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...

Arkadia "so splitting Scotland in two seems to me perfectly reasonable" Really? I doubt it, if you really do think that then frankly I disagree.

Scotland is a country and not a region.

You ask has Scotland been colonized. I'd like to think not. We're in wobbly territory on this now though with Westminster ignoring and sidelining decisions made in the Scottish parliament, on Brexit, on having an independence referendum . Looking at Ronald Horvath's A Definition of Colonialism (1972):
"It seems generally, if not universally, agreed that colonialism is a form of domination – the control by individuals or groups over the territory and/or behaviour of other individuals or groups. (Colonialism has also been seen as a form of exploitation, with emphasis on economic variables, as in the Marxist-Leninist literature, and as a culture-change process, as in anthropology… The idea of domination is closely related to the concept of power."

If the sovereign population and elected MPs of Scotland are not 'allowed' by Westminster to decide whether or not they wish to vote on staying in or leaving the union, then I would say that is a form of colonization as per the definition above. Exploitation of Scotland's natural resources in the past, ditto.

Currently, no, I would say we've not been colonized. But we are sovereign and should be given the decision and should be heard.

Indeed, but by and large, the snp (being pretty much a single issue party) represents the yes camp. Assuming that their vote fades, it will still be a largish part of the electorate and if indyref2 fails they will be planning for indyrefN (as Alex once-in-a-generation Salmond himself declined to rule out). The by-product is that the political paralysis in Scotland will continue indefinitely.
Personally, rather that a referendum I would have another holyrood election and only then if the will IS there, a referendum. At least the holyrood election will be over in a couple of months and then (with a bit of luck) we will be able to move on.

Partners in a union, remember, not subjects to be dismissed.

The Survation poll published today in the Daily Record says that 60% of Scots don't want another Referendum.

I know it's a tabloid with a particular viewpoint but Survation are well regarded, aren't they?

Well, we'll see when the terms of Brexit become clear whether or not Scots want another referendum. If polls then say not, then fair enough.

Nicola Sturgeon did say before that if it could be negotiated for Scotland to stay in the single market, she would take a referendum off the table - perhaps not my personal preference but surely you can see that's the SNP being fair. It's because of being dragged out of the EU against our will that the SNP are arguing for a referendum.

To answer your Q Nyx, NS stated that the referendum would be once in a generation. That's 25/30 years in my understanding.

Referenda on issues as massive as this cost time and money that could be used on other important matters and they put things on hold until the result is known so they should not be used frequently. Where the result is predicted to be close, they're also divisive.

The Scottish people are only 'partners' of rUK, up to a point as we're also part of UK. Do you think the population of rUK should have no say in whether their country is made smaller?

The Snp's claim that the pop of Scotland is not treated as equal with rUK is wordsmithery. The UK voted for brexit so the 'material change' NS refers to is not relevant (and deliberately woolly) when it comes to having yet another referendum. However, I do think it's a great pity that TM hasn't had a policy of having cross-party mps working on brexit.

Of course the pop of scotland

surely even if you'd like Scotland to be independent at some point, there's a strong case for saying we've all had a bucketful of divisive referenda and let's all get through Brexit together...agree with every word you said rogue.

Plus also, you know, I'd say no to another referendum too as they've really been shown for what they are - a very poor way to push through change as you get irreversible decisions being implemented by whoever is in power.

There should be better checks so that the yes campaign not only has to win a yes, there is a referendum on the implementation plan as so much of it is in the detail.

How much better would the people of the UK feel about Brexit if we'd had to have a second referendum on the terms of Brexit?

I don't see why the SNP should be allowed to get away with doing a similar thing- a referendum on indy with no commitment to what Scotland's future looks like to give people a chance to change their minds.

It wouldn't be fair for Scotland to be in the single market if rUK isn't. I doubt it would be practical either.

Before the EU ref, the government advised in their leaflets they sent out that a vote to leave would be to leave the single market. They were clear on that from the start, so NS had no hope of negotiating that for Scotland. And she must have known that, but it suited her to make out that the UK gov't was treating Scotland unfairly.

Yes, I don't believe the question should never be asked again - I do think now is not the right time.

and yes, i agree rogue, cross party implementation for any referendum should be a must as these single issues get cross-party support.

(Sigh) Who is asking for a referendum NOW? Nobody.

Nyx do you think, (like Lib Dems) that the UK should be allowed to have a ref on the terms of brexit?

"It wouldn't be fair for Scotland to be in the single market if rUK isn't."

Fair on whom and it what way? If its a democratic decision of the people in Scotland then why does fair come into it?

I suppose I do think that should be an option if people wanted it, rogue. The Brexit referendum result was startlingly close and the campaigns were absolutely rubbish. Lots of people have said they didn't know what they were voting for.

Yes Scottishdiem, I thought that too. If Scotland wants to be in the single market (having voted against Brexit) and the rest of the UK doesn't (having voted for Brexit), then how would it not be fair?

rUK vote for Brexit - say "hooray, we're out of the single market".

Scotland gets to be in the single market - rUK says 'here, that's not fair'

????

all the more reason for the SNP to run their independence campaign in the same way - I'm sure there are quite a few people who'd change their minds on Brexit when we have the deal.

People seem to want 4 options on Brexit:

• Remain
• No Deal
• Brexit with Single Market and free movement
• Brexit with no single market and managed movement

Is that even all the options? I'm sure Scottish independence would have a similarly confused set of plans with voters being scattered across various plans.

perhaps brexit is giving the SNP an idea of what it might be like when their yes vote is scattered across various plans and options?

Various plans and options:

(1) independence
(2) stay in the union

IMO the other various options - fiscal autonomy, devolution max, etc have been promised and removed many times now. Nobody believes they are an option any more. Except perhaps Kezia!

all you can say Nyx is that YOU don't believe they are options, are you speaking for everyone in Scotland?

The options at a minimum would be:

1. Indy - try and get back into full EU membership
2. Indy - try and stay in EU FTA
3. Indy - leave EU altogether and this doesn't consider the type of deal Scotland would be looking for with the rUK about borders, movement of people, trade agreements etc.

Pretty complex...

yes, or devolution, more powers in a specific area, staying in the union options :)

So all in all, it's clear that referenda cause a hell of a lot of trouble and divisiveness. I'd rather not have any more, but if we have to, it should be done properly with a view to how the hell it would be implemented.

I did say 'IMO' - I am aware that I am not speaking for Scotland! Gawd, am I not allowed to air my views/debate without being accused of trying to speak for the whole of Scotland?

You say "The options at a minimum would be:

1. Indy - try and get back into full EU membership
2. Indy - try and stay in EU FTA
3. Indy - leave EU altogether and this doesn't consider the type of deal Scotland would be looking for with the rUK about borders, movement of people, trade agreements etc."

Well, I agree with you about the last paragraph. That sort of thing is what would be discussed/debated during a referendum campaign. Also lots of it would have to be agreed after independence was voted for because Westminster have refused to even discuss these sort of options beforehand. They don't want the idea of independence given legitimacy.

Your options 1 to 3 are things that could and would be decided by Scotland once she is independent. Scotland voting on what would be best for Scotland. Not rUK voting a different way from Scotland and then ignoring any requests for Scotland to be part of any negotiating team. Sounds great to me.

Of course, this is my personal opinion (am I going to have to put this on every post I type by the way?)

scottishdiem

The vote for brexit was across the UK. Therefore the terms of brexit should apply to the whole of UK.

The fact that the Scottish vote was in favour of remaining - not by a lot btw, and the turnout was lower than rUK is being used by NS as a spurious way of claiming that the pop of Scotland is treated unfairly by rUK.

The vote for Brexit was across the UK. That's only because we were steamrollered. The SNP suggested that each constituent part of the UK have their own vote and asked that only if all parts of the UK agreed, should the UK be taken out of the EU. That (of course) was not listened to. Wonder why Westminster didn't want each part of our 'precious union' to have their own say on such an important matter?

It's outrageous that NI are being put in this position. Do you agree with that?

We are to shut up and eat our cereal, of course. Are you happy with that? Because I'm not.

This is my personal opinion, yada yada.

Also the Brexit vote in Scotland was muddied by indyref as a lot voted to stay thinking it would mean another indyref a la Mhairi Black holding her nose and voting remain.