Yes, I know. That's not a time-bound statement. The accepting can take place in the future, as can the telling - the use of were implies that the telling takes place before the forgetting, but both can be in the future.
But I have a hard time believing that the Lib Dems' platform neccessitates the continuation of the union against the wishes of the masses. That's the sort of thing I expect from the Tories
But they haven't said that. They've said that if there's a majority vote for independence then they'll abide by it. I don't see where your problem lies.
To turn your previous question slightly, if WMD had been found in Iraq and the second UN resolution had been passed, and 75% of the British public had indeed decided to support the war, would all of the war's opponents in parliament have to support the invasion, or would it be OK for them to keep disagreeing?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-19 08:22 pm (UTC)Yes, I know. That's not a time-bound statement. The accepting can take place in the future, as can the telling - the use of were implies that the telling takes place before the forgetting, but both can be in the future.
But I have a hard time believing that the Lib Dems' platform neccessitates the continuation of the union against the wishes of the masses. That's the sort of thing I expect from the Tories
But they haven't said that. They've said that if there's a majority vote for independence then they'll abide by it. I don't see where your problem lies.
To turn your previous question slightly, if WMD had been found in Iraq and the second UN resolution had been passed, and 75% of the British public had indeed decided to support the war, would all of the war's opponents in parliament have to support the invasion, or would it be OK for them to keep disagreeing?