> Anyone can claim the situation has changed, every year. Life does not go backwards. I'm still not clear why that means "once in a generation" becomes "as soon as I can get what I want".

So for you Brexit, a harder one than what anyone campaigned for ( the hardest one i recall hearing about was "Norway-style"), isn't a change ?

Perhaps I could've been clearer. There will always be changes, hence, anyone who wishes to claim there's been a change can.

That doesn't obviate "once in a generation", does it? Perhaps they should've been clearer and said "once in a generation, and if the UK has a referendum on EU membership and we decide to leave, and if…"

It would've been more honest, at least.

I'll also note, you're right that the vast majority of leave proponents wanted a Norway-style deal, it was remainers who presented this form as part of their machinations to try and wangle the UK staying in. Don't blame anyone else for that.

Why does the statement "once in a generation" completely obviate any nuance? It makes sense to evaluate things based on events and changes in situation and context. It makes sense to not bring up things over and over again in an attempt to change something that people don't want changed. It doesn't make sense to use a phrase as the sole justification for avoiding reevaluating a decision made in a different context. I don't think it's rational to read "once in a generation" as "once in a generation, regardless of any and all circumstances, with no room for any reconsideration ever".

Any statement should be considered to be taken in the context that it is given, and constrained by rational, reasonable bounds and circumstances. Assuming anything outside of technical and legal language to mean the most absolute and literal interpretation of the words isn't productive or useful in most cases.

A politician says "once in a generation". In that time a lot of things can happen. Think back a generation (about 30 years) and of the big things that have happened. The SNP leaders, when making this statement, were all well over 30 and hence, knew that big things happen in that time.

That's why the changes you might say would lead to re-evaluation do not.

Am I missing that a mention of "once in a generation" is suddenly such a binding statement that the speaker can't go back on it?

"What are the odds?" 'Once in a generation, I should think'

"Things went badly, let's try again" 'Can't! Once in a generation!'

I'd say that if you don't wish to be held to a pledge like "once in a generation" then don't make it. If you're the sort of person who thinks words don't matter, that your promises and guarantees don't matter, then I get it.

Otherwise I would have to conclude that you simply wish your political goals to be made easier. We'd all like that.

I think it’s more about expectations that dishonesty. One might expect something is a once-per-generation event, but then things happen, stuff changes, here we are less than a decade later hoping to do it again.

Because it’s a spectrum. A minor change of policy? Not a solid basis to reevaluate a constitutional referendum.

Completely rewriting huge chunks of your country’s constitution and international relationships? Probably grounds to rethink your own constitution.

Were the SNP leaders unaware that many things can change over a 30 year period when they made the pledge?

Were the SNP leaders unaware that there was a strong movement to leave the EU within the UK as a whole and also within their own movement?

The answer to both is yes, so what's the excuse?

Given Farage was also preparing the ground to re-run the Brexit referendum when he thought he was going to lose it, I would think the answer is obvious.

How is that relevant? I also wonder how two wrongs make a right, perhaps you could illuminate me on that.

Where did I say it was wrong?

I said it was wrong for the SNP, so it would have been wrong for Farage. Are you going to state what is so obvious, because I can't be sure I or anyone else knows what you've alluded to?

Politics and rhetoric. It’s really that simple.

> Anyone can claim the situation has changed, every year.

Yes, they can, and some do. But don't also need to convince the people and follow some regulations for this? It's not like they can randomly vote for anything and everything every day as they like, or can they?

> Has that figure changed dramatically?

Make a vote to figure out?

> "once in a generation"

What exactly does this mean? I mean, sure, back in 2014(?) this was a great term. But back then, the world was very different. The world was at peace and smoothing well, more or less. With Brexit, the climate movement in 2019, then the Pandemia and now the war this all changed drastically. Even if the Brexit had worked well somehow in the world back then, the pandemia and now the war destroyed all those chances and shifted the people views significantly.

I mean until some months ago, we still were convinced that pandemia was ending and the world was going to move smoothly again, continuing were it paused from 2019. Russia changed all that and made clear that the cozy times of the 201x years are over. The generation of 2014 is done, the world from then is no more, and a new generation takes over now.

> > "once in a generation"

> What exactly does this mean?

From the Oxford English dictionary:

> generation | dʒɛnəˈreɪʃ(ə)n | > noun > • the average period, generally considered to be about thirty years, in which children grow up, become adults, and have children of their own: the same families have lived here for generations.

> With Brexit, the climate movement in 2019, then the Pandemia and now the war this all changed drastically.

I think you already covered that with "Anyone can claim the situation has changed, every year". Think back over 30 years and tell me there weren't big changes then too.

If you say to me "once in a generation" and you're over 40 then I'm going to hold you to it. You didn't come down in the last shower.

> Anyone can claim the situation has changed, every year. Life does not go backwards. I'm still not clear why that means "once in a generation" becomes "as soon as I can get what I want".

Are we pretending that Brexit wasn't a massive change of situation?

Are we pretending that the SNP was unaware of UKIP when they made the pledge?

Didn't the UK made a rather unprecedented move of lowkey changing some Scottish sea-border since to get some potential gas fields on the english side?

In 1999. You can read a pro-independence argument on that here[1], as you can tell from this quote:

> In 1999 Tony Blair, abetted by the Scottish traitor Donald Dewar, redrew the existing English/Scottish maritime boundary to annex 6,000 square miles of Scottish waters to England, including the Argyll field and six other major oilfields. The idea was specifically to disadvantage Scotland’s case for independence.

Whether you think he makes his case or not, it's been a while and it didn't stop the first referendum.

[1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/01/scotlandengl...

>I'm still not clear why that means "once in a generation" becomes "as soon as I can get what I want".

Because Brexit, duh?

Please explain more, you clearly have some assumptions that I do not share.