Hacker News Reader

Comment by brigandish | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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.

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".

>I'm still not clear why that means "once in a generation" becomes "as soon as I can get what I want".

Because Brexit, duh?

Please explain more, you clearly have some assumptions that I do not share.

> 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".

So for you Brexit, a harder one than what anyone campaigned for ( the hardest one i recall hearing about was "Norway-style"), isn't a change ?

Perhaps I could've been clearer. There will always be changes, hence, anyone who wishes to claim there's been a change can.

That doesn't obviate "once in a generation", does it? Perhaps they should've been clearer and said "once in a generation, and if the UK has a referendum on EU membership and we decide to leave, and if…"

It would've been more honest, at least.

I'll also note, you're right that the vast majority of leave proponents wanted a Norway-style deal, it was remainers who presented this form as part of their machinations to try and wangle the UK staying in. Don't blame anyone else for that.

Why does the statement "once in a generation" completely obviate any nuance? It makes sense to evaluate things based on events and changes in situation and context. It makes sense to not bring up things over and over again in an attempt to change something that people don't want changed. It doesn't make sense to use a phrase as the sole justification for avoiding reevaluating a decision made in a different context. I don't think it's rational to read "once in a generation" as "once in a generation, regardless of any and all circumstances, with no room for any reconsideration ever".

Any statement should be considered to be taken in the context that it is given, and constrained by rational, reasonable bounds and circumstances. Assuming anything outside of technical and legal language to mean the most absolute and literal interpretation of the words isn't productive or useful in most cases.

A politician says "once in a generation". In that time a lot of things can happen. Think back a generation (about 30 years) and of the big things that have happened. The SNP leaders, when making this statement, were all well over 30 and hence, knew that big things happen in that time.

That's why the changes you might say would lead to re-evaluation do not.

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.

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?

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.

How is that relevant? I also wonder how two wrongs make a right, perhaps you could illuminate me on that.

Where did I say it was wrong?

I said it was wrong for the SNP, so it would have been wrong for Farage. Are you going to state what is so obvious, because I can't be sure I or anyone else knows what you've alluded to?

Politics and rhetoric. It’s really that simple.

Didn't the UK made a rather unprecedented move of lowkey changing some Scottish sea-border since to get some potential gas fields on the english side?

In 1999. You can read a pro-independence argument on that here[1], as you can tell from this quote:

> In 1999 Tony Blair, abetted by the Scottish traitor Donald Dewar, redrew the existing English/Scottish maritime boundary to annex 6,000 square miles of Scottish waters to England, including the Argyll field and six other major oilfields. The idea was specifically to disadvantage Scotland’s case for independence.

Whether you think he makes his case or not, it's been a while and it didn't stop the first referendum.

[1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/01/scotlandengl...

> 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".

Are we pretending that Brexit wasn't a massive change of situation?

Are we pretending that the SNP was unaware of UKIP when they made the pledge?

Am I missing that a mention of "once in a generation" is suddenly such a binding statement that the speaker can't go back on it?

"What are the odds?" 'Once in a generation, I should think'

"Things went badly, let's try again" 'Can't! Once in a generation!'

I'd say that if you don't wish to be held to a pledge like "once in a generation" then don't make it. If you're the sort of person who thinks words don't matter, that your promises and guarantees don't matter, then I get it.

Otherwise I would have to conclude that you simply wish your political goals to be made easier. We'd all like that.

I think it’s more about expectations that dishonesty. One might expect something is a once-per-generation event, but then things happen, stuff changes, here we are less than a decade later hoping to do it again.

> Anyone can claim the situation has changed, every year.

Yes, they can, and some do. But don't also need to convince the people and follow some regulations for this? It's not like they can randomly vote for anything and everything every day as they like, or can they?

> Has that figure changed dramatically?

Make a vote to figure out?

> "once in a generation"

What exactly does this mean? I mean, sure, back in 2014(?) this was a great term. But back then, the world was very different. The world was at peace and smoothing well, more or less. With Brexit, the climate movement in 2019, then the Pandemia and now the war this all changed drastically. Even if the Brexit had worked well somehow in the world back then, the pandemia and now the war destroyed all those chances and shifted the people views significantly.

I mean until some months ago, we still were convinced that pandemia was ending and the world was going to move smoothly again, continuing were it paused from 2019. Russia changed all that and made clear that the cozy times of the 201x years are over. The generation of 2014 is done, the world from then is no more, and a new generation takes over now.

> > "once in a generation"

> What exactly does this mean?

From the Oxford English dictionary:

> generation | dʒɛnəˈreɪʃ(ə)n | > noun > • the average period, generally considered to be about thirty years, in which children grow up, become adults, and have children of their own: the same families have lived here for generations.

> With Brexit, the climate movement in 2019, then the Pandemia and now the war this all changed drastically.

I think you already covered that with "Anyone can claim the situation has changed, every year". Think back over 30 years and tell me there weren't big changes then too.

If you say to me "once in a generation" and you're over 40 then I'm going to hold you to it. You didn't come down in the last shower.

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?

How often do you think independence referenda should be held?

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).

> 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"?

Several inconclusive outcomes don't add up to one conclusive one.

This is the democracy version of p-hacking.

About as often as a significant part of the population wants to hold them.

and the same for a rejoining referendum?

The same for any referendum.

52%? 66%? Under 50%?

What is significant here?

It would match the % required to pass the referendum. So if 65% is required, for example, and it seems like 65% might support it, then you should find out. What % is required to pass a binding referendum in the UK? What was required to determine the will of the people for Brexit?

You could do it for example like so: First you give volunteers limited time to collect a relatively small number of signatures, say about 1% of the voters in half a year, to start the process. If that is successful you transfer responsibility to the government and have the government determine whether at least 20% of the population is interested. If so, you hold the referendum.

Whenever the people vote for it. The SNP (and Greens) were crystal clear in their manifestos in the last elections and people voted for it. In general, people hope that the politicians should do what they said that they would. With Brexit and Tory policies over 10 years, it seems reasonable to have the vote. I would prefer one vote to start the process and final confirmation vote once the exact deal is established. Always a good idea to know exactly what is being offered before taking the deal (total opposite of Brexit) [scot living in Scotland]

How often do you think the entire government of a state should change? Some would argue every 4-5 years makes it impossible to have politicians with long term thinking. Why not have elections once every generation?

If Scotland votes for independence should they hold a referendum every 4-5 years on rejoining the UK?

If enough people want it, then of course? Why is this even a question? It is a democratic country last time I checked, if the chosen government representing the people decides that a referendum is what the public want....it should be held regardless of how much time has elapsed.

Sure, if they want to. UK should also feel free to say “eh nah” in that case.

Not so simple, UK will also have referendums on will they allow Scotland to join or kick them out. Also by nature of politics, the two referendums will not align so people would still be unhappy.

Whenever there's a seismic enough event like, I dunno, leaving the European Union. That was a fairly effective scare-tactic used by the No campaign - you'll kicked out of the EU, you won't actually meet the criteria! These were pretty huge points that spooked a lot of people into not voting or voting No.

It's not really seismic though, is it? Both options in each referendum were reasonable, there's plenty of countries in the EU and plenty out that do well, plenty have left the Britain and done well, those in the UK are doing fine.

I didn't like the scare tactics in either campaign on either side (though the status quo sides' in each were notably more on the scare side). I see it as an excuse from those who would take any excuse they can.

Yes it really is seismic, it is a huge stretch to claim it was anything less than that (otherwise it wouldn't have been such a big issue to threaten the Yes vote with). And furthermore as a Scot living in the EU, believe me it is not simply an "excuse".

> as a Scot living in the EU, believe me it is not simply an "excuse"

Your living situation does not obviate the SNP's pledge.

> Yes it really is seismic,

My living situation is to live in a region with actual earthquakes, big ones at times too. A change of a trade deal is not in the same universe, let alone world, of effect upon people's daily lives or political events as that. You need to calm yourself down and get some perspective.

If this referendum comes to pass I'll move back to give my vote against it (unless I get my chance from here). That's how much I'm against it, and keep in mind, I voted for independence the first time. It's slimy and I won't have it.

Edit: I accidentally left part of the responder above's comment that I pasted in, not quoted properly. It was confusing so I removed it.

Ok if you're going to be overly literal then substitute "seismic" for "very, very big and disruptive for many people". I think if we're at the point where you're picking away at my choice of adjective we might be done with this discussion :-/

What I'm doing is comparing the literal with the figurative, as that is how the figurative comes to be. It's not seismic, your passport will change colour and some immigration rules changed. You, as someone living in Europe will have a more bothersome time than before but you're still there, right?

What you are experiencing is nothing compared to what non-EU citizens (who are largely non-white) had to go through when coming to the UK - why were we favouring Romanians and Hungarians over Indians and Singaporians? I've no idea.

Still, it was a change in a trade pact.

> 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.

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.

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?

> 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.

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.

> 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?

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?

> 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.

> Scotland can't join the EU if it goes independent anyway

Why though? It's not like the UK could dangle a veto over their heads now. Spain already pledged not to veto.

The pledge you’re referring to is something every voter signed during the vote? Or something a politician had said?

Also curious why Scotland is not able to apply if it leaves the UK? Thanks in advance for the info.

> Also curious why Scotland is not able to apply if it leaves the UK?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-scotla...

They're talking nonsense. There is sometimes talk of Spain veto-ing Scottish accession to the EU as a sort of warning to Catalonians (who closely identify with the Scottish indy movement), but realistically Scotland is aligned with the EU acquis so there's no really go reason not to. They won't be able to rejoin on the same terms as the UK were in, but that's something that was lost forever after Brexit.

What constitutes a big enough change to bring a new vote?

Leaving the EU?

As Scotland doesn't qualify to join the EU upon independence I'd have to say it's not.

What else would be big enough?

Scotland doesn't qualify to join the EU upon independence

What would be the problem, assuming the independence gets recognized by London? The border situation? The deficit? Or is there some more fundamental problem I'm unaware of?

You've mentioned two important factors but the harder standards to be met are economic. This[1] covers it quite thoroughly, is written by someone I would expect is in favour of joining the EU (though I'm not sure) but I think they've done a fair job, and some (some) of the comments too.

Once those are met then thorny issues like a hundred mile long border can be looked at. I don't think it's impossible, but, as is covered in the first link (and many other places, did you look?) Scotland cannot swan in to the EU in less than 2 years even at the very best. And without the Euro?[2]

[1] https://sceptical.scot/2020/03/can-scotland-meet-eu-economic...

[2] https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-independen...

> 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?

I don't think there's any fixed answer to such a question. But I'd say that if the population in general clearly changes their answer, then that merits putting that change in practice.

> 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?

Yup. I'm a consequentialist. I care extremely little about iron-clad principles, and instead think that the thing we should be optimizing for is outcomes. There's no reason to live under the wrong outcome for the sake of some sort of idealism that brings no benefit to anyone. Rules can be changed as necessary, and promises can be reneged on (though IMO such promises shouldn't be made in the first place).

> I care extremely little about iron-clad principles, and instead think that the thing we should be optimizing for is outcomes.

The point of having principles is to optimise decision making for good outcomes.

> There's no reason to live under the wrong outcome for the sake of some sort of idealism that brings no benefit to anyone.

Having mendacious politicians succeed in their mendacity so easily is of benefit to whom?

Re-running votes because you lost is of benefit to the whole of society how?

Others in this thread have pointed out the opportunity cost problem, and the bias problem of re-running votes too often.

> Rules can be changed as necessary

Of course. In this case I do not see the necessity. The polling figures split yes/no in much the same way as they've been since the last time. The only thing that's of any significance that's changed is Brexit, and yet we had the SNP crowing the other day about how it's bringing in more outside investment than the rest of the UK (which was another mendacity, but what isn't from them?). They were also aware of UKIP and its support, and surely the anti-EU support within their own ranks at the time.

There is no necessity here.

> The point of having principles is to optimise decision making for good outcomes.

Having principles optimizes for consistency, not outcomes. To me, turning around on a dime 10 times a day can be perfectly justified, so long that in the end you end up somewhere better than before. Same as going forward in the same direction for a thousand years, so long that's the thing that works.

> Having mendacious politicians succeed in their mendacity so easily is of benefit to whom?

The voters who want the policy they propose.

> Of course. In this case I do not see the necessity. The polling figures split yes/no in much the same way as they've been since the last time.

That's quite unimportant to my point here. I'm not talking about UK politics, but specifically rejecting your view of "once in a generation choice". I wouldn't make such promises myself, and would ignore concerns about breaking such a promise.

"Once in a generation" to me is never a legitimate rule. "However often, and whenever needed" is. If somebody made that promise, I'm all for breaking it whenever it seems there's any benefit from it.

> 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?

So principled that you are happy to stick with a leader who when asked about parties that went on in his house, confidently stated that no parties had taken place.

I don't support Boris Johnson, I'm not a Tory, I don't care about the stupid parties, cake and beer by anyone and I'd like to know why you're claiming the opposite?

Please, I'd like to know why you felt the need to write a completely false comment.

He is the current PM of the UK.

The Tory party is dominant in the UK. Now and for the forseeable future. And even in the unforseeable future, more years than not.

Independence is the only escape.

That is not an answer to the question I asked. Why did you state things about another member of HN that you cannot know and are in actual fact entirely wrong. I didn't see an apology either.

Are you sure you're in the right place?

Referenda that have a profound impact on your system of government should be rare. There is an impact on both economies in terms of investment and planning. They should be offered in a once in a generation basis.

Many (most?) countries have constitutions that forbid splitting up the country. UK is pretty unusual in providing for a referendum of the type that happened in 2014.

Or, you know, require a supermajority instead of disenfranchising voters. You could vote once a day if you did not put the threshold at 50% plus 1.

Why or? They are entirely orthogonal concerns.

The reason for the "once in a generation" promise is that it is widely recognised that holding regular referenda on non-reversible decisions biases in favour of the non-reversible option.

Let's imagine for example that genuinely 55% of the population want to remain part of the UK, and so remaining should win given a completely fair and accurate measure of the population's mood. However, every measurement varies for a variety of reasons, for instance what outrageous things some random politician has said in the last few days. If we were to hold a referendum every year, then you'd be bound to hit a year at some point fairly quickly where the random variation pushes the result over the 50% leave threshold. This would trigger the non-reversible transition, and the referenda would stop happening.

There's a reasonably strong argument for this reason that non-reversible decisions should require a greater than 50% majority. That's why amendments to the US constitution require a 2/3 majority vote to pass.

I think that's much better dealt with a greater than 50% majority requirement than with any kind of timing requirement.

There's no reason to believe that a time requirement is a good protection against random politicians saying outrageous things. In fact it probably makes things worse because it gives obvious timelines for a campaign, so whenever the possibility opens up it pretty much guarantees all the outrageous politicians coming out of the woodwork.

Yeah. The problem with requiring a greater than 50% majority is that politically the side that wants the change to happen will complain that it's unfair.

Does the UK really run these kind of referendum based on a simple 50% majority? That seems like a recipe for chaos (if true).

All referenda in the UK are advisory, and non-binding. Parliament doesn't technically have to abide by their decisions at all, but it would be damaging politically not to do so.

Brexit passed with 51.89% of the vote, so apparently.

Well that seems quite silly. You'd think you'd want a majority for a big, hard to reverse decision like that, otherwise it will oscillate back and forth.

Well not really. You do want to bias for dissolving a union.

If half the population is against it, it doesn’t matter if it’s 51% or 49%, it’s unpopular enough that it is tearing your nation in two.

Imagine the US civil war came down to a vote: “Sorry, 50.1% are in favor of slavery so we’re just going to keep practicing it in all of America”. Would the 49.9% be happy to live within that union? How about vice versa? The division is too deep.

If each 50% happens to be more or less perfectly geographically distributed, sure, but if not then you've just recreated the same problem twice (now something approaching 50% of each new division wants to immediately undo what you've just done).

> There's a reasonably strong argument for this reason that non-reversible decisions should require a greater than 50% majority

Cool. I like the idea of that. Other things that seem non-reversible...

  - building nuclear plants/weapons
  - burning fossil fuels
  - dismantling the NHS

Let's have a 75% majority required on any of that and I'll happily remain in the UK.

> Holding up to "once in a generation" promises is stupid, though so was making such a claim to start with.

It's not a bad way to try and skip a generation that seems to be skewing left, however, and keep power in the hands of the boomer generation. "Sorry, kids, I know you weren't old enough to vote for this before, but we agreed that we wouldn't do it again for a generation."

Would those kids not get a vote in 20 years? Those who are young tend to skew left anyway. As a Danish friend once told me "If you're young and you don't vote left, you have no heart. If you're old and you don't vote right, you have no brains."

Ever was it thus.

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

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.

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.

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.

> 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?

secession from a union that is not representing your interests is valid.

this was the case for brexit, why is it different for scotland?

I wrote that I voted for independence right at the top of the thread, did you miss that?

Reasons for wanting a referendum are none of your business. It suffices to say they want one.

If it fails, then not enough wanted to leave. That is all.

When they failed to do Brexit for years running, and it turned out the arguments for were lies, there should have been another Brexit vote. It would have failed, and a great deal of trouble would be saved.

It's strange that I was allowed to vote in the last one if it's none of my business.

> they want one.

Polls consistently show less than 50%. Perhaps the "they" you meant is the SNP?

The point is you don't know until the vote how it would turn out. If you did know, there would be no need for the vote.

You don't know why the overwhelming majority of them voted as they did. Maybe most of them can't be said to know. It suffices that they voted.

I think you're changing the point. Why is it none of my business?

It is nobody's business. A vote is a vote.

If I get to vote then it is my business, else I wouldn't or shouldn't get a vote.

It's none of your business why they want to call a referendum, or why anybody would vote as they would, or how they would vote, individually. There may be as many reasons as votes. You will of course vote on it as you please, or not vote, and it's also nobody else's business whether or how you voted, or why.

You are free to announce how you will vote, and why. And you can change your mind afterward, and vote the opposite, without telling anybody.

This is all absolutely elementary civics.

> It's none of your business why they want to call a referendum

The intentions of politicians are not my business and that is "absolutely elementary civics". That isn't credible.

As to the rest, obvious and irrelevant. When did I make any comment on someone else's right or reasons to vote? I didn't, thank for noticing enough that you refrain from attempting to use it to obscure the issue at hand - your claim about what is my business or not.

Politicians are expected to do what voters are demanding.

They can guess reasons why they think voters want it, and some voters may suggest reasons they think will be persuasive. The pols might offer reasons, too, but they don't really know, so you won't really know either.

And, it doesn't matter. You will vote for, against, or abstain, regardless. People can try to persuade you, but they are not obliged to tell you the truth about their own reasons. The pols, anyway, just want to get elected again and hope that supporting or blocking a referendum vote will do that for them. That is their actual reason. but it doesn't help you any.

If you really believe everybody is telling you the real reasons why they do, promote, or block this or that, I have a bridge to sell you.

I obviously won't believe the SNP from now on, not that I did. You can keep that bridge, perhaps find some less principled pro-independence voters to sell it to.

It's not quite as straightforward as that.

Scotland overwhelmingly voted remain. Scotland also is not represented by the Tory government in Westminster.

These are constitutional issues, and the people should be given the choice if they want this to continue or not.

I don't think being asked to chose is undemocratic, it's /exactly/ democracy. Let the people decide.

> Scotland overwhelmingly voted remain. Scotland also is not represented by the Tory government in Westminster.

Scotland did not get a vote, and there are Scottish Tories, and there are members of parliament from all the regions of Scotland. Scottish people are represented better than English people in all respects.

> These are constitutional issues, and the people should be given the choice if they want this to continue or not.

I agree, I voted in the last referendum and I will vote in the next. I disagree with the behaviour of the nationalists so I will vote against them.

> I don't think being asked to chose is undemocratic, it's /exactly/ democracy. Let the people decide.

Do you think that politicians making blatant lies to the public is democratic? I'm not asking if it happens or is likely or an unfortunate aspect of politics, I'm asking if you think it should be part of the way things are actually done and if the voters should overlook it - is it democratic?

> 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.

Yes, absolutely. Once Scotland is independent we absolutely should keep checking to see if everyone thinks it's a good idea.

If the majority votes to rejoin the rest of the UK politically, we should do that.

It's not a revolving door decision. You can't vote-force your way into joining a separate country or political institution, e.g. Ukraine can't simply gain a majority vote to be part of the EU and it happens.

This is why it's seen as a once-in-a-generation vote. The impacts are so huge, revolutionary and so long-term, that it's not a conversation you want to have every 4-5 years until one year you chance your way to the preferred result.

But we should still check that things are going the way people expect them to, right?

Of course the point is moot - can you point to any former part of the English Empire that has ever expressed a desire to get back to being ruled by them?

Multiple european countries have referendums multiple times per year, on topics whose effects are much harder to undo (like education plans).

I can't say that many, including myself, would agree that education plans are on the same level as independence.

But maybe I'm wrong. How often are independence referenda held in Europe?

> I can't say that many, including myself, would agree that education plans are on the same level as independence.

Perhaps not (your choice), but education plans definitely influence _at least_ a generation -- and they are changed almost on every change of legislative color without either a public vote or otherwise much fanfare.

This stuff eventually has a much more profound impact than independence (for starters, education plans can and do influence which % of the population is in favor of such independence; but they can also influence how much the culture diverges between the two "countries", e.g. by promoting regional languages). And this is just an example. Additional devolutions also have an impact that is at least on the same level, and again usually passes without much fanfare either.

> But maybe I'm wrong. How often are independence referenda held in Europe?

We had at least 2-3 last decade? And this entire thread is about another one...

> We had at least 2-3 last decade?

Which countries? I note 4 if Ukraine is part of Europe, but that would mean you have to recognise Crimea's referendum as legal and valid. Not a hill I'd die on. Catalunya's and Venice's were not recognised by Spain or Italy, so we're left with Scotland's.

Unless there were others?

Nouvelle-Calédonie/Kanak (3 times in the last decade), Scotland, Catalonia are the ones I had in mind, thus the 2-3 . I was not aware of Venice's one, so make that 2-4. I am sure there are others, considering my area of knowledge is limited to western european countries.

I mentioned Catalonia's, it was not legitimate or recognised by Spain. I sympathise with their movement but it's not relevant here, anymore than if I hold a vote in my bedroom to set up my own state.

Nouvelle-Calédonie is in the Pacific, not Europe, but I'll give you that one because it makes your argument look like a giant stretch.

> I am sure there are others

Forgive me, but are you expecting me to take you seriously if you can't be bothered to look it up? I could characterise my time on HN as wasting time, but I don't engage on here for a total waste of my time. Please, give me and everyone else here more respect than that and put in some effort, even if you don't have the knowledge or expertise or insight. At least that would be understandable and forgivable.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

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.

> 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?

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

The idiom about cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind.

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.

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.

> 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.

> What are you telling the younger voters you want to disenfranchise?

Will they not get to vote in future?

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.

Which 2 consecutive years do not contain political changes?

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.

> 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-gen...

[Guardian] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/24/nicola-stur...

[speech] http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/yesscotland/pages/3159/...

> 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.

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".

Your sibling found an article, thank you for bringing this to my attention :)

No problem, I was amazed at their Google-fu! :)

There's this: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/scotland-blog/2016/may/1...

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com