Brexit showed what happens when voters back a leap in the dark. Unionists should stop refusing a second independence referendum and make the case for a third, argues Professor Colin Kidd.

English politicians – even those from the north – tend to be oblivious of the effect the remarks they make have on Scottish politics.

Andy Burnham knew, of course, that by re-opening the Brexit question in his party conference speech he would attract the ire of the Conservatives and Reform, but little did he imagine that it would reignite the campaign for a second referendum on Scottish independence.

The SNP accuses the Prime Minister of hypocrisy. You cannot re-examine the referendum of 2016, without also addressing the result of the 2014 referendum.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham delivers a speech focusing on the forming of closer ties with the Scottish government in Motherwell. (Image: Jeff Mitchell)

After all, one of the central planks of the unionist case in 2014 was that independence from a member state of the European Union would leave Scotland stranded outside of the EU.

Unintentionally, Burnham has gifted First Minister John Swinney a further persuasive argument as he launches the latest SNP drive for a second referendum.

But have we in Scotland learnt the right lessons from Brexit? To my mind, the Brexit shambles that for years afterwards followed the result in 2016 makes the case not so much for a second as for a third referendum on Scottish independence.

It's obvious in retrospect that voters in 2016 were voting for a pig in a poke. What did Brexit mean?

Beyond the UK leaving the EU, it was open to multiple interpretations. And, notwithstanding the assumption of pro-Brexit politicians that the UK would be able to strike a beneficial departure deal with the EU, it turned out that in negotiations the larger entity – the 27 member states of the EU with a combined population of around 400 million – was able to dictate terms to the UK.

The British people were not offered a........

© Herald Scotland