• Bernie Ecclestoned
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -21 year ago

    Because that’s what it was agreed to be. You can’t change the rules because you don’t like the outcome.

    • Blake [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      01 year ago

      Would you kindly share the Hansard reference or Act of Parliament which establishes that another referendum shouldn’t be held until a lifetime has passed?

      • Bernie Ecclestoned
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Lol, indyref was agreed on those terms.

        No UK prime minister is going to give another one anytime soon.

        The SNP has fucked themselves royally, and ironically

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Agreement_(2012)

            Both governments agreed that the referendum should:

            • have a clear legal base
            • be legislated for by the Scottish Parliament
            • be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, > government and people
            • deliver a fair test and decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect
            • Blake [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              21 year ago

              And which of those points do you feel indicates that another referendum couldn’t be held?

              “Decisive expression of the views of people” just means that the referendum results should have a clear outcome e.g. yes or no, and “that everyone will respect” means that neither side would ignore the referendum result and force through their will regardless. It doesn’t mean that another vote couldn’t be held, does it? And if that was the intent, surely it would be written somewhere like, “and agrees not to push for a second referendum within 30 years of the result” or similar?

              You’ve got nothing and you know it.

              • @C4d
                link
                English
                31 year ago

                Not quite nothing…

                On the one hand, the SNP would argue that there was a material change of circumstances since the first referendum (Brexit, basically) and that a second referendum would only be fair.

                On the other hand the Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence. The only way it is going to happen is if the Westminster Parliament allows it to happen. Those fateful words - “once in a generation” - are likely to prove binding rather than advisory.

                In short, the SNP have more or less got nothing.

                There is one more thing though. Brexit might be a complicating factor in more ways than one. How soon should a vote to rejoin the EU be permitted? Would the timescale for another EU referendum affect or be affected by the timescale for any further votes on Scottish Independence?

                • Blake [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  21 year ago

                  Don’t confuse my position, my only argument is that claim of “the rules stated that it was a once in a lifetime thing so we can’t hold another one until a lifetime has passed” is untrue. If he had said “it’s not likely to happen” I wouldn’t be here right now :)

    • Hossenfeffer
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -11 year ago

      That’s exactly what we do each general election. We haven’t kept the Whigs in power because they won the general election in 1708.

      • Bernie Ecclestoned
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        We don’t have a referendum on whether to dissolve the union every 4 years, don’t be absurd