I just did. You can fill in the gaps with all the crap that was promised by Johnson, Davis etc. One to get you going, from David Davis in the clip above: 'of course we can stay in the single market while restricting EU immigration'.
Also, this really isn't a separate matter. You here are also conflating process with outcome.
It absolutely is. It’s a tactical decision. I think it’d be daft to call another referendum you’re going to lose, regardless of whether there’s a legitimate case for calling it.
So there are tactics involved in calling referendums. It's not just all about correct process and principle. Of course Cameron fucked it up royally in that regard, but still, he was probably considering it.
No, you didn’t.
Nope. As with the brexit referendum, there was just a simple one-line question with no caveats or provisos on it. Continued membership of the EU was no more on the Scottish ref ballot paper than immigration was on the brexit ballot paper. That various people campaigned, and now act, as if they were is a separate matter.
I'm not surprised it's come up before, but I don't remember seeing it, so no. I'm interested in the parity (or lack of) between the two.
This is why I ask, because by any measure (a) the implementation and likely outcomes of Brexit have materially changed since it was proposed, and (b) people have clearly been misled. Whether that has happened to an extent that it passes your tests on the same basis, I don't know, and it's inherently difficult to judge because of the intangibility of both the 'what is Brexit?' question and the developing answer. That's not to say a second referendum is wise, or easy to frame, or should be carried out now, which is all problematic, but it does seem like you might have a different approach to one than the other.
Yep. Sorry danny, but I think you've blinded yourself a little bit here with your own rationalisations.
Of course there are.
Excuse me? Are you saying that this therefore means you can just keep asking until you get the “right” answer? Don’t be surprised if people take exception to that.
How so?
No. I'm saying that your own argument is nowhere near as clear-cut as you think it is. And I haven't asked anyone anything. As I said before, a bunch of people want to be asked again. How many wanting to be asked again justifies asking again?
A majority. I’m surprised you don’t know that.
Really? You should need a majority wanting a question to be asked for the question to be put?
People are misled in every election by every campaigner.
Indeed. Nevertheless one was called. Neither you nor I have a Tardis. So we are where we are.
That’s not what I said.
This is one of my big criticisms of both referendums. There was a simple (simplistic) one-line question that contained no detail whatever of any constitutional arrangement. What does Scottish 'independence' really mean? It's as vague as brexit in that regard.
No other way to find out if a majority want it.
You asked
A very, very large document was issued by the ScotGov. I have a copy of it. People can reasonably assume this is what the majority rejected in 2014.
But you don't really mean that, I'm guessing. What you really mean, given that you can't judge a majority without a vote, is that you think there should be sufficient clamour for something. So what constitutes sufficient clamour?
FAir enough. At least in that vote there was one side with a plan for how to do it. With brexit there wasn't.
This could be your T Shirt.
I agree. So it’s going to be hard to make a case that people aren’t getting what they voted for.
So you dodge that.
Cos they voted for a vague thing.
More people who own outright without a mortgage voted leave than remain. One of the many ways to cut this particular pie. It's in your link.
No. You made up what I really meant. Shall I answer your question again?
No. I said, in response to your question that used the word “again” twice, that before asking again, there needs to be a majority of opinion who think asking again is justified. In other words: we were just asked this: why do we need to be asked again?
I think if there are consistent opinion polls over a sustained period saying a majority thinks asking again is justified, then it is reasonable to make the case that there is demand for being asked again the question they’ve recently answered.
