That's only true till the situation changes. If the reason for your vote disappeared, then it's legit to reevaluate your vote.
> a third of those voting for independence also want(ed) independence from the EU
Which means two third, the majority, voted for the EU? Seems like a legit reason for a new vote.
> > a third of those voting for independence also want(ed) independence from the EU
> Which means two third, the majority, voted for the EU? Seems like a legit reason for a new vote.
Has that figure changed dramatically? Even if it had, I would go back to why that means "once in a generation" doesn't mean "once in a generation".
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 ?
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.
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.
That's why the changes you might say would lead to re-evaluation do not.
"What are the odds?" 'Once in a generation, I should think'
"Things went badly, let's try again" 'Can't! Once in a generation!'
Otherwise I would have to conclude that you simply wish your political goals to be made easier. We'd all like that.
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 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?
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.
> 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.
Are we pretending that Brexit wasn't a massive change of situation?
> 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...
Because Brexit, duh?