Is tripartisanship over the SNP's bid to retain the £ bullying?

[MrGongGong]

Very well put.

I don't really understand why people who aren't living in a country are allowed a say in what happens there anyway ?
Are the SNP suggesting that (as is the case in some places in the world) people who don't live in the country shouldn't be allowed to own property there ?

THAT would be an interesting start

[Serial_Apologist]

I don't really understand why people who aren't living in a country are allowed a say in what happens there anyway ?
Are the SNP suggesting that (as is the case in some places in the world) people who don't live in the country shouldn't be allowed to own property there ?

THAT would be an interesting start

{Big thumbs up thingy}

[ahinton]

Whereas the original Act of Union in 1707 was perfectly well thought out and avoided any vagueness or uncertainties? Not to mention other more recent separations or unifications such as the splitting of Czechoslovakia and the unification of Germany? And of course there were plenty of unforeseen developments arising from this country's accession to the then EEC, not least the later move towards economic and political union. The most important question in the referendum is that of political sovereignty, whether people in Scotland are able to have sovereign control over their own affairs rather than as at present the limited powers of devolved government.

I'm not suggesting that the original 1707 Act was "good" while the basis for this referendum is "bad" - merely pointing out that there are flaws in the latter just as there were in the former. "Sovereign control over their affairs"? Not a chance, whichever way it goes; does anyone really have that any more?

What's wrong with that? It's exactly the same as the electorate for the Scottish parliament, except that for this referendum 16- and 17-year-olds are additionally able to vote. Isn't allowing people who are non-resident to vote on a par with, for instance, rich media barons who live in Australia having the right to exert disproportionate influence on the media here?

One could well argue that, but then where would such an argument stand alongside that of non-Scots who ARE resident in Scotland being able to vote? Anyway, those rich media barons who are neither Scots nor Scottish residents will exert power whichever way the referendum goes, just as they do now and would continue to do were there to be no such referendum.

[ahinton]

I don't really understand why people who aren't living in a country are allowed a say in what happens there anyway ?
Are the SNP suggesting that (as is the case in some places in the world) people who don't live in the country shouldn't be allowed to own property there ?

THAT would be an interesting start

Since they don't appear to be about to chuck out the Queen and other members of the non-Scots royal family, one might assume not, so it would surely more likely be an interesting non-starter, n'est-ce pas?...

[P. G. Tipps]

I'm not suggesting that the original 1707 Act was "good" while the basis for this referendum is "bad" - merely pointing out that there are flaws in the latter just as there were in the former. "Sovereign control over their affairs"? Not a chance, whichever way it goes; does anyone really have that any more?

The answer to your question is a resounding NO, Mr ahinton! You are quite correct to point out that no country ... yes, not even the over-mighty USA ... is truly 'independent' these days. That, of course, includes England as well!

However, that does not mean there should be no nation states running their own internal affairs which is surely the logical conclusion of your argument.

One could well argue that, but then where would such an argument stand alongside that of non-Scots who ARE resident in Scotland being able to vote? Anyway, those rich media barons who are neither Scots nor Scottish residents will exert power whichever way the referendum goes, just as they do now and would continue to do were there to be no such referendum.

That, I most humbly submit, is somewhat of a side-issue. I assume you are referring to the famous (or infamous) likes of Mr Rupert Murdoch. As far as I know he doesn't have a crucial vote in the forthcoming referendum despite, like you (I believe) and I, being the proud beneficiaries of a Scottish ancestry. Once achieving any cosy little independent State the good people of Scotland could vote for parliamentary representatives who promised to curb media outlets with overseas ownership ... hence the actual irrelevance of this particular little side-issue!

On the point about Poles etc living in Scotland having a vote you are on rather stronger ground though it is difficult to see how such hard-working and vitally important immigrants could be barred from voting in today's society which is almost hysterically obsessed with the subject of 'discrimination'. Indeed a move to bar such folk might well be contrary to current European Human Rights legislation?

Frankly I'm much more concerned about 16-17 year-olds having a vote on such a major and irreversible issue. That is much too young and inexperienced an age however intelligent the voter may be otherwise. This was another clearly tactical victory for Salmond who hopes to exploit the greater 'radicalism' of youth on the gentle and generous-sounding grounds of 'inclusion'.

[ahinton]

The answer to your question is a resounding NO, Mr ahinton! You are quite correct to point out that no country ... yes, not even the over-mighty USA ... is truly 'independent' these days. That, of course, includes England as well!

However, that does not mean there should be no nation states running their own internal affairs which is surely the logical conclusion of your argument.

I did and do not suggest that there shouldn't be; I merely point out that the extent to which any nation can indeed run its own internal affairs (and, since no country is isolated from any other, the internal affairs of each affects others) should be considered as something other than the black-and-white that some might seek to do.

That, I most humbly submit, is somewhat of a side-issue. I assume you are referring to the famous (or infamous) likes of Mr Rupert Murdoch. As far as I know he doesn't have a crucial vote in the forthcoming referendum despite, like you (I believe) and I, being the proud beneficiaries of a Scottish ancestry. Once achieving any cosy little independent State the good people of Scotland could vote for parliamentary representatives who promised to curb media outlets with overseas ownership ... hence the actual irrelevance of this particular little side-issue!

It isn't a "side-issue" to the extent that, since what is decided and what subsequently happens in a country is by no means dependent solely upon the outcome of elections, it is not in reality all down to the wishes of the majority of those who vote.

On the point about Poles etc living in Scotland having a vote you are on rather stronger ground though it is difficult to see how such hard-working and vitally important immigrants could be barred from voting in today's society which is almost hysterically obsessed with the subject of 'discrimination'. Indeed a move to bar such folk might well be contrary to current European Human Rights legislation?

I expect that it would and certainly should be, given which fact I should clearly nail my colours to the mast and clarify beyond all doubt that I advocate no such thing, of course! I mentioned this in the specific additional context of the numbers of Scots not resident in Scotland who can have no say in the outcome of the referendum by reason of being unentitled to vote in it.

Frankly I'm much more concerned about 16-17 year-olds having a vote on such a major and irreversible issue. That is much too young and inexperienced an age however intelligent the voter may be otherwise. This was another clearly tactical victory for Salmond who hopes to exploit the greater 'radicalism' of youth on the gentle and generous-sounding grounds of 'inclusion'.

I disagree, on the grounds that there is and indeed can be no minimum voting age that will suit and effectively be appropriate for everyone; the UK's minimum voting age was once 21 and, if one goes back farther, only men could vote. There can be no right answer here. What is it that makes you think that all Scots residents of 18 or more years of age may vote but that all Scots residents below the age of 18 may not? In other words, what do you perceive to be so special about the attainment of the age of 18 in this specific context?

[MrGongGong]

Frankly I'm much more concerned about 16-17 year-olds having a vote on such a major and irreversible issue. That is much too young and inexperienced an age however intelligent the voter may be otherwise. This was another clearly tactical victory for Salmond who hopes to exploit the greater 'radicalism' of youth on the gentle and generous-sounding grounds of 'inclusion'.

Hummm

So are you suggesting that wisdom comes with age ?
Or even that intelligence does ?
Experience seems to suggest otherwise

One problem with voting is that it assumes that decisions made by more people are somehow better.
If voting really was a good way of deciding things people would use it for things that really matter (like whether to have vibrato or what pitch to play at ;-) )

[aeolium]

One could well argue that, but then where would such an argument stand alongside that of non-Scots who ARE resident in Scotland being able to vote?

But what's the alternative - that everyone with Scottish ancestry living outside Scotland has a vote while those non-Scots resident in Scotland don't have one? That would result in a non-resident electorate - perhaps with no interest or stake in the way Scotland is governed (after all, they don't live there) - having in all probability a majority influence on the referendum. That seems to me as absurd as the suggestion that the rest of the UK should have a vote, as if when British colonies like Barbados became independent people in Britain should have had a vote on that (though as it turned out most if not all colonies obtained independence without referendums).

[ahinton]

But what's the alternative - that everyone with Scottish ancestry living outside Scotland has a vote while those non-Scots resident in Scotland don't have one? That would result in a non-resident electorate - perhaps with no interest or stake in the way Scotland is governed (after all, they don't live there) - having in all probability a majority influence on the referendum. That seems to me as absurd as the suggestion that the rest of the UK should have a vote, as if when British colonies like Barbados became independent people in Britain should have a vote on that (though as it turned out most if not all colonies obtained independence without referendums).

I did and do not suggest that there is or could be a credible and viable alternative; I merely sought to point out that the noisy rhetoric about Scots deciding their fate and that this is what they are being allowed now to do by means of the "independence" referendum is not and indeed cannot be exactly what it is claimed to be by the purvveyros of said noisy rhetoric and that, by implication, it's just yet another of the anomalies, uncertainties and ill thought throught aspects of the referendum.

One other piece of noise making has come frequently from financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs and Standard Life, the latter of which is and alway has been a Scottish company and it seeks to persuade anyone interested that a Yes vote would not only have adverse consequences for both sides of the border but also likely persuade such institutions to up sticks and relocate their bases to England; be that as it may, I can imagine a post-"independence" Scottish government seeking to undermine the threat of such relocations by increasing certain Scottish taxes in order to fund a nice reduction in Scottish corporation tax to tempt them to stay put.

[P. G. Tipps]

There can be no right answer here. What is it that makes you think that all Scots residents of 18 or more years of age may vote but that all Scots residents below the age of 18 may not? In other words, what do you perceive to be so special about the attainment of the age of 18 in this specific context?

.

It is a judgement call ... I certainly wasn't mature enough to vote at 16 and, thankfully, I never got the chance. This is not just a General Election which can be reversed, it's a one-off vote which will affect us all.

If we take your view to its logical conclusion there would be no reason not to allow children under 16 and even babies to vote.

Are you in favour of that? If not, it is up to you to suggest a cut-off date and, like your own query to me, explain the reason what you 'perceive to be so special' about the particular age you have chosen!

[aeolium]

One problem with voting is that it assumes that decisions made by more people are somehow better.

Not necessarily - it just means that there's a better chance that people have ownership of the decisions that are made, for good or ill. And I haven't seen any evidence that decisions taken by dictatorships or oligarchies are any better - if anything the evidence is all the other way. There's long been a strain of opinion that other people can't be trusted with making decisions, though I've never been persuaded that the authors of those views would be any better at making the decisions themselves.

[ahinton]

.

It is a judgement call ... I certainly wasn't mature enough to vote at 16 and, thankfully, I never got the chance. This is not just a General Election which can be reversed, it's a one-off vote which will affect us all.

If we take your view to its logical conclusion there would be no reason not to allow children under 16 and even babies to vote.

Are you in favour of that? If not, it is up to you to suggest a cut-off date and, like your own query to me, explain the reason what you 'perceive to be so special' about the particular age you have chosen!

Please read the first seven words of the passage that you qoute from me. I thought that I had made it clear that there is no "right answer" here, in terms of entitlement to vote, drive, marry or whatever else. Why would you (if indeed you do) accept 17 as a minimum driving age but 18 as a minimum voting age? The minimum age at which people may lawfully vote, drive, marry &c. varies from country to country and time to time, as indeed it will likely continue to do; each will be decided upon from time to time by governments. People may terminate their school education at 16; do you see that as compatible with any of the other age-related rights? Farther up the scale, what - and on what grounds - should be the state retirement age (if indeed there should continue to be one)?

[Flosshilde]

Frankly I'm much more concerned about 16-17 year-olds having a vote on such a major and irreversible issue. That is much too young and inexperienced an age however intelligent the voter may be otherwise. This was another clearly tactical victory for Salmond who hopes to exploit the greater 'radicalism' of youth on the gentle and generous-sounding grounds of 'inclusion'.

Except that (last time I saw a reference to voting intentions - it may have changed by now) a majority of that age group were intending to vote 'no'.

As for people living outside Scotland being able to vote - I don't see why people whose grandparents (or even parents) were born in Scotland but who now live permanently elsewhere should be able to vote. There could be an argument for those people who were born & brought up in Scotland but who have had to move temporarily because of work or education commitments being allowed to vote.

[P. G. Tipps]

Please read the first seven words of the passage that you qoute from me. I thought that I had made it clear that there is no "right answer" here, in terms of entitlement to vote, drive, marry or whatever else. Why would you (if indeed you do) accept 17 as a minimum driving age but 18 as a minimum voting age? The minimum age at which people may lawfully vote, drive, marry &c. varies from country to country and time to time, as indeed it will likely continue to do; each will be decided upon from time to time by governments. People may terminate their school education at 16; do you see that as compatible with any of the other age-related rights? Farther up the scale, what - and on what grounds - should be the state retirement age (if indeed there should continue to be one)?

There was absolutely no reason for me not to read those seven words, in fact these were the very basis of my query to you!

I repeat ... if you think there is 'no right answer' you are left with two alternatives regarding voting:

a) Allow everyone and anyone to vote irrespective of age which, of course, would include toddlers and babies.

b) Though there may be 'no right answer', select a cut-off age anyway as an imperfect but much better solution.

My question to you was ... if (I hopefully trust) you would opt for b), what age would you select, and what would you 'perceive so special' about that age which was exactly the questioning standard you applied to my own particular post!

[ahinton]

There was absolutely no reason for me not to read those seven words, in fact these were the very basis of my query to you!

I repeat ... if you think there is 'no right answer' you are left with two alternatives regarding voting:

a) Allow everyone and anyone to vote irrespective of age which, of course, would include toddlers and babies.

b) Though there may be 'no right answer', select a cut-off age anyway as an imperfect but much better solution.

My question to you was ... if (I hopefully trust) you would opt for b), what age would you select, and what would you 'perceive so special' about that age which was exactly the questioning standard you applied to my own particular post!

Since by implication I do not have a hard and fast specific answer to your question, I would leave it to governments to make decisions on such minimum ages as and when they may see fit from time to time, as indeed they do, since it is their responsibility and not mine to do this. You presumably could, however, answer my question on which minimum ages you believe to be appropriate, with reasons why, since you imply that you do have ideas on that.