Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
You are the one who contested that Scotland has in the past benefitted from the Union. I simply agreed with you, I fail to see how that can be considered “rhetoric”.
I’m asking someone to make a 21st century case for one.
“Once in a generation, once in a lifetime“ was an obvious error to say, as it has no legal standing and you cannot reasonably bind those joining the electorate to the decisions of the past for longer beyond the point where it is no longer democratically tolerable. Politicians got caught up in some grandiose rhetoric to underline the historic occasion upon them, but it’s demonstrably ridiculous to bind a country to a decision for “a lifetime” considering tens of thousands die, and join the electorate, each year - never mind some change their mind.
|
On the contrary, major constitutional issues are decided on a generational basis because of the profound upheaval they cause. Constant tinkering is a recipe for instability. Salmond - and Sturgeon, who nodded along enthusiastically and even put her signature to the Edinburgh Agreement for a “decisive” referendum - were correct (for once). You may deeply regret their words, but passing them off as heat of the moment, overcome with emotion and therefore to be set aside is, once more, silly. Even you acknowledge the event was historic. On that, at least, we agree.
Parliamentary elections and constitutional referendums are not remotely similar in the issues they address or the consequences of their outcomes, and it is a futile exercise is false equivalence to use the parliamentary electoral timetable as an argument in favour of repeated constitutional referendums.