AN SNP MP has urged Nicola Sturgeon to draw up a bill for a second independence referendum in the coming months.
Carol Monaghan, for Glasgow North West, said she would like to see a bill for indyref2 go through the Scottish Parliament this year.
She told Times Radio: “I think we need to be drawing that up pretty quickly.
“Unfortunately, initially we need to approach Westminster in order to have that referendum first of all anyway, so we will wait and see.
“Boris Johnson has been quite clear that he’s not going to grant that, so then we need to look at do we need to go to the courts in order to seek some kind of permission to go ahead with the referendum.”
On Friday, the Prime Minister insisted that he would reject calls for indyref2 regardless of a Yes majority in the Scottish Parliament.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon 'wouldn't rule out' bringing indyref2 forward by spring 2022
He told The Telegraph: “I think a referendum in the current context is irresponsible and reckless.”
Monaghan continued: “What we don’t want is a wildcat referendum, we want this to be legal and we want it to be a gold standard referendum.
“I would like to see this being drawn up by the end of the year and I would like to see a referendum taking place sometime in 2022, that’s my personal position but that’s the timescale I’d be looking for.”
Today on the Andrew Marr Show Nicola Sturgeon explained that she “wouldn’t rule out” bringing forward a referendum by spring next year.
The First Minister has maintained that she would only hold a constitutional vote once the Covid pandemic has passed.
READ MORE: Jonathan Lis says Union is 'not a prison' after Holyrood election result
And according to Clive Dix, vaccine taskforce chief, Scotland is on track to vaccinate all adults by the end of July.
Marr asked Sturgeon to respond to Michael Gove’s comments that suggested the UK Government wouldn’t take the Scottish Government to the supreme court.
To which she said: "Well that’s what I heard him say, but I think it would be absurd and completely outrageous if it ever got to that point, if it ever got anywhere close to that point.
"Remember, for this to end up in court which is not anything that I ever want to see, it would mean that a conservative government had refused to respect the democratic wishes of the Scottish people and the outcome of a democratic election and try to go to the Supreme court to overturn Scottish democracy, I think it would be an understatement to say that wouldn’t play well."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel