Let's imagine for example that genuinely 55% of the population want to remain part of the UK, and so remaining should win given a completely fair and accurate measure of the population's mood. However, every measurement varies for a variety of reasons, for instance what outrageous things some random politician has said in the last few days. If we were to hold a referendum every year, then you'd be bound to hit a year at some point fairly quickly where the random variation pushes the result over the 50% leave threshold. This would trigger the non-reversible transition, and the referenda would stop happening.

There's a reasonably strong argument for this reason that non-reversible decisions should require a greater than 50% majority. That's why amendments to the US constitution require a 2/3 majority vote to pass.

There's no reason to believe that a time requirement is a good protection against random politicians saying outrageous things. In fact it probably makes things worse because it gives obvious timelines for a campaign, so whenever the possibility opens up it pretty much guarantees all the outrageous politicians coming out of the woodwork.

Cool. I like the idea of that. Other things that seem non-reversible...

  - building nuclear plants/weapons
  - burning fossil fuels
  - dismantling the NHS

If half the population is against it, it doesn’t matter if it’s 51% or 49%, it’s unpopular enough that it is tearing your nation in two.

Imagine the US civil war came down to a vote: “Sorry, 50.1% are in favor of slavery so we’re just going to keep practicing it in all of America”. Would the 49.9% be happy to live within that union? How about vice versa? The division is too deep.

Since I've changed mine I think that is called teaching granny to suck eggs.

> If what your choice was based on changed, then it's perfectly logical for your choice to change in response.

I was told it was a once in a generation vote - has that changed? What constitutes a big enough change to bring a new vote? How often should these type of referenda be held?

> Holding up to "once in a generation" promises is stupid, though so was making such a claim to start with.

Yes, you must forgive me for thinking that principles and promises are worth sticking to. I should be as cynical as politicians and simply go by what is convenient, right?

The issue was a vote on staying in the EU as much as staying in the UK. Now these circumstances changed.

Also, the promises of further devolution weren't kept either.

Again, why are you so hung up on the (let's say) lie of "once in a generation" but not hung up on all the other lies told by the opposition?

I don't even remember it coming up but if it means a lot to you then I can see you'd be aggravated, but how would it obviate the once in a generation pledge? Scotland can't join the EU if it goes independent anyway, the vote to remain really was the only practical way to stay in the EU.

Why though? It's not like the UK could dangle a veto over their heads now. Spain already pledged not to veto.

Also curious why Scotland is not able to apply if it leaves the UK? Thanks in advance for the info.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-scotla...

They're talking nonsense. There is sometimes talk of Spain veto-ing Scottish accession to the EU as a sort of warning to Catalonians (who closely identify with the Scottish indy movement), but realistically Scotland is aligned with the EU acquis so there's no really go reason not to. They won't be able to rejoin on the same terms as the UK were in, but that's something that was lost forever after Brexit.

Leaving the EU?

What else would be big enough?

What would be the problem, assuming the independence gets recognized by London? The border situation? The deficit? Or is there some more fundamental problem I'm unaware of?

Once those are met then thorny issues like a hundred mile long border can be looked at. I don't think it's impossible, but, as is covered in the first link (and many other places, did you look?) Scotland cannot swan in to the EU in less than 2 years even at the very best. And without the Euro?[2]

[1] https://sceptical.scot/2020/03/can-scotland-meet-eu-economic...

[2] https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-independen...

I don't think there's any fixed answer to such a question. But I'd say that if the population in general clearly changes their answer, then that merits putting that change in practice.

> Yes, you must forgive me for thinking that principles and promises are worth sticking to. I should be as cynical as politicians and simply go by what is convenient, right?

Yup. I'm a consequentialist. I care extremely little about iron-clad principles, and instead think that the thing we should be optimizing for is outcomes. There's no reason to live under the wrong outcome for the sake of some sort of idealism that brings no benefit to anyone. Rules can be changed as necessary, and promises can be reneged on (though IMO such promises shouldn't be made in the first place).

The point of having principles is to optimise decision making for good outcomes.

> There's no reason to live under the wrong outcome for the sake of some sort of idealism that brings no benefit to anyone.

Having mendacious politicians succeed in their mendacity so easily is of benefit to whom?

Re-running votes because you lost is of benefit to the whole of society how?

Others in this thread have pointed out the opportunity cost problem, and the bias problem of re-running votes too often.

> Rules can be changed as necessary

Of course. In this case I do not see the necessity. The polling figures split yes/no in much the same way as they've been since the last time. The only thing that's of any significance that's changed is Brexit, and yet we had the SNP crowing the other day about how it's bringing in more outside investment than the rest of the UK (which was another mendacity, but what isn't from them?). They were also aware of UKIP and its support, and surely the anti-EU support within their own ranks at the time.

There is no necessity here.

Having principles optimizes for consistency, not outcomes. To me, turning around on a dime 10 times a day can be perfectly justified, so long that in the end you end up somewhere better than before. Same as going forward in the same direction for a thousand years, so long that's the thing that works.

> Having mendacious politicians succeed in their mendacity so easily is of benefit to whom?

The voters who want the policy they propose.

> Of course. In this case I do not see the necessity. The polling figures split yes/no in much the same way as they've been since the last time.

That's quite unimportant to my point here. I'm not talking about UK politics, but specifically rejecting your view of "once in a generation choice". I wouldn't make such promises myself, and would ignore concerns about breaking such a promise.

"Once in a generation" to me is never a legitimate rule. "However often, and whenever needed" is. If somebody made that promise, I'm all for breaking it whenever it seems there's any benefit from it.

So principled that you are happy to stick with a leader who when asked about parties that went on in his house, confidently stated that no parties had taken place.

Please, I'd like to know why you felt the need to write a completely false comment.

The Tory party is dominant in the UK. Now and for the forseeable future. And even in the unforseeable future, more years than not.

Independence is the only escape.

Are you sure you're in the right place?

Many (most?) countries have constitutions that forbid splitting up the country. UK is pretty unusual in providing for a referendum of the type that happened in 2014.

It's not a bad way to try and skip a generation that seems to be skewing left, however, and keep power in the hands of the boomer generation. "Sorry, kids, I know you weren't old enough to vote for this before, but we agreed that we wouldn't do it again for a generation."

Ever was it thus.