our resources at all (unless they BUY them from us when we DECIDE to sell them) unlike WM who have asset-stripped Scotland for decades.
Membership of the EU allows free and equal trade between its members, so an Independent Scotland could benefit from having free access to the EU marketplace.

Speaking of resources, I saw mention of North sea oil - quite a valuable lot of it, I understand. Do the Scots really think that the UK is just going to let that go, gratis? Do they really think that the EU isn't going to seize control of it (whether de facto or de jure matters little)? After all, they're building their army and police forces for SOMETHING... one might ask an old whiskey maker on the frontier just what he thinks that "something" might be, but being dead he'd be unable to answer, I suppose.

LOL
Scotland has massive Oil (and Gas) reserves AND huge potential for wind, hydro, wave, tidal etc energy production.
The vast majority of the UK's energy reserves lie in RECOGNISED SCOTTISH TERRITORY.
It belongs to Scotland under international law. There is NO DISPUTE whatsoever about that.
It is NOT up to WM to "let it go, gratis" as it does not belong to WM. (They won't like us leaving the UK and taking it with us, that's for sure! But, under International law... what can they do about it??)
The EU would have no more right to take control of Scottish Oil/Gas etc than anyone else and there is no precedent whatsoever for them doing so. (Unlike the US!)
On the contrary, the EU would rather have Scotland within the EU, as it strengthens the EU having a member state with so much energy resources at its disposal.

All in all, we, you and I, live in interesting times. Exchanging your alliance with a copperhead for an alliance with a rattlesnake doesn't seem, to me, to be much change. If you're going to declare independence, do it like you mean it, and tell 'em both to feck off, and let the troops fall where they may! Scotland is not "independent" when they are still subjects of the EU. That would just be a fairy tale to tell the children so that they could sleep better at night, and grow up big and strong to be proper slaves to foreign masters.

I appreciate your take on the subject, but as I already said... we are treated like subjects of WM, but we are not treated as subjects of the EU. (In what specific areas do you feel that members of the EU are "subjects" being told what to do? I would be very interested in that.)

Just wondering...
Do you think that Germany is NOT Independent?
Do you think that France is NOT Independent?
Austria? Belgium? Denmark? Finland? Ireland? Italy? The Netherlands? Spain? etc etc

Independence doesn't mean being alone, it means having the right to choose for yourself which clubs you join.

G

[BIAD]

The problem seems to be around the wording of 'asking' or requesting to leave.
I say this with all respect to all.

[guohua]

The problem seems to be around the wording of 'asking' or requesting to leave.
I say this with all respect to all.

I agree with you.

My husband said that he wasn't an Expert, but has always thought Scotland could do whatever it wanted and had been just Flowing Along (Ghosting we call it) with what was Best for Scotland economically.

[Wallfire]

Gordi as I see it and I stress its only as I see it. The EU could not care less if the UK left, the EU has achieved what it wants with the UK. The British people and culture has been crushed by the mass immigration PC and multiculturalism.
The only reason the EU is making it so hard is as a warning to other countries, that have not yet been destroyed
The UK had the best police, best armed forces, and an excellent medical and social, and educational system. Now thanks to the EU most third world countries have better.
South Ireland sold its soul to the EU so it could give the finger to the English, now after 40 odd years the Irish culture is almost dead, indeed in 40 years time there will no longer be an Irish culture. 
The only way Scotland can have Independence with the minimum pain is to join the EU, and in 20 years time the Scottish culture will be no more.
Its interesting that the countries leading the fight agenst their culture been destroyed are all ex USSR states or states that were under under USSR influence.  They see what is happening because its the same system as used by the USSR but with a smile and nice packaging.
A bit of  news from Finland, a very influential member of Finlands richest family, who advice's government policy stated that "It was a mistake for Finland to join the Euro"
Now the only reason for him to say that is he sees that Finland will be leaving the EU or the EU will fail in the near future, and having the Euro will make it harder.
I found this an interesting read, check the GMB photo
https://twitter.com/ramzpaul
 
I think you understand what im talking about. The EU does not kill fast but slowly replaces the original people







Be well and safe highlander 

[gordi]

...The only reason the EU is making it so hard is as a warning to other countries,  future, and having the Euro will make it harder....

Cheers, Wallfire - Can you clarify in what ways you think that the EU is making it hard for UK to leave?
G

[Wallfire]

...The only reason the EU is making it so hard is as a warning to other countries,  future, and having the Euro will make it harder....

Cheers, Wallfire - Can you clarify in what ways you think that the EU is making it hard for UK to leave?
G

I think the person who could answer that best is the British PM 

[gordi]

I think the person who could answer that best is the British PM 

My point being that the rules on leaving the EU are very clear and are set out in their constitution...
Every EU member has the right to leave at any time they want. It's quite simple really.

The UK (WM) knew what the rules were before even having the Brexit Referendum.
ALL of the issues since then were caused by WM (Well... The PM) trying to "negotiate" a deal outwith the "normal" leaving the EU regulations. (Trying to negotiate the non-negotiable!)

I'm not aware of the EU doing anything to make it hard for the UK to exit the EU, and would genuinely like to know if it has!

G

[gordi]

...As Gordi says, they seem to need Westminster's approval to separate, but if you gotta ask permission to be free....

I've been trying to find a link to the UK parliamentary debate which confirmed what I said earlier - that it is only the press-published "opinion" of WM that Scotland needs to ask permission to leave the UK.

Just to clarify once and for all:
Scotland Does NOT Need WM's Permission to hold another Independence Referendum OR to Declare Independence.

HERE is a very good article about it.

There are links embedded in the article which take you directly to the full parliamentary debate which completely confirms that it is Solely the Sovereign Right of the Scottish People to Choose which form of Government they want - in other words, whether they want to remain under a UK Govt or to be Independently Governed.

cheers
G

[Wallfire]

For me the EU is not a democratic system , most of the Leaders have not been elected by the people but have massive control over the country's.
They change laws as they want, for exsamble the refugee crisis, they tell country's to take refugees or else.
I have set up and run 3 projects and even at that level the rules were "flexible"
In the words of Hotel California

Mirrors on the ceiling

The pink champagne on ice
And she said: "We are all just prisoners here
Of our own device"
And in the master's chambers
They gathered for the feast
They stab it with their steely knives
But they just can't kill the beast
Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
"Relax," said the night man
"We are programmed to receive
You can check out any time you like
But you can never leave!"

[gordi]

For me the EU is not a democratic system , most of the Leaders have not been elected by the people but have massive control over the country's.
They change laws as they want, for exsamble the refugee crisis, they tell country's to take refugees or else...

AFAIK The EU doesn't have any power to change Laws for member states. Each country sets its own laws.
The EU doesn't have any power to force members to take refugees/immigrants from outside of the EU.
Much of the refugee crisis (for example in Sweden) has been caused by individual countries allowing migrants to settle in their countries, even allowing them citizenship - which in turn gives them access to the rest of the EU.
Wallfire - Can you please supply links/evidence that support any of your assertions?
thanks,
G

[BIAD]

They change laws as they want, for exsamble the refugee crisis, they tell country's to take refugees or else...

Wallfire - Can you please supply links/evidence that support any of your assertions?
thanks,
G

I think Wallfire may be referring to this 2017 BBC article and ones like it. (Forgive me for answering on WF's behalf).

EU to sue Poland, Hungary and Czechs for refusing refugee quotas.


Hungary erected border fences in 2015 to stop asylum seekers entering the country.

'The European Commission is to sue Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic at the European Court
of Justice (ECJ) for refusing to take in asylum seekers.

The commission, the EU's executive body, accused the three countries of "non-compliance with their legal
obligations on relocation". The Luxembourg-based ECJ could impose heavy fines.

A relocation plan was launched by the EU in 2015 in response to a large influx of migrants and refugees.
The move was an attempt to relieve pressure on Greece and Italy where the vast majority of migrants were
arriving.

However, the Czech Republic has accepted only 12 of the 2,000 asylum-seekers it had been designated,
while Hungary and Poland have received none. The commission launched infringement procedures against
the three states in June and warned them last month that further action was likely.

"The replies received were again found not satisfactory and three countries have given no indication that they
will contribute to the implementation of the relocation decision," a statement said.
"This is why, the commission has decided to move to the next stage of the infringement procedure and refer the
three member states to the court of justice of the EU."

Following Thursday's announcement, Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis told the BBC his country would continue
to oppose the relocation scheme. He said the quota system had fuelled anti-migrant sentiment and played into the
hands of the far right.

Poland's Deputy Foreign Minister Konrad Szymanski also said his government was "ready to defend its position in
the court".

In 2015 EU states agreed to relocate 160,000 asylum-seekers between them based on the size and wealth of each
country, however, Romania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary voted against accepting mandatory quotas.
Separately, the commission is also taking Hungary to the ECJ over its laws on higher education and NGOs.

Hungary's right-wing government is looking to pass a higher education law that could close the Central European
University, founded by financier and philanthropist George Soros.
Mr Soros has a strained relationship with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Hungary vilifies financier Soros
The commission said Hungary's education law "disproportionally restricts EU and non-EU universities in their operations
and needs to be brought back in line with EU law". Hungary also caused controversy in June when it passed legislation
forcing non-governmental organisations to declare themselves "foreign-funded".

The commission said the laws "indirectly discriminate and disproportionately restrict donations from abroad to civil society
organisations"...'

BBC:

And this from 2018...

Macron pushes to PUNISH EU nations with FINES if they refuse migrants.


From 2017...
ECJ upholds EU’s right to force member states to take in refugees.

[BIAD]

Just out of curiosity, I typed into the bent web-engine Google: 'Does Scotland need permission to leave the UK?'
and of course the first-up, was Wikipedia.

You get the usual bumph regarding the EU Referendum and the surrounding arguments about the majority of Scotland
wishing to remain in the European Union as a country. It also explains:

"There has since been debate about whether there should be a second Scottish independence referendum,
or if it is possible for Scotland to maintain links with the EU after the UK leaves.

On 16 March 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May stated that "now is not the time" to discuss another referendum,
because the focus should be on "working together, not pulling apart" for Brexit negotiations.

That month, Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland and leader of the SNP, obtained Scottish Parliament
approval to request a Section 30 order enabling a second independence referendum, to take place between late
2018 and early 2019, "when the shape of the UK's Brexit deal will become clear"; she sent the formal request to
the UK Government at the end of March.
To date, there has been no formal response from the UK Government."

After further reading, I saw this:

"The Scottish European and External Affairs Committee held an evidence session on 30 June 2016, asking a panel
of four experts (Dr Kirsty Hughes of Friends of Europe, Prof Sionaidh Douglas-Scott of the Queen Mary School of Law
at the University of London, Sir David Edward and Prof Drew Scott of the University of Edinburgh) what they felt was the
best way to secure the Scottish-EU relationship.

Hughes stated that "the simplest and most obvious way would be to be an independent state and transition in and stay
in the EU", Douglas-Scott said that "Legally there are precedents. ... But there were also political difficulties", referring to
Catalonia in member state Spain.

Edward believed "Scotland makes quite a good fit with Iceland and Norway", referring to the European Economic Area
and the European Free Trade Association, while Scott hinted that Scotland could be a successor state, meaning the rest
of the UK would leave but Scotland would retain its seat."

Well that helped! Opinions from scholars are fine, but I wanted the answer to my original question.

So noticing the expression 'Section 30', I looked the HeraldScottish.com website to provide an answer.
The mainstream media may be biased, but in this case, a Scottish leaning would surely explain why the Scottish Parliament
can't just wave goodbye to those on the other side of Hadrian's Wall.
Politically, of course!

24th April -presumably from 2019.

Section 30: What is it, how does it work and can Scotland hold another referendum without it?


(Even the image in the article seems to imply a 'pretty-please' approach!)

'It looks as though a second independence referendum for Scotland is on the horizon, with the First Minister
expected to set out plans in her announcement today.

But how will Nicola Sturgeon call on Westminster to give Holyrood the power to do so? She's expected to seek a Order in Council
under Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998, so that the Scottish Parliament can hold another referendum.
But what does this mean?

What is the Scotland Act 1998?
The Scotland Act 1998 allowed for a Scottish government of ministers and a Scottish Parliament to come into force.
It doesn't specifiy which powers/matters are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but instead sheds light on those which are
reserved to the UK Parliament. Anything not reserved by the Scotland Act are devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
What does this have to do with independence?

As outlined above, the Act outlines matters which the Scottish Parliament does not have control over -and this includes the 'Union of
Scotland and England'. This means the Scottish Parliament can't actually hold a second referendum without asking for permission to
take over this power under the act's terms.
This can be done by changing Schedule 5 through Section 30 of the act.

What is Section 30?
In the Scotland Act 1998, Section 30 reads: “Her majesty may by Order in Council make any modifications of Schedule 4 or 5 which
She considers necessary or expedient.” So really, it grants the opportunity to change Schedule 5 and allow for indyref2.

Has this ever been done before?
Yes - remember that referendum in 2014? That had to go through the exact same process. Back then, this was the outcome: 

"On 15 October 2012 the UK and Scottish Governments signed an Agreement on a Referendum on Independence for Scotland.
Attached to the Agreement is a draft Order in Council which, under the terms of section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998, will devolve
to the Scottish Parliament the competence to legislate for a referendum to be held before the end of 2014 on whether Scotland
should become independent of the rest of the United Kingdom."

What does Theresa May say about it?...

Who cares?!

'Why now?
It's been in the works for a long time. Nicola Sturgeon asked permission of the Scottish Government back in 2017 because of Brexit,
to ask the PM for an agreement to hold another referendum. It was accepted by 69 votes to 59, and the First Minister then wrote to
Mrs May.

She wrote: "The decision of the Scottish Parliament has been made in line with the tradition
of popular sovereignty in Scotland - that the people of Scotland should be able to determine
the form of government most suited to their needs - and with the clear commitment in the
manifesto on which my government was re-elected last May."

Is a second independence referendum in the SNP manifesto?
Yes - the 2016 SNP manifesto is pretty clear in its party's intentions to hold another independence referendum, but only on certain
conditions. They promised to give another vote if there is 'clear and sustained evidence' that independence has become a preferred
option of a majority of the Scottish people. But that's not the only grounds upon which a second vote can be held.

They also said that they'll call for indyref2 if there is a 'significant and material change' in the circumstances of 2014 - specifically, if
Scotland is taken out of the EU against its will. And in light of the 2016 result where 62% of Scottish voted to remain, it seems like
that is the case.'...'

SOURCE:

It's difficult to get a definitive answer regarding a country leaving the United Kingdom on ones own volition and the above article seems to
hint that the monarchy are the ones who have the last word. I dunno, I just don't know.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see Scotland freed from the London's dog-leash it has over Scotland, but finding out why it hasn't
happened yet -if the whole of Scotland feel this way, is difficult. Damned MSM, they design their own questions to avoid giving answers
that would open a can of worms.

[Wallfire]

Thank you BIAD, im very pushed for time at the moment and just cant find things online.
Gordi the EU is not a unicorn flying over Europe farting rainbows and good will, its a force that wants to rule Europe. Before the UK joined the EU the EU had already a large influence on what happened. Since the end of ww2 there has been a large social experiment on the go in the UK, the EU just expanded it to find what cultures and religions were best at destroying local cultures and the best at lowering the IQ of a country. 
Having seen how well it worked in the UK the EU started to flood Europe with the same cultures, as is been done today.
A country that has its culture destroyed and IQ lowered is much easier to control.
The culture and religions that are invading Europe are just useful fools who will be taken care of when the time come.
The three things the EU is working to ( same as Stalin used)
An enemy with out (at the moment Russia)
An enemy with in (at the moment Christianity but that will change to islam when there purpose is served)
And fear used to control. ( EU army and police)
Take a walk around the citys and towns of Scotland , look at the people and ask yourself are these people part of the Scottish culture and will they fight to keep Scottish culture of fight to destroy it.