> 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.

How often do you think independence referenda should be held?

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.