So is IndyRef2 dead and buried after the General Election?

[MacarenaFerreiro]

So SNP lost 21 seats on Thursday and most people believe this is because of their Indy obsession.

Does losing so many seats mean we can forget about another referendum for the foreseeable (once in a generation, remember) and if we can, what's the point of the SNP?

Personally I think Ms Sturgeon totally misjudged it in the same way as May did - she thought that she would lose maybe a couple of seats in the election but nowhere near 22. She certainly didn't expect to see high profile Nats like Salmond, Robertson and Nicolson out on their ears. Half a million voters almost switched to pro-Union parties.

But of course the SNP will say they're still the biggest party in Scotland, still have a mandate, still have an obligation to push for Indy yadda yadda yadda. They've been pretty quiet since Friday mind you...

FFS it was in the SNP manifesto re: Brexit => indyref2 and they were voted for by a majority. I wish the unionists on here would accept that and let it bloody well be.

All the 'it'll be one after another' oh just shut up.

Nyx is answering the OP question and being attacked and it's just making you unionists look desperate.

(If the OP was a serious question and not just a lure looking for someone to bite and get caught in an ambush)

In my opinion independence is not dead and buried and once Brexit terms are known there should and will be a new referendum so that Scotland gets a choice. Campaign for No or Yes and answer then let's see what happens.

Let's try again: www.commonspace.scot/articles/11158/scottish-greens-reassert-independence-referendum-support-wake-general-election

Besides, if ou ask me, if the is one person who does NOT want another referendum, that's NS. I am sure she is not stupid and she knows it is very unlikely they would win (and she doesn't want to do an Alex Salmond). Unfortunately things have not gone her way... First Brexit that nobody thought it would happen. Then the general election where she lost 1/3 of the vote and didn't bring the announced Tory landslide. So whatever (perfectly reasonable) scenario she was banking on, didn't happen and now she find herself forced to defend a referendum (her demeanour is telling) because she knows that independence is what the SNP is about and if the discourse moves on for good, their existence is in jeopardy.
In Scotland for the last 4 years we have talked about nothing else. The Scottish Parliament has passed zero bills since the Scottish election. Education ("judge me on education!" Wasn't that in the manifesto as well) Is going down the drain.
I think there are more pressing matters than pursuing another divisive referendum.
Also, she didn't specify the timetable for the referendum after Brexit and to me it won't be clear until well after the next holyrood elections (so we will have ANOTHER election dominated by the referendum. I can hardly wait...)

Making the unionists look desperate!

Scotland voted to remain in UK.

UK voted to leave EU.

End of.

Oh rogue says end of. So we'll all just shut our traps then. Thanks for that.

"Scotland voted to remain in UK.

UK voted to leave EU"

Scotland was categorically told a vote to stay in the UK was a vote to stay in the EU, remember that? So not really 'end of'.

x-posted

I am a No voter.

I'm not a Never vote, but No, not now. I am not convinced by the economic arguement at the moment plus the SNP are starting to fail at the day job and that doesn't fill me with confidence. To my mind, they need to be out talking to the No (not yet) crowd like me to try and understand why we said no last time and why we will most likely say no again in the short term. And they need to actually listen to our concerns and find ways to address them, not just shout us down as being traitors/antiScottish because we are the ones they need to convince.

I believe that's the plan, piffpaff. And I have respect for 'not yet' voters as their minds are not closed. I was one myself previously.

Are yes voters who don't plan to change their minds also closed minded?

My mind is pretty closed tbh. And comments like that really hack me off - whether or not you mean it to, it's a fairly combatitive phrase that makes it sound like firm No voters are wrong in some way. They're not, they just don't agree with you.

Well, yes, I would say that someone who said they would vote yes 'no matter what' is closed-minded, same with the many no voters who say they will vote no 'no matter what'.

I have voted labour in the past and used to think Scotland was better in the UK. Then when I did some research I changed my mind. If circumstances were to change such that I believed Scotland was better in the UK, I would change my mind again. I am not sure what would happen to make me think that, but possibly Scotland being independent but not in the EU, or something. I don't know.

I didn't mean to sound combatative.

I am bracing myself now...!

Ah no worries! I normally don't come out and say I'm a No voter because when I have done in the past I've been jumped on. So I'm a bit sensitive I guess.

I just want us all to get along no matter what we think!

Thanks piffpaff.

Posted too soon! Meant to say I have a couple of rather combatative no-voting relatives so I do know the feeling.

Turn our backs on those people in rUK who are disadvantaged.

Make the regressive step of breaking up a long- established, stable, prosperous democracy.

Selfishly hog and exploit the natural resources geographically closest to Scotland, Scottish only by accident, not merit or effort.

Compete with rUK.

Celebrate nationalism, (a relatively recent and regressive concept.)

Work only for the perceived good of the few million people living in Scotland.

Waste time, effort and money that could be spent on more important things.

If the indy campaign's justification for the above comes purely from the desire for Scottish sovereignity; a reason which on its own does not receive anything even close to majority approval in Scotland, we would pay a very high price indeed for that sovereignity, not least in our dearth of ambition to improve the lot of everyone in UK and beyond. The better, fairer society referred to in the indy campaign is the dream of many many people in UK.

This thread is about whether there will/should be another IndyRef, rogue, not arguing the case for/against independence itself. You veering off onto this tangent makes it look like you agree there should be a referendum and you're arguing a case for No. Do you agree that there is a case for another referendum, giving Scotland the opportunity to choose?

Nyx, no. It was done 2 years ago (and it was wrong then).
The "choice" is a smokescreen as it isn't a choice at all as there is it one right answer.
The way the discourse (if you can call it that) is that whenever there is something you disagree on, there should be a new referendum.
Let's partition Scotland, shall we... Where the snp has a majority, the go for indipendance. Where another party has a majority, they stay in the Union (not unlike the partition of India).
The question is whether it should be done at council level or ward by ward. I think the latter is more democratic, though.

What on earth is this talk of partitioning about Arkadia?

You say that the partitioning of the UK is something to be discussed.
I say that the partitioning of Scotland is something to be discussed as it is no less worthy of consideration.
You vote SNP, you go. You vote another party, you stay. You don't even need a referendum for that.
That is the democratic will of the people.

Besides, one has to be allowed to leave and join the UK according to the shifts in public opinion. This is also respecting the democratic will of the people.

The UK is a union. A political union. Scotland is a country and a nation. Incidentally, there are people who voted Yes who vote for other political parties than the SNP. You're just being goady. I don't believe you seriously think partition of Scotland is an option that should be considered.

So in your opinion Scotland should not be allowed to decide to leave the union. We are not being treated as partners and equals if that is the case. Or even partners.

Arkadia partitioning of Scotland ward by ward? What about households who hold different views? You're talking .

Independence referendum following a significant change of circumstances eg Brexit (once the terms are known of course which may take some time) would be democratic, straightforward and sensible. Not just the SNP are for this; Greens and also people who don't support either of those parties (women for independence, labour for independence, rise etc).

I don't understand the problem. Don't say divisiveness after your divisive suggestion

The UK is one country and unity should be paramount above all else. Governments come and go, political parties come and go. What stays is the country and the crown at its head.

You are thinking of India or perhaps Ireland. Is our history comparable to India's or Ireland's? Has Scotland been colonized?

What is the democratic will of the people? Why should MY desire to keep Scotland in the union be prevailed upon? if the instrument for deciding such an issue is a referendum with a simple majority (and I believe there lies the crux of the problem) the rights of half the population will be trodden on either way, so splitting Scotland in two seems to me perfectly reasonable.
Also, we have to accept that it will be possible to rejoin the union with another referendum, and so on and so forth.
The democratic will of the people doesn't disappear after one vote, does it.

The mistake was made at the outset when a more forward thinking frame of reference was not given. Instead now we (as in the SNP) are making it up as we go along, but without thinking of the consequence in the medium and long term. Instead we concentrate on the "here" and "now". Say the yeses win by whatever margin. Is that enough to break away? And for how long? Look at the fortunes of the SNP... As I said, governments come and go. Country and crown remain throughout.

Equally there are SNP voters who voted or would vote no. Jim Sillars for instance, who says he would abstain rather than vote yes if it meant Scotland back in the EU.

I suppose we could just poll the people of Scotland and ask them if they want another referendum instead of twisting previous election results to produce a majority in favour who don't actually exist.

The UK is one country and unity should be paramount above all else

Well that is demonstrably wrong. Its a political union. A partnership created some three hundred years ago via legislation to create that union. They are even called the Acts of Union.

Unity above anything else seeks to deny legitimate democratic expression and even seeks to oppress the seek alternatives if those alternatives are deemed a threat to unity. Which is just mince. Next you'll be saying that support for anything other than the UK is in some way traitorous.

And the Crown has nothing to do with any of this.