4 ms·

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 ever

by 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.
brigandish 4y ago
How often do you think independence referenda should be held?
- synu 4y ago
  When it’s a close vote and circumstances are changing rapidly, I’d say pretty often. Maybe every two or three years until some kind of consensus emerges? It seems like an important topic you wouldn’t want to suppress except for once every sixty years or whatever, and might force some negotiation to get to a better place whether through independence or reconciliation. This is assuming the role of the government here is to track what the people want and execute their will. Maybe it’s different in the UK (again, I don’t live there and I know it’s a complicated system).
  - jfk13 4y ago
    > When it’s a close vote and circumstances are changing rapidly, I’d say pretty often And if you hold the vote every 2-3 years, and the result alternates between Yes and No, at what point will you say "stop, this is a final decision"?
    - synu 4y ago
      Several inconclusive outcomes don't add up to one conclusive one.
    - mensetmanusman 4y ago
      This is the democracy version of p-hacking.
- adrianN 4y ago
  About as often as a significant part of the population wants to hold them.
  - joking 4y ago
    and the same for a rejoining referendum?
hypertele-Xii 4y ago
> what is the harm in revoting if things seem to have changed? Opportunity cost. Politics and diplomacy take time and effort. Time and effort that could be spent developing plans that have utility. For example, we have many domestic matters in Finland that need political attention, but guess where all the resources have gone lately? Dealing with covid and russians.

by synu 4y ago

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.

brigandish 4y ago

How often do you think independence referenda should be held?

synu 4y ago
When it’s a close vote and circumstances are changing rapidly, I’d say pretty often. Maybe every two or three years until some kind of consensus emerges? It seems like an important topic you wouldn’t want to suppress except for once every sixty years or whatever, and might force some negotiation to get to a better place whether through independence or reconciliation. This is assuming the role of the government here is to track what the people want and execute their will. Maybe it’s different in the UK (again, I don’t live there and I know it’s a complicated system).
- jfk13 4y ago
  > When it’s a close vote and circumstances are changing rapidly, I’d say pretty often And if you hold the vote every 2-3 years, and the result alternates between Yes and No, at what point will you say "stop, this is a final decision"?
  - synu 4y ago
    Several inconclusive outcomes don't add up to one conclusive one.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    This is the democracy version of p-hacking.
adrianN 4y ago
About as often as a significant part of the population wants to hold them.
- joking 4y ago
  and the same for a rejoining referendum?

hypertele-Xii 4y ago

> what is the harm in revoting if things seem to have changed? Opportunity cost. Politics and diplomacy take time and effort. Time and effort that could be spent developing plans that have utility. For example, we have many domestic matters in Finland that need political attention, but guess where all the resources have gone lately? Dealing with covid and russians.