5 ms·

As a Brit who voted for Scottish independence last time, against the wishes of many of my family and those around me, if this happens again then I'll vote again

As a Brit who voted for Scottish independence last time, against the wishes of many of my family and those around me, if this happens again then I'll vote against the SNP's wishes. They said it was a once in generation vote. I made my case, as did everyone else, we all had the chance to vote on it, and my side lost. Democratic votes need the consent of the loser, not I didn't get my way so let's have another vote. Brexit has nothing to do with it, a third of those voting for independence also want(ed) independence from the EU, it's just an excuse. I don't even think they have the support this time as much as they did last time. It's opportunist, mendacious, unwarranted and ill-considered politicking that I will fight tooth and nail against.

justin66 4y ago
> As a Brit who voted for Scottish independence last time, against the wishes of many of my family and those around me, if this happens again then I'll vote against the SNP's wishes. You don't believe they should hold the vote again so soon, and so in the event of another vote your reaction will be to... participate in the vote you do not believe should be held, but cast a ballot against the outcome you want? What is the crazy logic there?
- brigandish 4y ago
  > What is the crazy logic there? - I do not control whether there is a vote - Those proposing the vote said they wouldn't do it - I will work to spoil it I'd prefer that you work through the simple and obvious points yourself instead of implying some mental problem on my part, if only to remove yourself from the irony of such a claim.
  - justin66 4y ago
    > I will work to spoil it You've failed to communicate the why? of this. I can express it a different way: you have decided that you know what is best for yourself and your country regarding independence - a big and highly consequential topic - and you're going to act in opposition of that to spite a relatively small number of powerful people whose actions you disapprove of. Those powerful people will not suffer regardless of whether your country makes the "correct" (whatever that is) choice regarding independence, but you and your country certainly will. Hence my curiosity about your logic.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      > You've failed to communicate the why? of this. Because I'm against lying, and because their own statement contained the logic that it's bad to continually vote on this issue - I'm using their ostensibly given logic because, if we take their actual words as truthful, they are correct. Most people agreed at the time and it was one of the reasons they convinced the public to go along with a referendum. Usually I can't really take into account the lies of politicians as each side does it and it usually doesn't make a difference anyway (e.g. their electoral promises can be compared to actual behaviour so I can vote based on the latter) and I don't usually get to vote on a specific instance of lying, nor to directly affect the ambitions of the liars. Here, I can. > you have decided that you know what is best for yourself and your country regarding independence Yes, I'm a voter so that's implied for everyone with a vote. > and you're going to act in opposition of that to spite a relatively small number of powerful people whose actions you disapprove of Yes. > Those powerful people will not suffer regardless They will suffer if they lose, as I alluded to above. > but you and your country certainly will The country will be fine either way. It may be better or worse but I'm not into eschatology generally, let alone when it's about politics unrelated to war. > Hence my curiosity about your logic. That's a more respectful way to put it, you might keep that in mind for future interactions on HN.
      - justin66 4y ago
        The idiom about cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind.
        brigandish 4y ago
        That would only make sense for SNP supporters willing to look past their political leaders' lies. The rest of us will do fine if we can punish corrupt and lying politicians. I wish we could do that more often, I always envy those who get by-elections and are able to vote against whichever party has been behaving poorly.
AshamedCaptain 4y ago
And that, as they say, is why we vote the Prime Minister and parliament for life, instead of having repeated elections every 5 years.
- brigandish 4y ago
  If you think having referenda is comparable, then let's have them every 5 years too, on both Scottish independence or rejoining the the Union, and on Brexit or rejoining the EU. It's just the same.
  - cyberpunk 4y ago
    I voted against it as I didn't want to lose my EU membership; which we were told would happen. A few years later, an unrepresentative (to scotland) tory government takes it from us anyway because they were frightened of nigel farage and some middle englanders don't like hearing polish in their local tescos. A lot of my friends who were remain for various reasons seem to be leaning towards independence. 'We were told it was a one time vote' isn't a good enough reason to stay pegged to this ship. The worst outcome for scotland already happened, we lost our EU citizenship, so what's the use of carrying along with the UK? That being said, I would hope that the SNP aren't running things after independence.
    - smcl 4y ago
      I think we'd continue with a proportional-representation system, so as-it-stands they'd sort of be running things but they'd need a coalition partner like they have in the Scottish Greens.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      > A few years later, an unrepresentative (to scotland) tory government takes it from us anyway because they were frightened of nigel farage and some middle englanders don't like hearing polish in their local tescos. You want a referendum because other people you disagree with were given a referendum that you then lost? And you paint this as "tory government takes it from us"? I also note that millions voted, it'd be hard for them all to be middle Englanders. I just wonder why you need to paint it so far from reality and in a way that only suits you?
dale_glass 4y ago
That's silly. I have no dog in this fight, but people are allowed to change their opinion, especially as circumstances change. If what your choice was based on changed, then it's perfectly logical for your choice to change in response. Holding up to "once in a generation" promises is stupid, though so was making such a claim to start with.
- brigandish 4y ago
  > people are allowed to change their opinion Since I've changed mine I think that is called teaching granny to suck eggs. > If what your choice was based on changed, then it's perfectly logical for your choice to change in response. I was told it was a once in a generation vote - has that changed? What constitutes a big enough change to bring a new vote? How often should these type of referenda be held? > Holding up to "once in a generation" promises is stupid, though so was making such a claim to start with. Yes, you must forgive me for thinking that principles and promises are worth sticking to. I should be as cynical as politicians and simply go by what is convenient, right?
  - maweki 4y ago
    Why is holding the pro-independence people to "once in a generation" okay but not holding the contra-independence people to "this is the only way to stay in the EU"? The issue was a vote on staying in the EU as much as staying in the UK. Now these circumstances changed. Also, the promises of further devolution weren't kept either. Again, why are you so hung up on the (let's say) lie of "once in a generation" but not hung up on all the other lies told by the opposition?
    - brigandish 4y ago
      > The issue was a vote on staying in the EU as much as staying in the UK I don't even remember it coming up but if it means a lot to you then I can see you'd be aggravated, but how would it obviate the once in a generation pledge? Scotland can't join the EU if it goes independent anyway, the vote to remain really was the only practical way to stay in the EU.
Semaphor 4y ago
> a third of those voting for independence also want(ed) independence from the EU Do you have a source for that? I only heard of the opposite, but that was mainly Reddit and HN where Europeans are usually pretty pro-EU.
- brigandish 4y ago
  No, because if I search for the polls that show it I only get results for this news! Sorry. There were a few polls that showed it at the time of both referendums, the BBC definitely covered it. If I find one in amongst the sea of bad search results I'll post it. It shouldn't be a surprise logically, as the cases can be seen as similar, but the media prefer the simple black and white cases so we're a rarely spoken of breed. Edit: sorry, typo, I wrote "It should be a surprise" when I meant "It shouldn't be a surprise".
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    Your sibling found an article, thank you for bringing this to my attention :)
    - brigandish 4y ago
      No problem, I was amazed at their Google-fu! :)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- xioxox 4y ago
  There's this: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/scotland-blog/2016/may/12/eurosceptic-snp-voters-could-influence-eu-referendum-result-polling-data-shows https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/scotland-blog/2016/may/1...
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    Perfect, thank you. Relevant quote: > In February, Ipsos Mori found 29% of SNP supporters would vote to leave while Survation for the Daily Mail put the SNP’s Brexit vote at 28%. On 2 May, the latest Survation poll, for the Daily Record, found 25% of pro-independence voters want to leave the EU – more than the 16% of no voters in that poll who back Brexit.
synu 4y ago
I am not British or Scottish and have no skin in the game, but what is the harm in revoting if things seem to have changed? Either things didn’t change and everyone votes the same anyway, in which case it was a waste of time but reconfirms the status quo, or things actually are different and then you know and can act on it. Is there a special history or feature in UK democracy where things are only ever voted on one time per generation for some reason?
- walkhour 4y ago
  The referendum was justified as once in a generation, and this phrase was repeated ad nauseam, and this deal was partly why the referendum happened. It wasn't said "once in a generation unless there's a big change", big changes happen in countries all the time, so by demanding a referendum now the rules are being changed. The next generation will have a chance to vote on this, and if they think independence from the EU is a big deal, they can vote accordingly.
  - Taywee 4y ago
    If a sizable number of people specifically voted against independence out of desire to remain in the EU, then their votes were undermined. Voting is supposed to represent the will of the people, and I don't think it's fair to treat it like a gamble that this generation just lost because whoops, England changed their circumstances and people said "once in a generation" a bunch of times. Did the voters agree to this "once in a generation" condition, or was it imposed upon them?
    - walkhour 4y ago
      > Voting is supposed to represent the will of the people The will of the people is always discovered within some rules, otherwise we could vote for many more things, instead of every four years. The rule in this case was to vote now, and wait decades for the next chance. > England changed their circumstances and people said "once in a generation" a bunch of times Circumstances always change, and they were bound to change within a generation, it was naive to think they wouldn't. Voting every decade with a 40% chance of independence happening means independence will happen just when the moods swing that way. Let me ask you, were circumstances going to change if Scotland was independent, should the new Scottish government check for the will of the people on whether they should reunite with the UK? How often should they do this? Of course this hasn't even crossed the mind of any Scottish politician and will never happen.
slightwinder 4y ago
> Democratic votes need the consent of the loser, not I didn't get my way so let's have another vote. That's only true till the situation changes. If the reason for your vote disappeared, then it's legit to reevaluate your vote. > a third of those voting for independence also want(ed) independence from the EU Which means two third, the majority, voted for the EU? Seems like a legit reason for a new vote.
- brigandish 4y ago
  Anyone can claim the situation has changed, every year. Life does not go backwards. I'm still not clear why that means "once in a generation" becomes "as soon as I can get what I want". > > a third of those voting for independence also want(ed) independence from the EU > Which means two third, the majority, voted for the EU? Seems like a legit reason for a new vote. Has that figure changed dramatically? Even if it had, I would go back to why that means "once in a generation" doesn't mean "once in a generation".
  - scott_w 4y ago
    Because it’s a spectrum. A minor change of policy? Not a solid basis to reevaluate a constitutional referendum. Completely rewriting huge chunks of your country’s constitution and international relationships? Probably grounds to rethink your own constitution.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      Were the SNP leaders unaware that many things can change over a 30 year period when they made the pledge? Were the SNP leaders unaware that there was a strong movement to leave the EU within the UK as a whole and also within their own movement? The answer to both is yes, so what's the excuse?
      - scott_w 4y ago
        Given Farage was also preparing the ground to re-run the Brexit referendum when he thought he was going to lose it, I would think the answer is obvious.
noxvilleza 4y ago
Obviously the status quo within the UK has changed a lot since the 2014 Scottish independence vote - the key aspect being Brexit. This change was sort of crucial to many of the key talking points in the vote: EU CAP subsidies for farmers, sole EU membership (now from a different prior state), border controls, etc. The prior vote was relatively close (55/45) so it's reasonable to expect that 200k people might've flipped to the 'Yes' camp.
- brigandish 4y ago
  I honestly don't remember much of the debate being on the EU, though that could be my memory or just my experience of it. It's clearly important, I simply don't agree that it obviates the pledge. UKIP were around, and as I pointed out in another comment (and confirmed by a sibling's helpfully finding the polling info) there were (are) plenty of independence supporters who also wanted out of the EU. If we take the low percentage from those polls of 25% then that eats that 45% by around 500k. I'm not saying that's how it would be this time but it doesn't make for a strong case.
blowski 4y ago
When the last referendum was first announced, about 35% supported independence. During the campaign it went up to 45-50% and has hovered there ever since.
maccard 4y ago
> not I didn't get my way so let's have another vote. That's not what has changed. I do agree that the SNP would likely be pushing _anyway_ (the hint is in their name), but a huge amount has been changed since we voted to remain part of the . The promises that were made regarding devolution are still not in place, and England voted on behalf of Scotland to leave the EU. > a third of those voting for independence also want(ed) independence from the EU, it's just an excuse. That's great for them, that means that a supermajority of Yes voters want to leave the UK but remain in the EU. That's as defintive as you can get in a vote.
- brigandish 4y ago
  > England voted on behalf of Scotland to leave the EU. The voting was done by British citizens, England and Scotland didn't get a vote. > > a third of those voting for independence also want(ed) independence from the EU, it's just an excuse. > That's great for them, that means that a supermajority of Yes voters want to leave the UK but remain in the EU. That's as defintive as you can get in a vote. I would say that the actual vote results are the most definitive. One was remain, one was leave.
ChildOfChaos 4y ago
Exactly and this is the most important thing. You can't just keep having a vote for no reason at all apart from the fact you didn't win last time and that is all the SNP are doing.
ricardobayes 4y ago
That would be true if the circumstances are unchanged that lead the public to make that decision. It's ok to support 'Leave', there is no need to sugarcoat it.
- brigandish 4y ago
  Which 2 consecutive years do not contain political changes?
rootusrootus 4y ago
> They said it was a once in generation vote. Or, put another way, you are trying to bind future voters to a promise you agreed to. An arbitrary, ill defined promise at that. What are you telling the younger voters you want to disenfranchise? Perhaps a supermajority was always the better solution to big questions that should have strong consensus.
- brigandish 4y ago
  > What are you telling the younger voters you want to disenfranchise? Will they not get to vote in future?
tapeloop 4y ago
they didn't say that it was a once in a generation vote (whatever that means), they said it was a once in a lifetime opportunity to make a difference. The actual difference in meaning between the two should be clear. The terms of the actual agreement signed by all parties agreed legally that there was nothing in it to preclude a further referendum, so even if by some chance your interpretation is what was meant then they have no actual power to enforce it.
- brigandish 4y ago
  > a once in a generation vote (whatever that means) Surely it means a referendum on independence once in around 30 years. It's not difficult to parse. Once in a lifetime would be longer. From the [Scotsman]: > Speaking on the BBC’s Good Morning Scotland programme yesterday, he said: “My estimation was that political constitutional referendums are once in a generation and I was making the example of 1979 and 1997 - that is why I always put it in that context every single time I said that. Of course, he goes on to say things have changed. What are the odds he would make the same case for another referendum if he thought things were changing against his favour? Nicola Sturgeon in interview with the [Guardian]: > And if the result is No? "Will there be another referendum round the corner? No. We can't bind our successors, but we've made very clear our belief that constitutional referenda are once-in-a-generation events." From Sturgeon's conference [speech]: > Next year, we have a once in a generation opportunity There's *lots* of examples of them saying it and reiterating in, in several forms, that all mean it wasn't going to happen often. That's what once in a lifetime means, right? Who knew that the SNP would bring me the real second life! > The terms of the actual agreement signed by all parties agreed legally that there was nothing in it to preclude a further referendum Very true. I'm not even sure if it's possible under the constitution, as Sturgeon pointed out above "We can't bind our successors", but that's why pledges about the circumstances of a vote are so important. > so even if by some chance your interpretation is what was meant then they have no actual power to enforce it. Right. What does that have to do with my voting intention? I'm also interested in what your interpretation of "once in a lifetime" means. Are you over 30? [Scotsman] https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/alex-salmond-once-generation-referendum-was-estimation-614062 https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/alex-salmond-once-gen... [Guardian] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/24/nicola-sturgeon-scotland-better-off https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/24/nicola-stur... [speech] http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/yesscotland/pages/3159/attachments/original/1382109831/18.10.13-NicolaSturgeonspeech-SNP_conference.pdf?1382109831 http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/yesscotland/pages/3159/...

justin66 4y ago

> As a Brit who voted for Scottish independence last time, against the wishes of many of my family and those around me, if this happens again then I'll vote against the SNP's wishes. You don't believe they should hold the vote again so soon, and so in the event of another vote your reaction will be to... participate in the vote you do not believe should be held, but cast a ballot against the outcome you want? What is the crazy logic there?

brigandish 4y ago
> What is the crazy logic there? - I do not control whether there is a vote - Those proposing the vote said they wouldn't do it - I will work to spoil it I'd prefer that you work through the simple and obvious points yourself instead of implying some mental problem on my part, if only to remove yourself from the irony of such a claim.
- justin66 4y ago
  > I will work to spoil it You've failed to communicate the why? of this. I can express it a different way: you have decided that you know what is best for yourself and your country regarding independence - a big and highly consequential topic - and you're going to act in opposition of that to spite a relatively small number of powerful people whose actions you disapprove of. Those powerful people will not suffer regardless of whether your country makes the "correct" (whatever that is) choice regarding independence, but you and your country certainly will. Hence my curiosity about your logic.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    > You've failed to communicate the why? of this. Because I'm against lying, and because their own statement contained the logic that it's bad to continually vote on this issue - I'm using their ostensibly given logic because, if we take their actual words as truthful, they are correct. Most people agreed at the time and it was one of the reasons they convinced the public to go along with a referendum. Usually I can't really take into account the lies of politicians as each side does it and it usually doesn't make a difference anyway (e.g. their electoral promises can be compared to actual behaviour so I can vote based on the latter) and I don't usually get to vote on a specific instance of lying, nor to directly affect the ambitions of the liars. Here, I can. > you have decided that you know what is best for yourself and your country regarding independence Yes, I'm a voter so that's implied for everyone with a vote. > and you're going to act in opposition of that to spite a relatively small number of powerful people whose actions you disapprove of Yes. > Those powerful people will not suffer regardless They will suffer if they lose, as I alluded to above. > but you and your country certainly will The country will be fine either way. It may be better or worse but I'm not into eschatology generally, let alone when it's about politics unrelated to war. > Hence my curiosity about your logic. That's a more respectful way to put it, you might keep that in mind for future interactions on HN.
    - justin66 4y ago
      The idiom about cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        That would only make sense for SNP supporters willing to look past their political leaders' lies. The rest of us will do fine if we can punish corrupt and lying politicians. I wish we could do that more often, I always envy those who get by-elections and are able to vote against whichever party has been behaving poorly.

AshamedCaptain 4y ago

And that, as they say, is why we vote the Prime Minister and parliament for life, instead of having repeated elections every 5 years.

brigandish 4y ago
If you think having referenda is comparable, then let's have them every 5 years too, on both Scottish independence or rejoining the the Union, and on Brexit or rejoining the EU. It's just the same.
- cyberpunk 4y ago
  I voted against it as I didn't want to lose my EU membership; which we were told would happen. A few years later, an unrepresentative (to scotland) tory government takes it from us anyway because they were frightened of nigel farage and some middle englanders don't like hearing polish in their local tescos. A lot of my friends who were remain for various reasons seem to be leaning towards independence. 'We were told it was a one time vote' isn't a good enough reason to stay pegged to this ship. The worst outcome for scotland already happened, we lost our EU citizenship, so what's the use of carrying along with the UK? That being said, I would hope that the SNP aren't running things after independence.
  - smcl 4y ago
    I think we'd continue with a proportional-representation system, so as-it-stands they'd sort of be running things but they'd need a coalition partner like they have in the Scottish Greens.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    > A few years later, an unrepresentative (to scotland) tory government takes it from us anyway because they were frightened of nigel farage and some middle englanders don't like hearing polish in their local tescos. You want a referendum because other people you disagree with were given a referendum that you then lost? And you paint this as "tory government takes it from us"? I also note that millions voted, it'd be hard for them all to be middle Englanders. I just wonder why you need to paint it so far from reality and in a way that only suits you?

dale_glass 4y ago

That's silly. I have no dog in this fight, but people are allowed to change their opinion, especially as circumstances change. If what your choice was based on changed, then it's perfectly logical for your choice to change in response. Holding up to "once in a generation" promises is stupid, though so was making such a claim to start with.

brigandish 4y ago
> people are allowed to change their opinion Since I've changed mine I think that is called teaching granny to suck eggs. > If what your choice was based on changed, then it's perfectly logical for your choice to change in response. I was told it was a once in a generation vote - has that changed? What constitutes a big enough change to bring a new vote? How often should these type of referenda be held? > Holding up to "once in a generation" promises is stupid, though so was making such a claim to start with. Yes, you must forgive me for thinking that principles and promises are worth sticking to. I should be as cynical as politicians and simply go by what is convenient, right?
- maweki 4y ago
  Why is holding the pro-independence people to "once in a generation" okay but not holding the contra-independence people to "this is the only way to stay in the EU"? The issue was a vote on staying in the EU as much as staying in the UK. Now these circumstances changed. Also, the promises of further devolution weren't kept either. Again, why are you so hung up on the (let's say) lie of "once in a generation" but not hung up on all the other lies told by the opposition?
  - brigandish 4y ago
    > The issue was a vote on staying in the EU as much as staying in the UK I don't even remember it coming up but if it means a lot to you then I can see you'd be aggravated, but how would it obviate the once in a generation pledge? Scotland can't join the EU if it goes independent anyway, the vote to remain really was the only practical way to stay in the EU.

Semaphor 4y ago

> a third of those voting for independence also want(ed) independence from the EU Do you have a source for that? I only heard of the opposite, but that was mainly Reddit and HN where Europeans are usually pretty pro-EU.

brigandish 4y ago
No, because if I search for the polls that show it I only get results for this news! Sorry. There were a few polls that showed it at the time of both referendums, the BBC definitely covered it. If I find one in amongst the sea of bad search results I'll post it. It shouldn't be a surprise logically, as the cases can be seen as similar, but the media prefer the simple black and white cases so we're a rarely spoken of breed. Edit: sorry, typo, I wrote "It should be a surprise" when I meant "It shouldn't be a surprise".
- Semaphor 4y ago
  Your sibling found an article, thank you for bringing this to my attention :)
  - brigandish 4y ago
    No problem, I was amazed at their Google-fu! :)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
xioxox 4y ago
There's this: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/scotland-blog/2016/may/12/eurosceptic-snp-voters-could-influence-eu-referendum-result-polling-data-shows https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/scotland-blog/2016/may/1...
- Semaphor 4y ago
  Perfect, thank you. Relevant quote: > In February, Ipsos Mori found 29% of SNP supporters would vote to leave while Survation for the Daily Mail put the SNP’s Brexit vote at 28%. On 2 May, the latest Survation poll, for the Daily Record, found 25% of pro-independence voters want to leave the EU – more than the 16% of no voters in that poll who back Brexit.

synu 4y ago

I am not British or Scottish and have no skin in the game, but what is the harm in revoting if things seem to have changed? Either things didn’t change and everyone votes the same anyway, in which case it was a waste of time but reconfirms the status quo, or things actually are different and then you know and can act on it. Is there a special history or feature in UK democracy where things are only ever voted on one time per generation for some reason?

walkhour 4y ago
The referendum was justified as once in a generation, and this phrase was repeated ad nauseam, and this deal was partly why the referendum happened. It wasn't said "once in a generation unless there's a big change", big changes happen in countries all the time, so by demanding a referendum now the rules are being changed. The next generation will have a chance to vote on this, and if they think independence from the EU is a big deal, they can vote accordingly.
- Taywee 4y ago
  If a sizable number of people specifically voted against independence out of desire to remain in the EU, then their votes were undermined. Voting is supposed to represent the will of the people, and I don't think it's fair to treat it like a gamble that this generation just lost because whoops, England changed their circumstances and people said "once in a generation" a bunch of times. Did the voters agree to this "once in a generation" condition, or was it imposed upon them?
  - walkhour 4y ago
    > Voting is supposed to represent the will of the people The will of the people is always discovered within some rules, otherwise we could vote for many more things, instead of every four years. The rule in this case was to vote now, and wait decades for the next chance. > England changed their circumstances and people said "once in a generation" a bunch of times Circumstances always change, and they were bound to change within a generation, it was naive to think they wouldn't. Voting every decade with a 40% chance of independence happening means independence will happen just when the moods swing that way. Let me ask you, were circumstances going to change if Scotland was independent, should the new Scottish government check for the will of the people on whether they should reunite with the UK? How often should they do this? Of course this hasn't even crossed the mind of any Scottish politician and will never happen.

slightwinder 4y ago

> Democratic votes need the consent of the loser, not I didn't get my way so let's have another vote. That's only true till the situation changes. If the reason for your vote disappeared, then it's legit to reevaluate your vote. > a third of those voting for independence also want(ed) independence from the EU Which means two third, the majority, voted for the EU? Seems like a legit reason for a new vote.

brigandish 4y ago
Anyone can claim the situation has changed, every year. Life does not go backwards. I'm still not clear why that means "once in a generation" becomes "as soon as I can get what I want". > > a third of those voting for independence also want(ed) independence from the EU > Which means two third, the majority, voted for the EU? Seems like a legit reason for a new vote. Has that figure changed dramatically? Even if it had, I would go back to why that means "once in a generation" doesn't mean "once in a generation".
- scott_w 4y ago
  Because it’s a spectrum. A minor change of policy? Not a solid basis to reevaluate a constitutional referendum. Completely rewriting huge chunks of your country’s constitution and international relationships? Probably grounds to rethink your own constitution.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    Were the SNP leaders unaware that many things can change over a 30 year period when they made the pledge? Were the SNP leaders unaware that there was a strong movement to leave the EU within the UK as a whole and also within their own movement? The answer to both is yes, so what's the excuse?
    - scott_w 4y ago
      Given Farage was also preparing the ground to re-run the Brexit referendum when he thought he was going to lose it, I would think the answer is obvious.

noxvilleza 4y ago

Obviously the status quo within the UK has changed a lot since the 2014 Scottish independence vote - the key aspect being Brexit. This change was sort of crucial to many of the key talking points in the vote: EU CAP subsidies for farmers, sole EU membership (now from a different prior state), border controls, etc. The prior vote was relatively close (55/45) so it's reasonable to expect that 200k people might've flipped to the 'Yes' camp.

brigandish 4y ago
I honestly don't remember much of the debate being on the EU, though that could be my memory or just my experience of it. It's clearly important, I simply don't agree that it obviates the pledge. UKIP were around, and as I pointed out in another comment (and confirmed by a sibling's helpfully finding the polling info) there were (are) plenty of independence supporters who also wanted out of the EU. If we take the low percentage from those polls of 25% then that eats that 45% by around 500k. I'm not saying that's how it would be this time but it doesn't make for a strong case.

blowski 4y ago

When the last referendum was first announced, about 35% supported independence. During the campaign it went up to 45-50% and has hovered there ever since.

maccard 4y ago

> not I didn't get my way so let's have another vote. That's not what has changed. I do agree that the SNP would likely be pushing _anyway_ (the hint is in their name), but a huge amount has been changed since we voted to remain part of the . The promises that were made regarding devolution are still not in place, and England voted on behalf of Scotland to leave the EU. > a third of those voting for independence also want(ed) independence from the EU, it's just an excuse. That's great for them, that means that a supermajority of Yes voters want to leave the UK but remain in the EU. That's as defintive as you can get in a vote.

brigandish 4y ago
> England voted on behalf of Scotland to leave the EU. The voting was done by British citizens, England and Scotland didn't get a vote. > > a third of those voting for independence also want(ed) independence from the EU, it's just an excuse. > That's great for them, that means that a supermajority of Yes voters want to leave the UK but remain in the EU. That's as defintive as you can get in a vote. I would say that the actual vote results are the most definitive. One was remain, one was leave.

ChildOfChaos 4y ago

Exactly and this is the most important thing. You can't just keep having a vote for no reason at all apart from the fact you didn't win last time and that is all the SNP are doing.

ricardobayes 4y ago

That would be true if the circumstances are unchanged that lead the public to make that decision. It's ok to support 'Leave', there is no need to sugarcoat it.

brigandish 4y ago
Which 2 consecutive years do not contain political changes?

rootusrootus 4y ago

> They said it was a once in generation vote. Or, put another way, you are trying to bind future voters to a promise you agreed to. An arbitrary, ill defined promise at that. What are you telling the younger voters you want to disenfranchise? Perhaps a supermajority was always the better solution to big questions that should have strong consensus.

brigandish 4y ago
> What are you telling the younger voters you want to disenfranchise? Will they not get to vote in future?

tapeloop 4y ago

they didn't say that it was a once in a generation vote (whatever that means), they said it was a once in a lifetime opportunity to make a difference. The actual difference in meaning between the two should be clear. The terms of the actual agreement signed by all parties agreed legally that there was nothing in it to preclude a further referendum, so even if by some chance your interpretation is what was meant then they have no actual power to enforce it.

brigandish 4y ago
> a once in a generation vote (whatever that means) Surely it means a referendum on independence once in around 30 years. It's not difficult to parse. Once in a lifetime would be longer. From the [Scotsman]: > Speaking on the BBC’s Good Morning Scotland programme yesterday, he said: “My estimation was that political constitutional referendums are once in a generation and I was making the example of 1979 and 1997 - that is why I always put it in that context every single time I said that. Of course, he goes on to say things have changed. What are the odds he would make the same case for another referendum if he thought things were changing against his favour? Nicola Sturgeon in interview with the [Guardian]: > And if the result is No? "Will there be another referendum round the corner? No. We can't bind our successors, but we've made very clear our belief that constitutional referenda are once-in-a-generation events." From Sturgeon's conference [speech]: > Next year, we have a once in a generation opportunity There's *lots* of examples of them saying it and reiterating in, in several forms, that all mean it wasn't going to happen often. That's what once in a lifetime means, right? Who knew that the SNP would bring me the real second life! > The terms of the actual agreement signed by all parties agreed legally that there was nothing in it to preclude a further referendum Very true. I'm not even sure if it's possible under the constitution, as Sturgeon pointed out above "We can't bind our successors", but that's why pledges about the circumstances of a vote are so important. > so even if by some chance your interpretation is what was meant then they have no actual power to enforce it. Right. What does that have to do with my voting intention? I'm also interested in what your interpretation of "once in a lifetime" means. Are you over 30? [Scotsman] https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/alex-salmond-once-generation-referendum-was-estimation-614062 https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/alex-salmond-once-gen... [Guardian] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/24/nicola-sturgeon-scotland-better-off https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/24/nicola-stur... [speech] http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/yesscotland/pages/3159/attachments/original/1382109831/18.10.13-NicolaSturgeonspeech-SNP_conference.pdf?1382109831 http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/yesscotland/pages/3159/...