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...

We voted to stay in the UK thinking this was a once in a generation vote, in the full knowledge that there was a chance the EU referendum would be a leave win.

There should not be another indyref for a generation until we can see the full effects of Brexit.

Nyx I didn't mean right now, although I acknowledge that could have been clearer. So, for the sake of clarity, I should have said 'in the near future'.

It's still true though the SNP lost votes and consequently seats in large part because of their recent focus on another independence referendum - which they themselves have acknowledged.

I think they're in a difficult position, although as I said earlier I wouldn't write them off entirely. Part of the problem is that they're quite a broad church politically with members/supporters on the left and right.

I think one possible threat to them at the moment is the unexpected resurgence of Labour in Scotland. If the national LP continue on their current trajectory (who knows) they could well take a lot of leftish SNP supporters with them and that could really knacker the SNP.

I thought this was an interesting read. Finally some on the yes side are saying why I've been saying for a while, that the SNP are not a progressive party. They just throw a few left wing bones here and there trying to please everyone.

Let's hope the free pass that's been given to the SNP thus far has come to an end.

Free pass?! Lol

Amongst the yes movement. No criticism of the snp allowed until Indy.

Thanks trixy that's interesting.

Hmmm. Well I've seen various criticisms of the SNP from various parts of the Yes voters -including this Gerry Hassan and, for example, RISE - so I still disagree with you. On the whole though, the SNP are seen to be working for Scotland's good by people who want independence - it's not a free ride as you call it.

Hmmm did the EU negotiate with the UK ahead of the Brexit referendum? The plans have to be negotiated after the vote - as I see it a first referendum gauges appetite for the general question, and then you get into details and put the plans to a second referendum.

Why shouldn't people be allowed to change their minds in the face of more evidence and detailed plans? Unless we're trying to con them.

am I the only one who's thought they were entirely right about something, got into the details and thought, you know what, I'm going to have to do a complete about turn here? I'm not sure we shouldn't have this option for major changes personally.

Kezia Dugdale has been making a very convincing case for why the SNP isn't a left wing party and that's why the rhetoric around her being a spineless red tory has increased.

No. Can't wait for independence. The only thing that would have quelled my wish slightly would have been in Jeremy Corbyn was the new PM.

Criticism of the snp has been very few and far between in the yes movement. I've seen a few people on twitter being told to shut up until after Indy. And the mental gymnastics I've seen on here and on twitter trying to present policies as progressive when they're quite clearly not has been something to behold. It's been like the emperor's new clothes, but hopefully now some of it is being printed in the yes propaganda outlets the trickle will become a flood.

If all the SNP voters had voted labour then we would have had a Labour government in Westminster, so technically we could as easily blame them as blaming people for tactically voting Tory to oust the SNP. Maybe if there is another vote, they could stand aside a la the Greens and not split the "socialist/progressive" vote as they like to dub themselves thus giving a Labour government.

True WaxOn. And many of the votes were very, very close. Lots of slim majorities.

My SNP friends are aghast that I voted Labour, despite the fact that they love Jeremy Corbyn. They 'can't vote labour' because of Kezia Dugdale, even if it meant getting an anti austerity government in Westminster.

That is so depressing Morris

Same Morris. I don't bother talking about it on social media any more.

We've done the 'vote labour in Scotland' thing. Most of the time it hasn't made any difference, in that the party who won the election would have won with or without Scottish votes.

Plus, Kezia advised people to vote 'against the SNP' - even pointing out where voting Tory would work better for that purpose - not to vote labour. Which is just breathtakingly obviously unionist and nothing else. And the SNP still won more seats in Scotland than all the other parties put together. That is why labour is dead in Scotland, hell, it's even behind the Tories now.

And you're saying indyref 2 should be forgotten. I don't think so.

Mmmmm. That's not only part of the story though, isn't it? Labour did come third, but their share of the vote as a percentage isn't much less than the Tories.

Not to mention the many constituencies with very small majorities, a big change from 2015.

Don't just take my word for it though:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-40246330

I fail to see your point. The SNP could have very easily got 10 seats fewer and the same share of the vote.

Besides Labour is ineffective in Scotland, so we need indyrefN? What??
But let us imagine that for argument's sake Scotland does go alone, then imagine this scenario: the snp collapses and disappears. RD becomes immensely popular and wins a landslide, while in England JC gets a landslide (stranger things have happened). What then?

Or, if you like, Scotland is not indipendente, but RD unifies the unionist vote and gets a landslide, while the UK has a labour government. What then?

Then the majority of Scotland would have voted for the conservatives thus providing themselves with a conservative government. Which is a possibility of course. What do you mean, what then? It wouldn't matter to us what rUK had because we'd be independent. Like looking at governments in France or Ireland - interesting if you're into that sort of thing but not actively affecting us.

Just shows how split UK voters are flip and morris. I do think PR is the answer - I can't vote labour because although I love Kezia I dislike Corbyn's policies and don't trust him. Everyone's vote should count regardless of constituency.

Doubt the SNP is keen for WM vote reform at this point though!

Nyx the SNP are constantly telling us they can't fully use current Holyrood powers because of differential with rUK. Independence would not change that. Also if we stay in EU as an Independent Scotland the governments of France and Germany will be effectively governing us. Which currency are we opting for these days?

How about, what do you mean? If independent we wouldn't be able to use all our powers? You've lost me there I'm afraid.

Are each of the countries in the EU independent or not? Is France independent? It may be a union but it's not the stranglehold union the UK has over Scotland FFS.