The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

Shakethedisease

That speech was.... underwhelming. And probably a mistake. Watch as splits deepen and other parties form before 2021.

mollycat

penners324 wrote: »

Will there be a super majority requirement on any referendum?

There won't be one soon; BUT on the point raised; should be 60% YES to action any major constitutional change* and no way should 16 & 17 year olds be allowed a vote.

* I await the "what about Brexit" posts.

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

That speech was.... underwhelming. And probably a mistake. Watch as splits deepen and other parties form before 2021.

Why enact another "Charge of the Light Brigade"?

Herzlos

I agree on the 60%, we need a clear majority to do anything (Brexit not having a threshold was a mistake we'll pay for for decades).


But why shouldn't 16 and 17 year olds vote?


As with Brexit, it seems that the over 65's are they biggest no voters (75% no), whilst the under 65's are all a yes majority (35-64 was 59% yes, under 34 was higher), according to a poll I've since lost today.

mollycat

Herzlos wrote: »

I agree on the 60%, we need a clear majority to do anything (Brexit not having a threshold was a mistake we'll pay for for decades).

But why shouldn't 16 and 17 year olds vote?


As with Brexit, it seems that the over 65's are they biggest no voters (75% no), whilst the under 65's are all a yes majority (35-64 was 59% yes, under 34 was higher), according to a poll I've since lost today.

The same reason 10 0r 11 year olds can't vote and also why it's 18+ for General Elections......lack of life experience and a full understanding of the issues/consequences.

Giving 16/17 year olds the vote in 2014 (as well as the 50% threshold), was a huge mistake and consequently the vote was much closer than it should have been.

The line needs to be somewhere, IMHO, 18.

LHW99

Herzlos wrote: »

I agree on the 60%, we need a clear majority to do anything (Brexit not having a threshold was a mistake we'll pay for for decades).


But why shouldn't 16 and 17 year olds vote?


As with Brexit, it seems that the over 65's are they biggest no voters (75% no), whilst the under 65's are all a yes majority (35-64 was 59% yes, under 34 was higher), according to a poll I've since lost today.

Over 65's have seen a lot of life and listened to very many politicians - and know things don't tend to turn out how they are promised, even given the politician truly believes what they say and intends to carry it out.

Herzlos

LHW99 wrote: »

Over 65's have seen a lot of life and listened to very many politicians - and know things don't tend to turn out how they are promised, even given the politician truly believes what they say and intends to carry it out.

They are also the worst at believing fake news and arguably have the smallest stake in the countries future.

kangoora

Herzlos wrote: »

I agree on the 60%, we need a clear majority to do anything (Brexit not having a threshold was a mistake we'll pay for for decades).

But why shouldn't 16 and 17 year olds vote?
.

I'll say it.

Have you talked to the average 16-17 year old?

Whilst there may be a small minority capable of AND willing to fully understand the economic, social and legal changes that are going to impact Scotland following a leave vote; the vast majority are more concerned with who's going to win Love Island, celebrity jungle, who's going out with who behind the bike sheds etc.

Plus, "RARR, INDEPENDENCE!!!", plays a lot more to impressionable youngsters who are currently probably going through their teenage rebellious phase. Ask any parent of a teenager what these years are like if you haven't experienced it yourself.

There's a reason there are only 7 countries in the world who extend the voting franchise to 16+ (plus 3 crown dependencies). Of those 7 only one (Austria) is, IMO, actually able to be properly classed as a 1st world country.

No wonder the Leave campaign want to include 16-17 year olds.

Note 1: I'm not saying ALL 16/17 year olds are incapable of voting without due consideration of all the facts.
Note 2: There's an argument that being 18 or over doesn't give anyone the capacity to vote 'sensibly' but until some other way of deciding who can vote is developed it's 'what we got' now

LHW99

Herzlos wrote: »

They are also the worst at believing fake news and arguably have the smallest stake in the countries future.

Someone who is 70 may have another 25-30 year ahead of them. There will be 55 year olds (and younger, unfortunately) that have similar, no one has a crystal ball. Does that mean everyone needs a DNA test to check on life expectancy before we send them a voting card?
I also don't know of any statistics that prove that "over 65's believe more fake news than any other age group" - but perhaps you could provide some details?

SpiderLegs

LHW99 wrote: »

Someone who is 70 may have another 25-30 year ahead of them. There will be 55 year olds (and younger, unfortunately) that have similar, no one has a crystal ball. Does that mean everyone needs a DNA test to check on life expectancy before we send them a voting card?
I also don't know of any statistics that prove that "over 65's believe more fake news than any other age group" - but perhaps you could provide some details?

I think we all know that "over 65's believe more fake news than any other age group" is true because it appeared in herzlos’ twitter feed one day.

Let’s hope that herz is in that age bracket otherwise it gives rise to a huge mind **** paradox.