Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 


       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Scottish republic

Who will be allowed to vote in the referendum?

My wife asked me this question.

I don't think people not resident in Scotland for less than 10 years should get a vote in the referendum.
magister ludi

Why would you want to introduce 10 years residency requirements?  I mean, other than give unionists the opportunity to claim it was fixed and have every  international human rights organisation and every democratic nation in the world agree with them?  Wouldn't it just be simpler to have every voter show their Party membership card before being given a ballot paper?
Dave Coull

Re: Who will be allowed to vote in the referendum?

Scottish republic wrote:
My wife asked me this question
The answer is simple: anybody who is on the electoral register for a Scottish constituency.

The electoral register is always out of date. There are sure to be some people on it who have died since the last time it was up-dated. There are also sure to be some people who could be on it and aren't yet, either because they were too young last time, or because they have moved house. One thng that needs to be done is to have a registration drive, to try to make sure as many young people, and as many mobile people, as possible, are entitled to vote.

There is also the question of folk who are out of the country temporarily: members of the armed forces, for example, or folk who work abroad for a significant part of the year but have their residence in Scotland. Such folk will be entitled to be on the register for their home address. However, an eye needs to be kept on possible abuses   -   folk who have been outwith Scotland for years but register for their last address in the country, or for the address of a friend.
Scottish republic wrote:
I don't think people not resident in Scotland for less than 10 years should get a vote in the referendum.
Saying folk have to be resident in Scotland for 10 years before they can vote seems a bit extreme! It would almost certainly be against the law as the law stands at present, and so it should be.
Scottish republic

Should there be a massive influx of unionists into Scotland who register just to kill off the referendum vote then that would be worrying.  

Yes or No   ?
Electric Hermit

Scottish republic wrote:
Should there be a massive influx of unionists into Scotland who register just to kill off the referendum vote then that would be worrying.  

Yes or No   ?


Seems a bit far-fetched. But I suppose it is possible. Perhaps a clause stating that only those registered before the announcement of the date of the referendum would qualify? Or only those registered before a particular date?
Dave Coull

Scottish republic wrote:
Should there be a massive influx of unionists into Scotland who register just to kill off the referendum vote then that would be worrying

It might be worrying if you think the result of the referendum will be close, and if you’re the sort of person who worries about such fantasies. But I think the result will be a decisive yes to independence, and to me the idea that large numbers of people are going to move to Scotland just in order to be able to vote “No” in the referendum is really bizarre.

I suppose it's possible a very few people who had been thinking of moving to Scotland anyway, or moving back to Scotland anyway, might be prompted in the timing of their move by political considerations. In 1988, I had been thinking of moving back to Scotland anyway, and what made up my mind to move soon was that the poll tax was being introduced in Scotland a year earlier, so I could refuse to pay the poll tax a year earlier, and I could actively campaign against the poll tax a year earlier, in Scotland. However, I suspect I was very unusual in that respect.

But you are asking specifically about a "massive influx of unionists": whereas I think the very few people who might be prompted to make a move, (which they had been considering making anyway), by wanting to vote in the referendum, could cut both ways.

And, in my view, the effect of a very few people being prompted to make a move, which they had been considering anyway, because of wanting to be able to vote (one way or the other) in the referendum, is likely to be negligible. And since I don't think the result of the referendum will be close  -  why worry about something so negligible?
Electric Hermit wrote:
Perhaps a clause stating that only those registered before the announcement of the date of the referendum would qualify? Or only those registered before a particular date?
I would be against making any such new rules. As I previously pointed out
Quote:
The electoral register is always out of date. There are sure to be some people on it who have died since the last time it was up-dated. There are also sure to be some people who could be on it and aren't yet, either because they were too young last time, or because they have moved house. One thing that needs to be done is to have a registration drive, to try to make sure as many young people, and as many mobile people, as possible, are entitled to vote.
and you can’t have a registration drive, to register as many as possible of the young, of those who have moved house, etc, if you have already specified that, if they’re not already on the register, they can’t vote.
Electric Hermit

Dave Coull wrote:
But I think the result will be a decisive yes to independence...


On the basis of...? Some goat entrails, perhaps?
Electric Hermit

Dave Coull wrote:
Electric Hermit wrote:
Perhaps a clause stating that only those registered before the announcement of the date of the referendum would qualify? Or only those registered before a particular date?
I would be against making any such new rules. As I previously pointed out
Quote:
The electoral register is always out of date. There are sure to be some people on it who have died since the last time it was up-dated. There are also sure to be some people who could be on it and aren't yet, either because they were too young last time, or because they have moved house. One thing that needs to be done is to have a registration drive, to try to make sure as many young people, and as many mobile people, as possible, are entitled to vote.
and you can’t have a registration drive, to register as many as possible of the young, of those who have moved house, etc, if you have already specified that, if they’re not already on the register, they can’t vote.


I agree. I was merely suggesting that, to whatever extent there might be an "influx" problem, it was hardly insoluble. But it would have to be a very serious threat indeed to outweigh considerations such as you identify.

To be effective, democracy must be inclusive and participative to the greatest extent achievable.
Lord Pitsligo

Scottish republic wrote:
Should there be a massive influx of unionists into Scotland who register just to kill off the referendum vote then that would be worrying.  

Yes or No   ?


That's into the realm of tin foil hattery now.
Electric Hermit

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
Scottish republic wrote:
Should there be a massive influx of unionists into Scotland who register just to kill off the referendum vote then that would be worrying.  

Yes or No   ?


That's into the realm of tin foil hattery now.


It is telling, however, that the British nationalists inspire such suspicion. And understandable. When these union fundamentalist will defend the likes of Ian Davidson then one is perfectly entitled to wonder just exactly where they might draw the line in trying to thwart our right to self-determination.
Lord Pitsligo

Electric Hermit wrote:
It is telling, however, that the British nationalists inspire such suspicion.


I don't think they do inspire such suspicion. At least they don't to anyone who is rational.
Electric Hermit

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
Electric Hermit wrote:
It is telling, however, that the British nationalists inspire such suspicion.


I don't think they do inspire such suspicion. At least they don't to anyone who is rational.


There is nothing rational about sticking your head in the sand and ignoring reality. The growth in what has been termed "fundamentalist unionism" is a very real phenomenon that has been much commented upon of late. While it would be foolish to exaggerate the phenomenon it would, arguably, be even more foolish to pretend that it did not exist. I don't know how much you frequent other forums and comment facilities, but I do so quite a bit. And I have certainly noticed some truly rabid stuff coming from British nationalists. At the very least, many of them seem prepared to eschew the constraints of fundamental democratic principles. There is a distinctly unpleasant tone there which seems to have become more prevalent and more unpleasant since the election.

Every movement has its nutters. I see no reason why British nationalism should be thought the exception. No need for panic. But such things are worth keeping tabs on.
Holebender

I'd be far more concerned about a sudden surge in postal vote applications than a sudden influx of residents registering to vote. I believe you need an address before you can register to vote, so where are all these new voters going to live?
Lord Pitsligo

Electric Hermit wrote:
Lord Pitsligo wrote:
Electric Hermit wrote:
It is telling, however, that the British nationalists inspire such suspicion.


I don't think they do inspire such suspicion. At least they don't to anyone who is rational.


There is nothing rational about sticking your head in the sand and ignoring reality. The growth in what has been termed "fundamentalist unionism" is a very real phenomenon that has been much commented upon of late. While it would be foolish to exaggerate the phenomenon it would, arguably, be even more foolish to pretend that it did not exist. I don't know how much you frequent other forums and comment facilities, but I do so quite a bit. And I have certainly noticed some truly rabid stuff coming from British nationalists. At the very least, many of them seem prepared to eschew the constraints of fundamental democratic principles. There is a distinctly unpleasant tone there which seems to have become more prevalent and more unpleasant since the election.

Every movement has its nutters. I see no reason why British nationalism should be thought the exception. No need for panic. But such things are worth keeping tabs on.


I think your tin foil hat is restricting the flow of blood to your brain.
Electric Hermit

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
Electric Hermit wrote:
Lord Pitsligo wrote:
Electric Hermit wrote:
It is telling, however, that the British nationalists inspire such suspicion.


I don't think they do inspire such suspicion. At least they don't to anyone who is rational.


There is nothing rational about sticking your head in the sand and ignoring reality. The growth in what has been termed "fundamentalist unionism" is a very real phenomenon that has been much commented upon of late. While it would be foolish to exaggerate the phenomenon it would, arguably, be even more foolish to pretend that it did not exist. I don't know how much you frequent other forums and comment facilities, but I do so quite a bit. And I have certainly noticed some truly rabid stuff coming from British nationalists. At the very least, many of them seem prepared to eschew the constraints of fundamental democratic principles. There is a distinctly unpleasant tone there which seems to have become more prevalent and more unpleasant since the election.

Every movement has its nutters. I see no reason why British nationalism should be thought the exception. No need for panic. But such things are worth keeping tabs on.


I think your tin foil hat is restricting the flow of blood to your brain.


I suppose that passes for intelligent debate in the playground.
Electric Hermit

Holebender wrote:
I'd be far more concerned about a sudden surge in postal vote applications than a sudden influx of residents registering to vote. I believe you need an address before you can register to vote, so where are all these new voters going to live?


Prepare to be accused of straying into the realms of "tin foil hattery". Apperently, if Lord Pitsligo does not perceive or comprehend an issue, there is no issue.
Lord Pitsligo

Electric Hermit wrote:
I suppose that passes for intelligent debate in the playground.


Lets hope so.

But on a serious note, its the attitude of people like yourself that will do more damage to the cause of independence than any "Britnat". Paranoia and allegations of things not yet done are not very attractive to an undecided voter.
Electric Hermit

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
Electric Hermit wrote:
I suppose that passes for intelligent debate in the playground.


Lets hope so.

But on a serious note, its the attitude of people like yourself that will do more damage to the cause of independence than any "Britnat". Paranoia and allegations of things not yet done are not very attractive to an undecided voter.


What "paranoia"? The "paranoia" is all in your imagination. I merely pointed out a phenomenon which I and many others have observed. The fact that you are wilfully  blind to this phenomenon says nothing at all about its existence. and quite a bit about your own dumb prejudices.

And please give up this tiresome crap about people "damaging the cause of independence". One or other brain-dead British nationalists says the same thing about every single person who makes any kind of statement in favour of independence. The cumulative result being that they all end up looking like idiots.
VLK

Re: Who will be allowed to vote in the referendum?

Scottish republic wrote:
My wife asked me this question.

I don't think people not resident in Scotland for less than 10 years should get a vote in the referendum.


Why this arbitrary 10-year limit? Do you consider yourself a more "real" Scotsman because you have lived in Scotland for over 10 years?
Scottish republic

Re: Who will be allowed to vote in the referendum?

VLK wrote:
Scottish republic wrote:
My wife asked me this question.

I don't think people not resident in Scotland for less than 10 years should get a vote in the referendum.


Why this arbitrary 10-year limit? Do you consider yourself a more "real" Scotsman because you have lived in Scotland for over 10 years?


Never said such a thing.  The concern I have is to avoid an influx of Brit nats who register here just to vote in the referendum.
Scottish republic

Holebender wrote:
I'd be far more concerned about a sudden surge in postal vote applications than a sudden influx of residents registering to vote. I believe you need an address before you can register to vote, so where are all these new voters going to live?


I don't know but there may be an answer to that question.
VLK

Do you know that an average Englishman is very much in favour of Scottish independence? For some reason we have been given an impression that the English people would be vehemently against the break-up of the union. However, most opinion-polls, however trustworthy those are, have pointed out that most people in England have nothing against Scotland becoming independent if it wishes to do so.
Fidget

Re: Who will be allowed to vote in the referendum?

Scottish republic wrote:


Never said such a thing.  The concern I have is to avoid an influx of Brit nats who register here just to vote in the referendum.


I think you're unduly concerned, to be honest.
Dave Coull

Re: Who will be allowed to vote in the referendum?

VLK wrote:
Do you know that an average Englishman is very much in favour of Scottish independence?
I know there is no such thing as "an average Englishman".

And I know the London-based media have been pumping out stories about English folk being more enthusiastic for Scottish independence than the Scots.

And I know it's best to be sceptical about the stuff the London-based media pump out.

These tales are being pumped out by the same London-based media which pumps out stories about Scotland being subsidized by folk in England. Well, of course, if some folk in England believe that crap, they might say "good riddance". But such an attitude would be based on ignorance. After our referendum, when serious negotiations get under way regarding independence, those same sort of folk might be horrified as the truth begins to dawn on them.

There is indeed some genuine support in England for independence for Scotland. But it doesn't come from the sort of folk who believe the crap the London-based media pump out.

And, coming back to the actual topic of this discussion, who should have a vote in the referendum  -  the answer is simple: anybody who is on the electoral register for a Scottish constituency.

As it's illegal to be on the register for more than one constituency, nobody on the register for any constituency in England will be able to take part in the referendum.
Fidget

Re: Who will be allowed to vote in the referendum?

Dave Coull wrote:
After our referendum,


stated like a fully paid up member of the SNP.  Laughing
Dave Coull

Re: Who will be allowed to vote in the referendum?

I wrote
Quote:
After our referendum,
Fidget wrote:
stated like a fully paid up member of the SNP
Have you been away for several months? My decision not to vote for the SNP in the May election was the subject of much heated discussion here on this forum, with a certain fully paid up member of the SNP calling me all sorts of unpleasant names. Also, just two days ago a fully-paid up member of the SNP complained about what he regarded as my "hostility" towards that party.

The subject of this discussion is who can vote in the referendum. My answer, the correct answer, was "anybody who is on the electoral register for a constituency in Scotland". The plural possessive "our" with regard to the referendum refers, of course, to the entire electorate of Scotland.
Fidget

'scuse me for having a sense of humour.  Rolling Eyes
VLK

Dave,

I know what you mean but don't you think it is a win-win situation for everyone concerned? Many people in South-East England tend to believe that Scotland and North-England live off the taxpayers' money of the SE, I know that is a gross generalisation of the situation but many people in the SE really say things like that.

However, I don't think that is the real reason why people in England don't have anything against Scotland becoming independent. You can call me naive but I think it is simply a question of fairness. Most people in England believe that if the majority of the Scottish people want Scotland to become an independent country then it is only fair that it becomes an independent country.
Holebender

Being "not against" something is nowhere near the same as being "for" something.

Quite frankly, it matters not one jot what yer average Englishman thinks about Scottish independence, except insofar as it might effect international relations after independence. I don't understand why you raised the matter.
VLK

Holebender wrote:
Being "not against" something is nowhere near the same as being "for" something.

Quite frankly, it matters not one jot what yer average Englishman thinks about Scottish independence, except insofar as it might effect international relations after independence. I don't understand why you raised the matter.


I think the issue is relevant to the title of this thread as the OP was concerned that a lot of "outsiders" would register in the Scottish referendum. Many people have said it previously that is not even possible or legal and even if it was it would still be a very exaggareted concern.

However, reading between the lines of the OP's post he seems to think that those "outsiders" are somehow automatically going to vote against Scottish independence. That is the issue I brought up that why do so many of the Scottish nationalists always think that the people in the rest of the UK would be against Scottish independence.
Holebender

Fair point.
William_Cleland

VLK wrote:
....That is the issue I brought up that why do so many of the Scottish nationalists always think that the people in the rest of the UK would be against Scottish independence.


Think it's based on a failure to grasp that English and British identity are not one and the same thing:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/201...in-scotland-idUKTRE74B6LN20110512

...Only 29 percent of Scottish adults back independence, according to a YouGov poll published in the Sun. That compared with 41 percent of adults in England and Wales who said they believed Scotland should be independent...
magister ludi

quote="Dave Coull:115774"]
As it's illegal to be on the register for more than one constituency, nobody on the register for any constituency in England will be able to take part in the referendum.[/quote]

It's not illegal to be on the register for more than one constituency.
It is illegal to vote twice in the one election. Since there isn't a plan to extend the referendum  to English constituents, anybody on the scottish register irrespective of whether they appear on an English register would be eligible to vote.
magister ludi

Re: Who will be allowed to vote in the referendum?

Dave Coull wrote:


The subject of this discussion is who can vote in the referendum. My answer, the correct answer, was "anybody who is on the electoral register for a constituency in Scotland".



which rather begs the question "which electoral register?", given that the eligibility requirements are different for European, UK national, Scottish parliamentary and Local elections.  My assumption would be that that those of us who agree that eligibility to vote in the referendum should be based on the " anybody who is on the electoral register" criteria are referring to the Scottish parliamentary register, but given the range of possibilities that the original question has thrown up it's probably best we're clear on that.
Dave Coull

magister ludi wrote:
It's not illegal to be on the register for more than one constituency.
The Electoral Commission wrote:
A person’s name may appear on the electoral register only if they reside at an address within the electoral area. Residence is not defined in law, but it has been held by the courts to entail a ‘considerable degree of permanence'. Based on this criteria, it is possible for a person to be registered to vote in two different electoral areas. A person with two homes who spends about the same amount of time in each can be lawfully registered at both addresses. However, it is unlikely that ownership of a second home that is used only for recreational purposes would meet the residency qualification.
Cases of folk who are genuinely "resident" with a "considerable degree of permanence" in two different homes in two different constituencies,  AND  who spend equal amounts of time at these two different homes in two different constituencies, must be very, very rare indeed. As I said in my first post on this topic
Quote:
an eye needs to be kept on possible abuses.
magister ludi

Dave Coull wrote:
Cases of folk who are genuinely "resident" with a "considerable degree of permanence" in two different homes in two different constituencies,  AND  who spend equal amounts of time at these two different homes in two different constituencies, must be very, very rare indeed.


The category that immediately comes to mind are students studying away from their parental home  where it is very common for them to appear on 2 electoral registers, but other than that I agree instances are probably rare and mainly restricted to those who have moved house and for just  that period until registers are updated   My post though was primarily to correct any impression of it being illegal to appear on the register of more than one constituency at a time.
Holebender

It may well be that a special voters' register will be needed for the referendum. If I recall correctly, the SNP intends to extend the franchise to everyone aged 16 and over. As all current registers will only include those aged 18 and over, a special, specific, register will be required for the referendum. It will be the compilation of that register which determines who is allowed to vote in the referendum.
Electric Hermit

Holebender wrote:
It may well be that a special voters' register will be needed for the referendum. If I recall correctly, the SNP intends to extend the franchise to everyone aged 16 and over. As all current registers will only include those aged 18 and over, a special, specific, register will be required for the referendum. It will be the compilation of that register which determines who is allowed to vote in the referendum.


Not sure if it is proposed or even possible, but it would be a lot simply to lower the voting age to 16 for all purposes. Which is what it should be anyway.
Electric Hermit

Re: Who will be allowed to vote in the referendum?

Dave Coull wrote:
I wrote
Quote:
After our referendum,
Fidget wrote:
stated like a fully paid up member of the SNP
Have you been away for several months? My decision not to vote for the SNP in the May election was the subject of much heated discussion here on this forum, with a certain fully paid up member of the SNP calling me all sorts of unpleasant names. Also, just two days ago a fully-paid up member of the SNP complained about what he regarded as my "hostility" towards that party.


Diddums!   Rolling Eyes
Electric Hermit

VLK wrote:
You can call me naive but I think it is simply a question of fairness. Most people in England believe that if the majority of the Scottish people want Scotland to become an independent country then it is only fair that it becomes an independent country.


I don't think that is naive at all. The spittle-flecked anti-Scottish bile that comments sections of English newspapers should never be taken as representative of the generality of Englanders.
Holebender

Electric Hermit wrote:
Holebender wrote:
It may well be that a special voters' register will be needed for the referendum. If I recall correctly, the SNP intends to extend the franchise to everyone aged 16 and over. As all current registers will only include those aged 18 and over, a special, specific, register will be required for the referendum. It will be the compilation of that register which determines who is allowed to vote in the referendum.


Not sure if it is proposed or even possible, but it would be a lot simply to lower the voting age to 16 for all purposes. Which is what it should be anyway.

It may well be simpler to lower the voting age, but I am pretty sure that is a reserved matter which would require Wastemonster approval. I don't know how the SNP intend to set the voting age at 16 for the referendum but it was definitely proposed in the draft published last year. See http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/02/22120157/4
Electric Hermit

Holebender wrote:
Electric Hermit wrote:
Holebender wrote:
It may well be that a special voters' register will be needed for the referendum. If I recall correctly, the SNP intends to extend the franchise to everyone aged 16 and over. As all current registers will only include those aged 18 and over, a special, specific, register will be required for the referendum. It will be the compilation of that register which determines who is allowed to vote in the referendum.


Not sure if it is proposed or even possible, but it would be a lot simply to lower the voting age to 16 for all purposes. Which is what it should be anyway.

It may well be simpler to lower the voting age, but I am pretty sure that is a reserved matter which would require Wastemonster approval. I don't know how the SNP intend to set the voting age at 16 for the referendum but it was definitely proposed in the draft published last year. See http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/02/22120157/4


Indeed it was. I think this was mentioned already in this thread. If not by me, by someone else. But, like you, I am not aware of any specific proposals for a mechanism. It may well be that this is yet one more of these matters on which the Scottish government will be represented as trying to "pick a fight" with the British government when, in fact, all they are doing is seeking the normalisation of the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Holebender

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/02/22120157/7

The Scottish Government publication states that anyone eligible to vote in Scottish Parliament and local government elections will be eligible to vote in the referendum, with the addition of 16 and 17 year olds. Here is how they intend to include 16s and 17s...
Quote:
2.14. For the referendum, the Scottish Government is constrained by the fact that the franchise for elections is reserved to Westminster and that the systems for establishing and maintaining the electoral register are subject to Westminster legislation. That system currently allows 16 and 17 year-olds to apply to be on the electoral register if they will become 18 within 12 months of the period beginning with the 1 December after their application. The draft Bill therefore provides for the extension of the vote to those 16 and 17 year-olds who are eligible to be registered under the existing UK legislation.
Electric Hermit

Holebender wrote:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/02/22120157/7

The Scottish Government publication states that anyone eligible to vote in Scottish Parliament and local government elections will be eligible to vote in the referendum, with the addition of 16 and 17 year olds. Here is how they intend to include 16s and 17s...
Quote:
2.14. For the referendum, the Scottish Government is constrained by the fact that the franchise for elections is reserved to Westminster and that the systems for establishing and maintaining the electoral register are subject to Westminster legislation. That system currently allows 16 and 17 year-olds to apply to be on the electoral register if they will become 18 within 12 months of the period beginning with the 1 December after their application. The draft Bill therefore provides for the extension of the vote to those 16 and 17 year-olds who are eligible to be registered under the existing UK legislation.


I had not seen that bit. Clever!
Dave Coull

I wrote
Quote:
After our referendum
Fidget wrote:
stated like a fully paid up member of the SNP
As Fidget has been a contributor to this forum for more than two years, I responded
Quote:
Have you been away for several months? My decision not to vote for the SNP in the May election was the subject of much heated discussion here on this forum, with a certain fully paid up member of the SNP calling me all sorts of unpleasant names. Also, just two days ago a fully-paid up member of the SNP complained about what he regarded as my "hostility" towards that party.
the point being, it's ridiculous to suggest somebody is a member of the SNP when there is such clear evidence to the contrary
Electric Hermit wrote:
Diddums!
more skitters from EH. I wasn't complaining, just pointing out why Fidget's characterisation of me as a "fully paid up member of the SNP" was nonsense. Like I said
Quote:
The plural possessive "our" with regard to the referendum refers, of course, to the entire electorate of Scotland.
Electric Hermit

Dave Coull wrote:
I wrote
Quote:
After our referendum
Fidget wrote:
stated like a fully paid up member of the SNP
As Fidget has been a contributor to this forum for more than two years, I responded
Quote:
Have you been away for several months? My decision not to vote for the SNP in the May election was the subject of much heated discussion here on this forum, with a certain fully paid up member of the SNP calling me all sorts of unpleasant names. Also, just two days ago a fully-paid up member of the SNP complained about what he regarded as my "hostility" towards that party.
the point being, it's ridiculous to suggest somebody is a member of the SNP when there is such clear evidence to the contrary
Electric Hermit wrote:
Diddums!
more skitters from EH. I wasn't complaining, just pointing out why Fidget's characterisation of me as a "fully paid up member of the SNP" was nonsense. Like I said
Quote:
The plural possessive "our" with regard to the referendum refers, of course, to the entire electorate of Scotland.


I was referring to your comically petulant efforts to distance yourself from the SNP. Perhaps Fidget is as puzzled as I am about an individual who purports to want independence for Scotland but stubbornly refuses to vote in the way which best guarantees progress towards this aspiration. But I long since abandoned hope of getting any kind of intelligible explanation for this contradictory and somewhat irrational behaviour. And I lost interest shortly after that.
Dave Coull

Electric Hermit wrote:
efforts to distance yourself from the SNP
I distance myself from   ALL    political parties, in the sense that I make it clear I’m not a member of any political party, and I never have been a member of any political party. However, in various non-party-political campaigns, I have worked alongside members of the Green Party, the Scottish Socialist Party, the Labour Party, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, etc etc etc. I have never expressed a wish to distance myself from the individual members of the SNP with whom I have co-operated.
Electric Hermit wrote:
Perhaps Fidget is as puzzled as I am
Fidget suggested I was a member of the SNP. Fidget has been contributing to this forum for over two years. The evidence that his suggestion is nonsense was there for all to see.
Electric Hermit

Dave Coull wrote:
Electric Hermit wrote:
efforts to distance yourself from the SNP
I distance myself from   ALL    political parties, in the sense that I make it clear I’m not a member of any political party, and I never have been a member of any political party. However, in various non-party-political campaigns, I have worked alongside members of the Green Party, the Scottish Socialist Party, the Labour Party, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, etc etc etc. I have never expressed a wish to distance myself from the individual members of the SNP with whom I have co-operated.
Electric Hermit wrote:
Perhaps Fidget is as puzzled as I am
Fidget suggested I was a member of the SNP. Fidget has been contributing to this forum for over two years. The evidence that his suggestion is nonsense was there for all to see.


Fidget was tugging your chain. Rather successfully, it seems.

For by far the largest part of my life so far I was not a member of any political party. I never felt the need to make a song and dance about it in the way that you do.

And, party member or not, my voting strategies have always been consistent with my declared political objectives. I certainly have never been so infantile as to compromise those political objectives merely to "distance myself" from a political party.

Each to his own, I suppose.
Dave Coull

Electric Hermit wrote:
I certainly have never been so infantile as to compromise those political objectives merely to "distance myself" from a political party
funny how sometimes recent recruits can be more "party line" than veteran party members........
Kenneth Hermse wrote:
it is especially important that the SNP delegate much of the yes campaign to motivating voices in non party-political, civil society.  In many respects, the less scope for equation of independence to the repelling humdrum of parliamentary democracy, the better.
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2011...ld-soar-above-and-beyond-the-snp/
Electric Hermit

Dave Coull wrote:
Electric Hermit wrote:
I certainly have never been so infantile as to compromise those political objectives merely to "distance myself" from a political party
funny how sometimes recent recruits can be more "party line" than veteran party members........


Even if it were true that I was some kind of adherent to one "party line" your only problem is that it is not your "party line". And your shallow-mindedness is evident in the fact that you mindlessly pigeon-hole as the work of Satan anything which, according to your rather dubious judgement, carries the taint of a particular party's policies. Let me remind you that the principal "party line" of the SNP is independence for Scotland. I make absolutely no apology for toeing that "party line". And if you are simple-minded enough to assume that doing so equates with some kind of unquestioning allegiance, then more fool you.

Kenneth Hermse wrote:
it is especially important that the SNP delegate much of the yes campaign to motivating voices in non party-political, civil society.  In many respects, the less scope for equation of independence to the repelling humdrum of parliamentary democracy, the better.
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2011...above-and-beyond-the-snp/[/quote]

Notwithstanding your rather strange insistence on lying about this matter, I have never suggested anything other than that the pro-constitutional campaign be formally non-party political. It was you who insisted that this campaign be split along party lines.

I realise that you find this an unpalatable truth, but the SNP is the agency by which independence will be achieved. Not some rag-bag of woolly-hatted "activists" meeting in the back room of a pub sipping real-ale and congratulating each other on how non-political they are while others do the actual work of making independence a reality. This is about the constitution. It doesn't get any more political. You need to grow up and accept that fact.
Dave Coull

This latest spat with "Electric Hermit" started because EH chose to follow "Fidget" in "pulling my chain" (despite Fidget holding unionist views and EH being an ardent nationalist) just to have a "go" at me. Such behaviour is not conducive to reasoned discussion
Electric Hermit wrote:
Notwithstanding your rather strange insistence on lying about this matter
I think most people on this forum (whether they agree or disagree with my opinions) realise I have a pretty good record so far as telling the truth is concerned, in fact, I think most folk on this forum would probably be inclined to take my word for something before yours.
Electric Hermit wrote:
I have never suggested anything other than that the pro-constitutional campaign be formally non-party political.
However, from a lot of other things you have said, it does rather sound as if, for you, this could be a mere "formality".
Electric Hermit wrote:
It was you who insisted that this campaign be split along party lines.
I can’t remember ever having “insisted” on any such thing, but I do realise that with advancing age memory isn’t as good as it used to be, so I have just used the excellent “search” facility provided by this forum to look through my own past posts to see if I could find what you’re basing this on.  Here’s the nearest match I was able to find, commenting on something you had said
Quote:
this is beginning to sound more and more like a party-political election campaign, with orders handed down from on high. It's not going to be like that. it   can't  be like that. Oh, maybe the SNP will run a campaign like that. Or maybe wiser folk in the SNP will decide that's not such a good idea. But even if the SNP does run a campaign like that, it won't be the only pro-independence game in town.  
So  IF  wiser heads than yours did not prevail within the SNP, and   IF    the SNP ran a campaign like that, then “it won't be the only pro-independence game in town”.  However, that’s quite a big “if”. During the last few days, you have insulted three of your fellow SNP members here on this forum, hardly the best way for you to convince them your way is the right way to win friends and influence people.
Electric Hermit

Dave Coull wrote:
...hardly the best way for you to convince them your way is the right way...


What "way" is that?
Electric Hermit

Dave Coull wrote:
Electric Hermit wrote:
I have never suggested anything other than that the pro-constitutional campaign be formally non-party political.
However, from a lot of other things you have said, it does rather sound as if, for you, this could be a mere "formality".


Formally: With official authorisation or recognition

Formality: Compliance with formal rules

I'm content with either/both of these. But, unlike you, I am mature enough to realise that the constitution is a political issue and that party politics is far to deeply ingrained in the system to imagine that its influence can be eradicated completely.

Quote:
from a lot of other things you have said


Or, more likely, things you imagine I have said. You're usually so keen on quoting others ad nauseam. Strange that you've been unable to find a single example on this occasion.

Or maybe not so strange.   Rolling Eyes
Dave Coull

Electric Hermit wrote:
party politics is far to deeply ingrained in the system to imagine that its influence can be eradicated completely
Of course party politics can't be eradicated completely, that wasn't what we were disagreeing about. But a non-party-political campaign would, almost by definition, have to include folk who voted for political parties other than the SNP, as well as folk who don't support any political party. Just within the last few days, you have shown an inability to tolerate those members of the same party as yourself who are on this forum, never mind folk who actually vote differently, or who don't vote. As I see it, what we were disagreeing about was the   extent  to which a "non-party-political" campaign should be different from, and independent of, party politics. Back in the 1930s, the Communist Party came up with the idea of "popular front" organisations which were supposed to give the appearance of being "non-party-political" while in practice being controlled by the Communist Party. Now, I'm not accusing members of the SNP, at least not most of them, of wanting to do something like that, but, given the numbers of, and the degree of organisation of, SNP members, there is an obvious hazard of that happening  or appearing to happen. I think everybody else on this forum would probably concur that you contribute to the hazard of that appearing to happen.
Electric Hermit wrote:
You're usually so keen on quoting others ad nauseam
I quote others only to the extent that it's necessary to do so. I try to keep quotes as short as possible relevant to the point I'm making.
Electric Hermit wrote:
Strange that you've been unable to find a single example on this occasion
I prefer not to quote just from (possibly inaccurate) memory, and, in this instance, I haven't bothered to use the "search" facility to confirm what my memory tells me. Many folk on here have probably formed an impression, without me having to jog their memories, of what "your way" could be like. I could maybe quote some examples if you really insist, but would prefer not to bother right now, I don't want to be accused of going on "ad nauseum".
Electric Hermit

Dave Coull wrote:
Electric Hermit wrote:
party politics is far to deeply ingrained in the system to imagine that its influence can be eradicated completely
Of course party politics can't be eradicated completely, that wasn't what we were disagreeing about. But a non-party-political campaign would, almost by definition, have to include folk who voted for political parties other than the SNP, as well as folk who don't support any political party.


I see what has happened here. Every time I write to the effect that the pro campaign should not be run by a political party, you read this as me saying that the campaign should be run by the SNP.

Does your condition have a name? Is there some kind of support group?   Rolling Eyes
Electric Hermit

Dave Coull wrote:
Electric Hermit wrote:
You're usually so keen on quoting others ad nauseam
I quote others only to the extent that it's necessary to do so. I try to keep quotes as short as possible relevant to the point I'm making.
Electric Hermit wrote:
Strange that you've been unable to find a single example on this occasion
I prefer not to quote just from (possibly inaccurate) memory, and, in this instance, I haven't bothered to use the "search" facility to confirm what my memory tells me. Many folk on here have probably formed an impression, without me having to jog their memories, of what "your way" could be like. I could maybe quote some examples if you really insist, but would prefer not to bother right now, I don't want to be accused of going on "ad nauseum".


So when you referred to "a lot of other things you have said", there weren't actually a lot of things at all. There wasn't even one thing. And therein lies the problem. You have been tediously berating me for things you only imagine that I have written. Do you realise how deranged this makes you appear?

You went straight into attack mode as soon as I mentioned the need for the campaign to be run competently and professionally. Because you assumed that I meant that it should be run by the SNP. Despite the fact that I explicitly ruled this out. Why? Because you have created this caricature of me in your pointy wee head as some kind of "party loyalist". A caricature founded on nothing more than your own petty prejudices. A caricature which acts as a prism through which you take your distorted view of anything I write.

We have a name for people who do that kind of thing. We call them bigots.

PS - If you are typical of the kind of people who would otherwise be running the pro campaign, I may have to revise my stance and look to the possibility that the whole thing should be managed by the SNP.
Dave Coull

Electric Hermit wrote:
Every time I write to the effect that the pro campaign should not be run by a political party, you read this as me saying that the campaign should be run by the SNP.
Oh, I note what you say all right. But I also note the fact that you have shown extreme intolerance towards anybody who did not vote SNP, which does not bode well for your commitment to a "non-party-political" campaign. However, as you have also displayed considerable intolerance towards several of your fellow members of the SNP here on this forum, hopefully, your attitude will not be typical of the SNP.
Electric Hermit

Dave Coull wrote:
Electric Hermit wrote:
Every time I write to the effect that the pro campaign should not be run by a political party, you read this as me saying that the campaign should be run by the SNP.
Oh, I note what you say all right. But I also note the fact that you have shown extreme intolerance towards anybody who did not vote SNP...


What "intolerance"? I was curious about some of your contradictions. That is all. That you see simple questioning regarding you position as "intolerance" speaks of some serious insecurity issues on your part.
Dave Coull

Electric Hermit wrote:
We have a name for people who do that kind of thing. We call them bigots.
You must be using the royal "we". Nobody else is agreeing with your accusation of me being a "bigot".
Electric Hermit wrote:
If you are typical of the kind of people who would otherwise be running the pro campaign
(1) I have no desire to "run" the pro-independence campaign, merely to play a part. Not even an especially active part, I'm probably a bit old for that.

(2) I don't consider myself "typical". As I expect the campaign to involve many people who are "new" to such things, my experience of previous non-party-political campaigns would make me un-typical. However, I do think such folk will quickly come to appreciate the problem with placing too much reliance on the well-oiled machinery of a political party.
Electric Hermit wrote:
I may have to revise my stance and look to the possibility that the whole thing should be managed by the SNP.
Well, surprise, surprise. However, the fallacy in such thinking is the idea that "the whole thing"  could   be run by a political party. Any attempt to do so would of course just gaurantee "the whole thing" would consist of more than one pro-independence campaign.
Electric Hermit

Dave Coull wrote:
Electric Hermit wrote:
We have a name for people who do that kind of thing. We call them bigots.
You must be using the royal "we". Nobody else is agreeing with your accusation of me being a "bigot".


I am aware that you have your little fan club here. That doesn't impress me.
Electric Hermit

Dave Coull wrote:
Electric Hermit wrote:
If you are typical of the kind of people who would otherwise be running the pro campaign
(1) I have no desire to "run" the pro-independence campaign, merely to play a part. Not even an especially active part, I'm probably a bit old for that.


Precisely what I said. But by the time it had been run through the mincer of your mind it came out as something rather different.

Dave Coull wrote:
(2) I don't consider myself "typical".


That is comforting to know.

Dave Coull wrote:
As I expect the campaign to involve many people who are "new" to such things, my experience of previous non-party-political campaigns would make me un-typical. However, I do think such folk will quickly come to appreciate the problem with placing too much reliance on the well-oiled machinery of a political party.


But will you ever come to realise the folly of rejecting available expertise and experience just to satisfy your own narrow-minded notions of political purity?

Dave Coull wrote:
Electric Hermit wrote:
I may have to revise my stance and look to the possibility that the whole thing should be managed by the SNP.
Well, surprise, surprise. However, the fallacy in such thinking...


Taking things so literally only adds to the impression that you are none too bright.
Dave Coull

The original topic here was “who will be allowed to vote in the referendum?”

That question was answered and possible complications arising were discussed.

In the course of doing so, I happened to refer to “our referendum”: meaning, of course, the referendum belonging to all of the people who will be entitled to vote.

“Fidget” chose to make some silly remark about me being a member of the SNP.

I naturally pointed out nobody who has been reading this forum could possibly think that.

“Electric Hermit” then chose to have a personal dig at me.

That’s how this latest spat between EH and myself started.

Well, I’m bored with it,  and my guess is, a lot of other folk are probably also bored with it.

So, unless anybody else has something relevant to the original topic...................
Electric Hermit

Dave Coull wrote:
The original topic here was “who will be allowed to vote in the referendum?”

That question was answered and possible complications arising were discussed.

In the course of doing so, I happened to refer to “our referendum”: meaning, of course, the referendum belonging to all of the people who will be entitled to vote.

“Fidget” chose to make some silly remark about me being a member of the SNP.

I naturally pointed out nobody who has been reading this forum could possibly think that.

“Electric Hermit” then chose to have a personal dig at me.

That’s how this latest spat between EH and myself started.

Well, I’m bored with it,  and my guess is, a lot of other folk are probably also bored with it.

So, unless anybody else has something relevant to the original topic...................


Fidget and I had a bit of fun at your expense. Rather than laugh it off in a mature manner, you launched into one of your petulant, self-righteous tantrums here.

But you're right about one thing. These tantrums of yours really are boring.
Dave Coull

A friend can make remarks which, if the same thing was said by some stranger you encountered in a pub, might lead to a disturbance. What counts as "fun" rather depends on who is saying it.
Electric Hermit wrote:
a bit of fun at your expense
Maybe that's all it was in Fidget's case. Not in yours. And I think most folk here on this forum also realise that.
Quote:
So, unless anybody else has something relevant to the original topic...................
Electric Hermit

Dave Coull wrote:
A friend can make remarks which, if the same thing was said by some stranger you encountered in a pub, might lead to a disturbance. What counts as "fun" rather depends on who is saying it.
Electric Hermit wrote:
a bit of fun at your expense
Maybe that's all it was in Fidget's case. Not in yours.


That's just your prejudice speaking again, of course. One thing you're certainly not short of.

Do you have something relevant to the original topic? I know I'd like to see an end your latest whine-fest.
Dave Coull

Electric Hermit wrote:
I know I'd like to see an end your latest
and if he had ended his message there, that really   would   have been the end of it, with no response from me. But no, he couldn't resist the urge to have one last dig
Electric Hermit wrote:
whine
you have again had a relapse into the delusion you can hear sounds from the words you can see on your completely silent computer screen. You really ought to seek professional help with that.
Electric Hermit

I think most of us here would assume that the referendum is a matter for Scotland's voters alone. But there are those who think differently.

"...if Britain is regarded as a nation, then it should really be all of the people of Britain (i.e. of England, Wales and Scotland) who should have a democratic say on Scottish independence..."
Dave Coull

The above post is heading off onto a completely different topic from the original one about who gets to vote in the Scottish referendum. I'm not saying it isn't worth discussing, but it’s worth discussing as a new and different topic. As such, I have posted the link, under the subject heading “English National Conversation = No Referendum For Scotland?”, on the “UK Politics” section of the Our Scotland forum.
Electric Hermit

Dave Coull wrote:
The above post is heading off onto a completely different topic from the original one about who gets to vote in the Scottish referendum. I'm not saying it isn't worth discussing, but it’s worth discussing as a new and different topic. As such, I have posted the link, under the subject heading “English National Conversation = No Referendum For Scotland?”, on the “UK Politics” section of the Our Scotland forum.


How arrogantly presumptuous of you. The topic is titled "Who will be allowed to vote in the referendum?". Here we have somebody arguing that everybody in the UK should have a vote in a referendum on Scotland's independence. But Dave "Wha's Like Me" Coull arbitrarily and unilaterally decides that this is irrelevant.

I think we all know why.
Holebender

That's another discussion shot to hell! Thanks guys.
Electric Hermit

Holebender wrote:
That's another discussion shot to hell! Thanks guys.


I did try to get back on topic. More than once. But if somebody is determined to screw things up there's not much anybody can do.
Dave Coull

On Monday June 27th,
Electric Hermit wrote:
You've ruined enough discussions with your trolling and spamming. Pack it in!
which was immediately followed by this comment
Holebender wrote:
Carlsberg doesn't do irony, but if they did....
and now
Electric Hermit wrote:
if somebody is determined to screw things up there's not much anybody can do.
Quote:
Carlsberg doesn't do irony, but if they did..........
Meanwhile, there is a considerable amount of analysis and comment on the "National Conversation For England" piece at
http://ourscotland.myfreeforum.org/about8089.html

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics