Eloquently put, PatrickLondon.
Plus, even if by some miracle the PM, Parliament and the Queen all concurred on the matter, all it would do would turn more people toward independence in the style of ‘well fuck you too, then.’
Was this not supposed to be a once in a lifetime vote in 2014?
Once in a generation, anyway. I naively assumed that was human generations, not sheep ones.
Kinda like some votes ref the EU. Keep doing it until you get the “right” answer.
It may have been supposed to be so in 2004.
But Brexit obviously changes radically the circumstances and context in which the 2014 decision was made, so it’s not in principle unreasonable to revisit that decision in light of the changed circumstances.
In general, the notion that putting questions to a referendum gets you a decisive, enduring result is a silly one. Deciding questions by referendum, as opposed to in the legislature, doesn’t make for joined-up, coherent policy, and if anything is more likely to give you results that are going to have to be revisited when they have unintended or unforeseen consequences.
How do you know a politician is lying? They’re speaking.
No it didn’t. In 2014 we voted in the knowledge that there would be a referendum on membership of the EU if the Tories were elected in 2015. We knew about the possibility of the EU and still chose to remain.
Plus, of course, we haven’t actually left yet, so nothing has actually changed.
So If people’s decisions change due to new information becoming available that doesn’t matter? You’re stuck with a decision made under entirely different circumstances, just because thats what people voted a few years ago?
Of course that’s nonsense, congress or parliament can reverse decisions or roll back new laws if a situation changes. The idea that one non-binding vote locks you into any decision forever is solely something believed by people who have no idea how the political legislative process works. Same goes for both Brexit and Scotland.
But “the UK could decide to leave the EU” changing into “the UK has decided to leave the EU” is a highly material change of circumstances.
No. You’re quite correct. As was UDS’s most recent post.
I was mostly being humourous although I didn’t mark that very well.
In general, a referendum that passes or fails spectacularly (70/30) represents the will of the people at that time on that issue. A referendum that passes or fails 55/45 or closer is simply the public mumbling. The result owes more to the general public mood and to specific gotchas in the text of the referendum than it does to an actual position on the actual underlying policy issue.
I grew up in California, the US state that pioneered direct mass democracy in the US through referendums. Had we set the bar at 60 or 66% to pass, history would be very different. Public mumbling ought to be treated as the non-decision it really is.
No it isn’t. Those of us who voted to remain in the Union of Kingdoms knew full well that might involve leaving the European Union.
Further ‘highly material change of circumstances’ is an invented condition of the SNP. Nowhere is it in the original referendum Act as a reason for a new referendum.
Quartz, everything you have posted over the last couple of years suggests that your mind was made up a long time ago, and that you really genuinely don’t understand the difference between the circumstances of an Englishman in England and a Scot in Scotland—that you think you’re all equally and happily British.
That is not my experience in the UK, which was primarily in Wales, and I’ve also heard from Scots, Cornish, and people north of the Humber that the South & Midlands are simply not listening to the rest of the country. You’re not listening either. You don’t have to agree that Brexit is bad or that Scottish independence is good, but please make a genuine effort to hear the concerns without dismissing them.
You should understand that I now live in Aberdeen, Scotland. I have also lived in varous parts of England. I am of both Scottish and English ancestry. And Norse and Italian and Welsh and Cornish and doubtless more. I am well aware that many Scots are unhappy. I am also aware that many Scots are actually not unhappy. Many are even happy: many fishermen round here are jumping for joy over Brexit.
Brexit has yet to happen; we don’t even know the terms of Brexit. So how can anyone say that Scotland will be better off in the EU?
If circumstances change, then of course I will consider the situation anew, but they have not.
So please, don’t ever accuse me of not listening.
Did’nt you vote “Yes” in 2014? I do remember one Scot here who did and later (when oil prices collapsed) stated that a “Yes” vote would have been a disaster. For some reason I think that was you, apologies if I misremembered.
I voted No in 2014. I do believe that I did comment about the oil price afterwards. I also do believe I commented about oil in general beforehand. But I’m too lazy to search for either. I will say that I recognised oil as a short-term boon and was looking to the much longer term - 40 and 50+ years ahead, when oil will have been exhausted.
Interesting piece on censorship in the one-party State of Scotland:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/press-censorship-begun-scotland/
I repeat: “could happen” is materially different from “will happen”. And the more signficant the event that could or will happen is, the more material the difference is.
The Scottish people now have better information on whether remaining in the UK involves leaving the EU than they had in 2-14. I can’t see how you fail to grasp this.
So? The “once in a lifetime/once in a generation” statement also wasn’t in the referendum Act. The Act provides for the holding of this referendum; it doesn’t deal at all with the question of whether other referenda might be be held.
This is a bizarre statement. The Brexit vote was widely expected to fail right up until a few days before. Many people were shocked and suprised by leave winning. It’s true we don’t know the entire terms of Brexit but EU is making clear that the UK will not get any special treatment. Either they accept freedom of movement to be part of the EEC or they do a hard exit and have to negotiate trade agreements with the EU as an outside country.
In either situation, Scotland’s position in the global economy has changed significantly, the people there absolutely have a damn good reason to be asked again if they want to leave the UK and stay in the EU.
As a resident in London I have never been so depressed with politics as in the past few months.
I may have been born in England but I have never felt English. I have always felt firmly British. The thought of Scotland leaving the UK strikes at the very core of who I am. It’s incredibly unpleasant.
At the same time as a Remainer I understand exactly why Scots may feel justified in demanding independence to salvage their European connections.
I just don’t know how I will cope.
Easy, London should go the Singapore route and become a city state to remain in the EU. Most areas of London voted over 70 percent to remain. Just keep the thin strip of land on either side of the chunnel route so the EU is connected to London. Little England can have the rest.
I joke, but really it’s understandably hard for Londoner’s to accept that the economic power house of the country is being forced to leave the EU against it’s will. Greater London is 22 percent of the total GDP of the UK, a massive amount.
Me too, however I have no qualms about feeling both English (by upbringing) and at least in part Scottish and a few other things (by ancestry), as well as European (by education and experience), if not necessarily the full “Carolingian” idea of Europe.
While, if the worst comes to the worst, I would have the option (apparently) of applying for a Scottish passport (which I’d do if it got me access to the EU), I am worried in the long-term about the potential risks to peace in the weakening and undermining of the fundamental principles of the EU, in the medium-term about the prospects for both the economy and the self-concept of the UK (it seems to me we’re at risk of drivelling off into some sort of funny-money theme park), and in the short term about the peace of Ireland.
I used to joke that I wouldn’t mind Scottish independence if they took Northern Ireland with them, but it may well come to that, as that might be the only way to maintain the minimalisation of the significance of the border, which underpins the whole of the Good Friday agreement, and to avoid upsetting the whole applecart.