There is a subtle difference between "all later generations" and once in a generation. What if every land did this? It would not scale to be permanently debating this kind of thing.
A few months of debate every 20 years is hardly something that is difficult to deal with. Somehow the UK manages to deal with substantially more complex elections much more often than that.
And you'll note that there was good reason for this: Scotland has gone from barely supporting devolution to getting it, to substantial increases in votes for a party whose goal is independence, to 45% voting for full independence, in a matter of 25 years.
It's then a fairly good chance that the views on independence may change substantially over the next 20-25 years too. In either direction.
Are you saying once in a generation is too often? Because the comment you initially replied to implied that there might be another referendum in the next couple of generations. Exactly how many generations do you think need to pass? And why should even one later generation be bound by the previous generation?
I don't know what you mean by "it would not scale". How would it not scale? Every ~2-6 years, voters in many countries around the world are invited to peacefully overthrow their governments. The debates surrounding those votes commonly become existential, and debates about independence for some regions are common, if not constant.
It sounds like you're saying you don't want to have the debate. But it's simply not up to you. If lots of other people want to have it (say, 45% of the electorate, in this case), what gives you the right to say "it's not fair"?
When did it become unfair to have debates and votes?
How would it not scale? Every ~2-6 years, voters in many countries around the world are invited to peacefully overthrow their governments.
That's disingenous. That works because there are precise game rules that allows it to happen. Changing the rules and the play field so often is a different story.
When did it become unfair to have debates and votes?
When they finally succeed, there won't be a chance to come back.
Changing what rules, exactly? Does this mean you'd be happy if Westminster just passed legislation saying every 10 years there would be a referendum under the same terms?
> When they finally succeed, there won't be a chance to come back.
Who is this grand overseer of the world that gets to decide two democratic countries are not allowed to decide to unite?
