Ding dong

[BCram]

It's not and the use of the term 'once in a generation' was actually quite clever by Sturgeon because it's not a period of time. It's defined as the total population alive at any point in time. It's a number of people, not a period of time. Look at your description above of a generation - it says 'usually considered' but not 'defined'. So it's subjective right off the bat.

Think about it (sorry that's twice tonight I've said that to you, I'm really not being smarmy). If a generation was a period of thirty years when would that thirty years start? If person A argued that it started five years ago when their child was born and will end twenty five years from now when their thirty and person B argued it was actually 7 years ago when theirs was born and will end in twenty three years you can see that there can be no start point for this measure and therefore no end point - it would be a moving target without form or definition. Would those children be from different generations? Probably not for most people.

So, extrapolate that to the statement that the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 was a 'once in a generation' referendum. If we assume that a generation is thirty years then at that point in time (18th September 2014) there were multiple generations in effect, many millions in fact, but let's single out three of them. One started twenty eight years before the referendum, one started twenty three years before it and at the other extreme one started the day after it. Now is February 2023, seven years on from that date. One of those generations has expired, it's gone, it's spent. Another will expire soon and will also be gone but the other hadn't even started in 2014 so can it even count?

Now, ask yourself not only how long a generation is but when the generation in question started. Can something that has no start point and therefore no possible end point actually be considered an entity?

One final thing to consider - the 'next generation'. Is that only those born today? Because thirty years from now those born yesterday were the last generation and those born tomorrow are the next next generation.

Apologies for the above but it does irk a bit when this subject comes up.

Of course I read the bit above and chose the bit that
Because it was an alternative. I thought 30 years was a bit long, about 15 years would be my number. The generation that voted NO does not think that the next generation would be those able to vote in 2015, which is the point you make. The generation who voted YES, and lost, obviously would like to use your definition. No problem with that. I just wanted to give the alternative view a shout.

[BCram]

Salmond to be welcomed back into the fold by Ash. Surprised by that.

[noahrab]

Just shows you how much attention I paid to this part of the thread. Apologies. Still think it is worthwhile correcting errors.
Back on track, I have been surprised by the calibre of the SNP leadership candidates. There must be something seriously worrying going on in the background for the SNP to think that 2 relatively inexperienced ladies and one very experienced gentleman is the best they can do. Where are the experienced politicians who have the intellectual gravitas to reset the independence movement.

Mote of a talent puddle than a pool.

[noahrab]

Aye some will make an effort to understand and debate while some will just post "I'm out" while getting their arse handed to them.

Someone needs some årse cream.

[noahrab]

Salmond to be welcomed back into the fold by Ash. Surprised by that.

Useless is backed by the Murrels.

Regan backed by Cherry and Salmond.

Forbes is on her own.

Popcorn time.

[Deeranged]

Aye some will make an effort to understand and debate while some will just post "I'm out" while getting their arse handed to them.

I won't change my story at the last second to deflect from any **** up either. I'll leave that one to you.

[The AuldYin]

Useless is backed by the Murrels.

Regan backed by Cherry and Salmond.

Forbes is on her own.

Popcorn time.

Mhairi Black hass waded in now attacking Forbes, civil war has started.

[BCram]

Can't make ke my mind up who will be less likely to deliver independence. Yusef seems unlikely to win over anyone to the independence cause. Regan might regret trying to rehabilitate Salmond, and Forbes might actually lose SNP supporters to the Greens whilst gaining Tartan Tory votes.

[islaydarkblue]

[QUOTE=The AuldYin;40225881]Mhairi Black hass waded in now attacking Forbes, civil war has started.[/QUOTE
Mhairi Black. The SNP MP from Paisley who was thinking of not standing for re-election at the 2019 General Election because she did not like being an MP at Westminster.
She obviously likes getting the lavish salary for the job which does not require any qualifications. You just have to stand for election representing the correct political party at the time.

[islaydarkblue]

Can't make ke my mind up who will be less likely to deliver independence. Yusef seems unlikely to win over anyone to the independence cause. Regan might regret trying to rehabilitate Salmond, and Forbes might actually lose SNP supporters to the Greens whilst gaining Tartan Tory votes.

I seem to remember Yousef saying that he is not ‘hell bent’ on independence.
Ash Regan is ‘hell bent’ on independence but on the plus side she wants to delay the Scottish Government’s rush to Net Zero which is being carried out thanks to not all the CO2 emissions throughout Scotland being counted.
It is the old SNP trick of dictating the Terms of Reference for things to be investigated by outside parties on behalf of the Scottish Government.
Ash Regan also wants speed up the dualling of the A9 which Wee Pat will not like.
I think that Forbes wants to concentrate on boosting the Scottish economy because she knows that a strong Scottish economy increases the amount of income tax coming into the Scottish Government coffers.
Salmond was keen on business firms throughout Scotland which might account for Regan putting out the olive branch to Salmond.