It doesn't matter one jot what the legal position is when discussing a rationale for something.
Really? What a bizarre thing to say. Of course it is a factor.
They are the defacto Scottish government and they want a referendum. They gained a majority on the back of independence. The house should be allowed to vote on a referendum and let the electorate decide in that referendum.
The SNP are not the defacto Scottish Government, they govern on specific matters and not on this issue.
They want that remit, but don't have it.
They don't have a majority in Holyrood, they have a coalition with the Greens that gives them control. This coalition is admittedly aligned on Independence for Scotland, but 51% of those who voted, did so for anti independence parties.
Interestingly Scottish turnout was higher for the 2019 General election than it was for the last Scottish Parliament election.
Jeez I am confused why people wouldn't just agree that the scottish people should have the right to self determination through their parliament
Their Parliaments are in Westminster first and then Edinburgh.
A referendum is disruptive and causes unhelpful uncertainty, which is one of the reasons why most folk understand they should not be frequently re-run on the same issue.
I am sure of course there is scope to revisit issues decided by a referendum, but unless there are defined formal routes/timings, then there surely has to be significant evidence that the result would be materially different?
Given the SNP has NEVER had a 50% share of any vote, let alone a significant majority - and have actually receded since 2015 - I see no evidence that the Scots have materially shouted a majority desire for independence, or even a referendum for it just now.
No election result; no opinion polls; no huge public demonstration.
I absolutely agree that people should not be forced to stay where they don't wish to be. But process and timing do matter.