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?
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?
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 :)
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.
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?
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 :)
You’re right. We should keep voting until you get your way 👍.