But a second referendum would force the situation to be analysed a lot more carefully. And that situation would not be a strong argument for leaving, no matter how much the Scots might like the idea of the EU.
Many voters made a very straightforward analysis: "the EU means I compete against an essentially infinite supply of labour, I can't do that, therefore we should get out of the EU so we can restrict immigration again".
You may not agree with this reasoning or you may feel the various other benefits of the EU outweigh them in your personal circumstances, but it's not an illogical analysis: they think leaving will make them economically better off and there are millions of such voters. It's actually quite difficult to mount a robust economic argument against this idea: you have to argue that the EU will erect such serious trade barriers that all the jobs disappear. But a lot of these people are working in local service industries anyway, they aren't selling to the EU, so you end up arguing a very indirect path to them personally suffering which basically rests on "the EU will be such bastards that the entire UK economy collapses", which then stirs up patriotic sentiments very strongly (reminds people of the war). And you rapidly end up in economic wonk territory because the details of the damage depend so much on details of the final deal, etc. The public, quite rightly, does not trust economists due to their track record of getting the big things wrong.
The economic rationale for Scotland leaving the UK and joining the EU is much less clear. The big one is public spending. The Scots may not like it but their country is subsidised by the UK to a huge degree. The spending deficit alone is the same size as ALL Scottish NHS spending. The economic argument from "lose the subsidies from the English, public services are cut because oil is cheap" is very direct and much more easily understood. Scotland does not have a problem with massive immigration. People like the idea of the EU but what specific economic problem would it solve for them?
^This!
I am a Scot, living in Scotland and I voted out (and against independence) but a great many of my peers over the years wanted independence "because Westminster/England".
It was the most childish of reasons.
The economic argument wasn't there the last time and it absolutely isn't there this time but last time it wasn't pressed much... this time it will be but once the Indy Propaganda machine gets going then all bets are off.
Do you have current statistics on the Scottish spending deficit? Last time I looked there was one but it was far from huge, especially when you account for defence and administration savings from being a small country.
The arguments for the EU aren't purely economic.
How is Scotland going to finance it this time?
FYI I am Scottish, living in Scotland and I voted out!
That was the primary (possibly only!) factor in my decision.
Even if you think that you have influence over who your SNP MP is - he/she won't ever be in the UK government, they will never have a say on anything, resigned to jeer from the opposition backbenches. It is the epitome of disenfranchisement.
Also: borders are sacred in Europe. States don't want to split/remodel per a 60 years old tradition.
There is a very strong case for indy Scotland (and i support it) but I admire that Sturgeon is smart enough to try and get the best of all possible outcomes.
Theoretically, yes, Scotland has to join the Euro. The EU treaties as they stand today, however, would prevent that from happening any time soon. Scotland would need its own currency first, and then to join ERM2, and meet the conditions for several years, and so on. And, like Sweden, Scotland could choose to deliberately not join ERM2.
Schengen is more interesting, particularly the future potential situation in Ireland.