News1 min ago
Illegal "Referendum"?
218 Answers
https:/
Why is the SNP wasting effort and resources on pursuing an illegal "referendum" when they should be fighting the war on COVID-19 with the rest of the UK?
Why is the SNP wasting effort and resources on pursuing an illegal "referendum" when they should be fighting the war on COVID-19 with the rest of the UK?
Answers
All you English"
13:46 Wed 03rd Feb 2021
> no electorate can ever be beholden to its predecessors
It can, when the predecessors make irrevocable decisions. For example ...
Vote to leave UK: made by Scotland's electorate alone
Vote to rejoin UK: not Scotland's electorate's choice to make
Decisions that damage the climate are another example. As are decisions that damage the economy (e.g. furlough).
In fact, the more I write, the more I think that every electorate in an advanced society is burdened by the irrevocable choices of its predecesssors. And that's why these irrevocable choices should weigh heavily on the people making them.
It can, when the predecessors make irrevocable decisions. For example ...
Vote to leave UK: made by Scotland's electorate alone
Vote to rejoin UK: not Scotland's electorate's choice to make
Decisions that damage the climate are another example. As are decisions that damage the economy (e.g. furlough).
In fact, the more I write, the more I think that every electorate in an advanced society is burdened by the irrevocable choices of its predecesssors. And that's why these irrevocable choices should weigh heavily on the people making them.
// My question is more....if they hold a referendum after 7 years to leave, should there be another one 7 years later to rejoin? Or does that just depend what the result is? //
My only point is that no time limit can have any legal status. So, in short, maybe. But only if there were enough sentiment and political will to revisit the question. There might be, there might not be, but no law can stop the question from being revisited as often, or as rarely, as the People wish.
// It seems a bit like Brexit, that some people called for another, because they didn't like the previous result. Maybe there should be a standard time, on the same subject? //
Yes, I did wonder when the Brexit referendum would get mentioned. Same answer: there is no legal force against a further referendum being held, if the People wish it*. Which they didn't.
*Or, more pertinently, if Parliament wished it, as Parliament makes the laws. But then, Parliament didn't wish it either.
My only point is that no time limit can have any legal status. So, in short, maybe. But only if there were enough sentiment and political will to revisit the question. There might be, there might not be, but no law can stop the question from being revisited as often, or as rarely, as the People wish.
// It seems a bit like Brexit, that some people called for another, because they didn't like the previous result. Maybe there should be a standard time, on the same subject? //
Yes, I did wonder when the Brexit referendum would get mentioned. Same answer: there is no legal force against a further referendum being held, if the People wish it*. Which they didn't.
*Or, more pertinently, if Parliament wished it, as Parliament makes the laws. But then, Parliament didn't wish it either.
Jim, nobody knows what 'the people required in reality. Social media is not a referendum. The only way to really know, is to properly ask. As I said, maybe all referenda should be reasked every 25 years or so. But you can't suggest some people don't like it, so we immediately need another. There needs to be some kind of organisation about it.
//...thus raising the prospect of a border marked by far more than just road signs and the odd viewpoint.//
Well that's something the Scots must take on board when they vote, Jim (though I doubt any of the ultra-Nationalists will). There will be no "Good Friday" agreement to hinder the imposition of a hard border and I doubt the remainder of the UK will be too fussed about imposing one. That will just leave the Scots to ask their new masters in the EU (should their application be successful) what they must do to protect the bloc's integrity.
I don't quite understand how the UK's status will somehow be diminished with the loss of Scotland. I don't think anybody ever felt that about Spain when the prospect of Catalonian independence was discussed. My main fear is for the Scottish people because I'm not too sure, among all the Braveheart and Rob Roy stuff, that they have really thought about what they wish for, and Ms Sturgeon and her pals are doing them no good in helping them find out.
Well that's something the Scots must take on board when they vote, Jim (though I doubt any of the ultra-Nationalists will). There will be no "Good Friday" agreement to hinder the imposition of a hard border and I doubt the remainder of the UK will be too fussed about imposing one. That will just leave the Scots to ask their new masters in the EU (should their application be successful) what they must do to protect the bloc's integrity.
I don't quite understand how the UK's status will somehow be diminished with the loss of Scotland. I don't think anybody ever felt that about Spain when the prospect of Catalonian independence was discussed. My main fear is for the Scottish people because I'm not too sure, among all the Braveheart and Rob Roy stuff, that they have really thought about what they wish for, and Ms Sturgeon and her pals are doing them no good in helping them find out.
Ellipsis //In fact, the more I write, the more I think that every electorate in an advanced society is burdened by the irrevocable choices of its predecesssors. And that's why these irrevocable choices should weigh heavily on the people making them.//
This has always been the case, and why we have always been stuck in the past. Also known as tradition, history, etc...
This has always been the case, and why we have always been stuck in the past. Also known as tradition, history, etc...
// An [electorate can [be beholden to its predecessors], when the predecessors make irrevocable decisions. //
Perhaps I should clarify the statement, because in particular I don't think the examples of economic or climate effects are material. I'm referring specifically, as I've made clear a few times, to the legal point. No law can be made that is incapable of being repealed. Maybe its effects are practically irreversible, but its legal status is not. Therefore, also, no law can be made that forces a country to be unable to change that law for any given time limit, because, of course, that law itself could be repealed; therefore, also, no law can be made that enforces a "once in a generation" decision, one way or another, on a given issue, because that law too could be repealed.
Perhaps I should clarify the statement, because in particular I don't think the examples of economic or climate effects are material. I'm referring specifically, as I've made clear a few times, to the legal point. No law can be made that is incapable of being repealed. Maybe its effects are practically irreversible, but its legal status is not. Therefore, also, no law can be made that forces a country to be unable to change that law for any given time limit, because, of course, that law itself could be repealed; therefore, also, no law can be made that enforces a "once in a generation" decision, one way or another, on a given issue, because that law too could be repealed.
// How many IndyRefs do you want, Jim? One every three months? I am merely holding the SNP bosses to their promises-once in a generation(say 21 years)or once in a lifetime(say 75 years).My compromise of 14 years sounds eminently sensible surely? //
I think it was implicit in my first post that I wanted none at all, if we could help it. I also don't disagree with your compromise. Maybe not 14 years specifically -- eg, why not couple it to other electoral timetables? -- but such details could be ironed out.
However, that's a political question: maybe a compromise could be reached, but no such compromise could have immutable force in law.
I think it was implicit in my first post that I wanted none at all, if we could help it. I also don't disagree with your compromise. Maybe not 14 years specifically -- eg, why not couple it to other electoral timetables? -- but such details could be ironed out.
However, that's a political question: maybe a compromise could be reached, but no such compromise could have immutable force in law.
> They aren't. Nowadays, you often get 4 or 5 generations alive at the same time. It's not as if people are "beholden" to those who lived and died 100 years ago.
An example. Since the Brexit vote in 2016, several hundred thousand Brits have turned 18. Those adult voters are now beholden to a choice made less than 5 years ago, and can't undo that choice because to undo requires more than the electorate. It's like trying to undo an exploded bomb.
An example. Since the Brexit vote in 2016, several hundred thousand Brits have turned 18. Those adult voters are now beholden to a choice made less than 5 years ago, and can't undo that choice because to undo requires more than the electorate. It's like trying to undo an exploded bomb.
//Those adult voters are now beholden to a choice made less than 5 years ago, and can't undo that choice because to undo requires more than the electorate.//
Children are always beholden to choices made without their involvement before they reached adulthood. Unless you allow babes-in-arms to vote that is inevitable. Scottish (and English) people are currently living under a constitutional arrangement devised over 300 years ago.
Children are always beholden to choices made without their involvement before they reached adulthood. Unless you allow babes-in-arms to vote that is inevitable. Scottish (and English) people are currently living under a constitutional arrangement devised over 300 years ago.
