I see Nicola is issuing veiled threats about legal action if she doesn't get another Indyref from a Tory government.
In my opinion she seems to have conflated the Scottish people voting for SNP with a desire for independence. I'm not convinced that this is the case. The Scots, who I absolutely adore by the way, do have a mischievous streak which manifests itself in current times by sending a bunch of SNP members to Westminster where they vote en-masse against every single proposal the government makes whilst getting their leader (Ian Blackford) to take the floor to make the most outrageous accusations about Boris and the Tories at every opportunity. Not once can I recall the SNP positively contributing to Westminster proceedings. They are sent from Scotland as a protest to create havoc and mayhem to the democratic process which of late has been very effective after they joined forces with Labour, Lib Dems and the Tory rebels to form the remain alliance to block Brexit and a General Election with the sole intent of leaving Boris hog-tied and dangling in public, a ploy which was very successfully executed I must say. Especially disingenuous to then accuse Boris of being a liar for failing to deliver Brexit after his "no if's, no but's" pledge, as if the public would be stupid enough to fall for that.
I've been trying to understand exactly what drives Nicola and whether or not she really really wants independence or not. I've come to the conclusion after some deliberation that she doesn't, not really. So what is she playing at?
First up - Lets take a look at the consequences of Scotland voting for Independence in a hypothetical Indyref 2. I assume there would be a process for putting in place all the arrangements for going independent over an agreed timescale, a bit like the Article 50 process for Brexit. During that period Scotland would negotiate its new relationship with the rest of the UK and they would get whatever we felt like giving them, much the same as the EU/UK negotiations. The message would be very clear that you will never have a better deal than you have already, they would probably choose to ignore that message, just like we have with Brexit (lets face it, if we were really driven by our economic prospects alone we would not Brexit). The discussions would also cover such issues, I assume, as Scottish currency, defence, repatriation of UK military assets, the UK rail system and its future relationship with Scotland, airspace control, the BBC and other broadcast media, the NHS assets to be returned to the UK, the border issue and customs, the rights of Scots living in the UK and vice versa, future UK/SCO trading arrangements, gas and oil revenues and hundreds of other matters (I've just listed a few of the more difficult issues here).
I imagine that Nicola feels that she will be able to dodge all of these difficult issues by hitting us with her trump card which will be automatic entry to the EU which will totally reverse the dynamic of the Indy negotiations I am sure you will agree. If this should be the situation we will end up with a hard border between SCO and England and the EU will do it without any hesitation because there is no Good Friday Agreement crap to make them think twice. I think the EU would delight in putting a hard border at the north of England and Nicola would be just as happy, she would really have stuck it to us wouldn't she? And the final icing on the cake would be SCO sitting within the EU trade umbrella dishing out crap deals to the UK. I could imagine under this scenario there would be a lot of voices keen for the UK to rejoin the EU. Lets face it Scotland in the EU and the rest of the UK not will be very bad indeed. Of course everyone says that Scotland won't qualify to join the EU but that doesn't mean much when it is to the EU's advantage and this scenario would be able exert unbearable pressure on the UK to rejoin.
OK - got that off my chest...
Now, should there be another Indyref I do not think that Scotland would vote for independence any more this time than last time and Nicola knows this. Notwithstanding my doomsday scenario above I actually think the Scots like being part of the UK, it makes sense, it creates a satisfying whole and the entire land mass is kept safe and secure (mostly). Now Nicola is an activist, a protester, and furthermore she is proven to be absolutely crap as a first minister. The Scottish economy, despite being given more government money per head than the rest of the UK seem to be a bad shape with particularly poor NHS performance, education, crime and drugs problems, despite the socialist approach being applied to the problem for many years now.
So what does this mean?
Well I think it means that should Scotland find itself independent there would be new elections fairly soon afterwards. I imagine the UK would insist that Scotland held democratic elections as part of the independence negotiations and at this point Nicola would have to convince her countrymen (and women) that she was the right person to lead the nation now that it didn't have UK money to fritter away on social projects that were never available in the remainder of the UK. I'm not sure that she would do so well under these circumstances and she may find herself being booted out. For Nicola independence is all about power and not really about independence at all. As this stands she can be an influential thorn in the side of the British establishment and probably carve out a better deal for Scotland as a result, and currently be part of a rebel group that could hold Boris away from a majority. That is much more power than she would have as the ex-first minister of an independent Scotland.
Therefore I think that Nicola will rattle away about independence from time to time like old faithful blowing off, but she doesn't really want it...
...unless she really does have an automatic entry to the EU lined up.