NICOLA Sturgeon told Andrew Marr she "wouldn't rule out" bringing forward a referendum by spring next year.
It comes as the outgoing head of the vaccine task force has said that by August this year there will be no Covid-19 circulating in the UK.
The First Minister has said that she would only hold a constitutional vote once the Covid pandemic has passed.
And Clive Dix, the outgoing interim leader of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, told the Telegraph yesterday that the country is on track to vaccinate all adults by the end of July.
READ MORE: Michael Gove says Westminster won't take Scottish Government to court over indyref2
Asked by Marr if Scotland would hold a referendum if the by Spring next year, based on predictions, the pandemic was over, Sturgeon said: "That would certainly work for timescale of within the first half of the parliamentary term, but I very much, not just for reasons of an independence referendum, but for many reasons, I desperately hope those predictions are correct.
"But we have to judge that as we go through this year, we’ve still got many significant challenges ahead."
Asked if the legislation would be put through the Scottish parliament in that scenario, Sturgeon said: "I wouldn’t rule that out, equally I’m not sitting here right now and saying that that is the timescale. The people of Scotland reelected me as First Minister with the first task of continuing to see us through the pandemic, getting us into recovery.
"Then of course there’s the question of what kind of recovery do we want, what kind of country are we rebuilding to and that comes in to sharp focus, where do decisions lie? I’m not sure the recovery that Boris Johnson envisages is one that a majority of people in Scotland would support."
Sturgeon was also asked to her reponse to Michael Gove's comments that suggested the UK government wouldn't take the Scottish Government to the supreme court.
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 incourt 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