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?

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?

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.

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?

> 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.