|
|
Post by happyjack on Mar 12, 2023 18:48:23 GMT
Completely predictably, you have once again shape-shifted your argument once your original point was shown to be wrong, rather than just acknowledge that you got things wrong in the first place.
I know that the majority of Scots born residents who bothered to vote in 2014 voted YES and I didn’t claim otherwise. However, you stated that the majority of Scots voted to leave, which I explained was incorrect because non-resident Scots were not able to vote. So your original position that the majority of Scots voted to leave is wrong.
As for your second point, I obviously know that the franchise was agreed between the UK and Scottish governments because the remainder of my post above (particularly my final paragraph), which you chose not to quote, not only clearly recognises that this was the case but is primarily about that very point. I have no idea what you are playing at here by ignoring what I said but it does not reflect well upon you.
Anyway, if there is ever another indyref then I am sure that UK government will not make the same mistake again but will instead, quite correctly, insist that, at the very least, those resident elsewhere in the UK but born in Scotland (and maybe also those in rUK born to at least one Scots born parent), must also be included in the franchise. From those that I know who fit this description, I am confident that the overwhelming majority of non-resident rUK based Scots will vote to remain in the UK. As I have said before, independence is a long way off and the hardest part of the journey still lies ahead.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Mar 14, 2023 9:12:50 GMT
Completely predictably, you have once again shape-shifted your argument once your original point was shown to be wrong, rather than just acknowledge that you got things wrong in the first place. I know that the majority of Scots born residents who bothered to vote in 2014 voted YES and I didn’t claim otherwise. However, you stated that the majority of Scots voted to leave, which I explained was incorrect because non-resident Scots were not able to vote. So your original position that the majority of Scots voted to leave is wrong. No happy you are making a completely risible point while arguing semantics .
The fact of the matter is the people living in scotland , both scots born and other , voted in 2014. Scots living outside of scotland didnt vote , and rightly so.
So in response to the point about scots not wanting to leave the union , im pointing out clearly that scots born , with scots birth certificates , living in scotland with the ability to vote in 2014 voted leave.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Mar 14, 2023 20:44:20 GMT
I notice that you often come up with the “semantics” line when you have said something wrong, refuse to acknowledge that you said something wrong and, as a consequence, leave yourself trapped. You are usually wrong when you do so and you are almost certainly wrong to do so here. It you consider that Scots born in Scotland cease to be Scots when they no longer reside in Scotland then you are right, we are dealing with semantics because that is different than my definition. I still consider those who were born in Scotland but who have moved away to be Scots, unless they have given up their UK citizenship. However, as you go on to recognise that there are Scots living outside of Scotland a little further through your post, I feel that I can safely take it that you do not feel as I have described above and that our views on this matter are the same or similar enough for us not to be arguing semantics here.
As for me making a completely risible point, I am not sure which of my points you feel was so ludicrous as to make you laugh. Can you advise please.
I note that you say that non-resident Scots quite rightly didn’t get a vote in the indyref. Why do you feel that it was right to exclude them from the franchise?
Finally, you have already made the point that you make in your final paragraph and I have already said that I am not arguing with that. However, that is a change from what you initially claimed, so what you initially claimed was wrong. I am not sure why you can’t just acknowledge that point.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Mar 15, 2023 8:31:23 GMT
I notice that you often come up with the “semantics” line when you have said something wrong, refuse to acknowledge that you said something wrong and, as a consequence, leave yourself trapped. You are usually wrong when you do so and you are almost certainly wrong to do so here. It you consider that Scots born in Scotland cease to be Scots when they no longer reside in Scotland then you are right, we are dealing with semantics because that is different than my definition. I still consider those who were born in Scotland but who have moved away to be Scots, unless they have given up their UK citizenship. However, as you go on to recognise that there are Scots living outside of Scotland a little further through your post, I feel that I can safely take it that you do not feel as I have described above and that our views on this matter are the same or similar enough for us not to be arguing semantics here. As for me making a completely risible point, I am not sure which of my points you feel was so ludicrous as to make you laugh. Can you advise please. I note that you say that non-resident Scots quite rightly didn’t get a vote in the indyref. Why do you feel that it was right to exclude them from the franchise? Finally, you have already made the point that you make in your final paragraph and I have already said that I am not arguing with that. However, that is a change from what you initially claimed, so what you initially claimed was wrong. I am not sure why you can’t just acknowledge that point. Introducing an unknown quantity into a debate , to stack it in favour of the union , implying they would somehow be for the union side , is of course the typical debating tactics we have come to expect from delusional fantasists like yourself.
Both the uk and scottish governments , two implacably opposed sides , agreed mutually scots born non residents were not democratically entitled to vote either in 2014 , or going forward. I fully agree with that.
People like my aunt , born in ayrshire , but who has spent her entire life since babyhood in the united states , getting a vote on scottish indy is of course risible.
The second point i would like to challenge is if , against all democratic principles , these folk did have the vote , is if they would vote for the union? I think that is questionable. When you consider between 1979 to 1999 , the years of the devastation of scotland under the last tory administration , many of these people fled the economic basket case that scotland had become , why would they vote for the union?
How many emigrants , like for example the irish , supported ireland remaining in this dysfunctional union? Millions of irish americans supported the irish war of independence, sent billions in aid to ireland , and of course the current usa president is of course no friend of the british , and supports the GFA which stops brexit being forced on the irish people in the 6 counties.
So the evidence is against your puerile implication.
Scots born non residents arent part of the equation , and never likely to be . So as ever , its another delusional hand grenade lobbed into a debate by you to muddy the waters.
I can see though why you would want to do that. With the majority of scots in every age group outside the elderly wanting indy , it must be a worry for you. On top of that , the non scots born resident previously were swayed by the european question.
That is now working against the union , with little britian outside the EU struggling badly , an indy scotland part of EFTA or the wider EU appeals to more and more. We needed a swing of a mere 200 000 last time. With three quarters of scottish residents supporting the EU and rejoin , i think thats easily doable this time.
No wonder you need to throw in anti democratic grenades into debates to stack the odds i nthe unions favour , as the reality of the situation means its squeaky bum time for happy and the hard core unionists .
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Mar 15, 2023 17:17:25 GMT
Actually, the 2014 franchise was anti-democratic and at odds with the norm in the UK and across the EU. I presume that you didn’t read the article that I provided a link to in my earlier post. If you had then you would not be making some of the points that you make above because they are addressed in that article. Here it is again for your ease of reference. While some circumstances that it discusses have changed since it was published (ie. in the run up to the indyref) the principles that it addresses are still valid. Perhaps you can explain what is puerile and undemocratic about its views and conclusions. www.democraticaudit.com/2014/09/15/scots-living-overseas-or-elsewhere-in-the-uk-should-have-been-given-the-right-to-vote-in-the-independence-referendum/As I said before, the UK Government was far too relaxed and cocksure about the 2014 outcome to treat it seriously and conceded far too much to ScotGov in the referendum negotiations. They were wrong to do that and they won’t do so again - but, as this led to a relatively close result, it failed to kill off the issue as it should have and gave the YES movement something to cling onto, hence the ongoing damage to Scottish society and the damaging political division that we suffer from today. Your point is fair about us not knowing how non-resident voters would vote. I think NO and you think YES but how they would vote is not really the point. The point is that they should have been included in the 2014 franchise and, per my comments above and in previous posts, they will surely be included if another indyref ever materialises. That’s just democracy, after all. Finally, I note your opinion that Scots born non-residents are never likely to be part of the franchise. Not only is there a very compelling case for their inclusion as explained in the above article, but even if there wasn’t, there is a glaring contradiction with saying that they won’t be included in the franchise and your repeated assertion that UK government will stoop to anything to deny Scotland independence (or something along these lines). Given that another referendum can only happen with UK government’s approval, and that the rules surrounding any referendum have to be agreed to by UK government, then you are wrong on one point or the other here ie. either (1) a future franchise will include non-resident Scots or (2) the UK government won’t stoop to anything to deny Scotland independence. Which is it? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Mar 16, 2023 8:15:55 GMT
Actually, the 2014 franchise was anti-democratic and at odds with the norm in the UK and across the EU. hang on. You tell me westminster is sovereign , and can grant or deny scot indy refs one minute , then the next bemoan a previous indyref franchise because even westmisnter didnt agree with your nonsense about stacking the vote with non residents?
If it was anti democratic , are you saying it shouldnt therefore stand and we need a re run? 
As the months go by happy , the more hysterical you become , the less brain is engaged.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Mar 16, 2023 22:16:40 GMT
So are you saying that the norm in the UK and across the EU ( and Western Europe generally) of allowing non-residents to vote on important national issues, and that the arguments laid out in the article that I gave you a link to, are nonsense - or is it only when I say it that you consider it to be so?
Alternatively, are you saying that it is nonsense because a future Indy ref would not be about an important national issue?
It has to be one or the other, so which is it?
As for your re-run comment, you are failing to grasp the point. The point being that ScotGov attempted to gerrymander the 2014 indyref by putting forward proposals which, individually and collectively, would have impacted positively on the share of the vote won by YES in the indyref. UK govt. failed in their duty to the Scottish people by allowing all of the proposals to go through rather than preserve the democratic integrity of the electorate. Despite all of this YES favouring gerrymandering, the outcome was still as it would have been without the gerrymandering, albeit by a smaller margin.
So, whilst the integrity of the indyref was corrupted, it was corrupted in favour of the losing side - so there is clearly no case for a re-run.
The crucial point in all of this is, however, no matter what you think, that the UK government will be fully alert to, and staunchly resistant of, any attempted gerrymandering next time around ( if there ever is a next time). Non-residents will be allowed and, I believe, actively sought out and encouraged to vote - certainly those residing in rUK if not overseas.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Mar 17, 2023 9:00:32 GMT
So are you saying that the norm in the UK and across the EU ( and Western Europe generally) of allowing non-residents to vote on important national issues, and that the arguments laid out in the article that I gave you a link to, are nonsense - or is it only when I say it that you consider it to be so? Let me give you fact , my delusional friend.
It is the law , both in scotland and the wider uk , at present , that scots birth certificate holder whose permanent abode is outside scotland cannot vote in scottish local , national or westmisnter constituency elections. That is the fact of the matter as things stand , supported by all political parties and parliaments , and has been for all my lifetime.
So in the zany world of happy jack , you propose overturning that current democratic tenet of voting rights , to try and stack any prospective referendum vote ( which you tell us wont hapen anyway?) in favour of the onion , by giving emigrant scots in for example England like hardcore independence supporter stuart campbell of wings over scotland fame down in bath the vote ? 
On top of that , your cunning plan to stack the vote in favour of the union doesnt really add up according to polls. With many expat scots saying they would now if given the vote , vote for independence showing a significant shift in opinion since 2014 because mainly of brexit.
Scratch the surface of your laughable impartial concerned scottish voter stick , and the anti democratic unionist shines through every time.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Mar 17, 2023 10:09:59 GMT
Well, that’s not true www.gov.uk/voting-when-abroadAnd you have avoided answering my question ie. Are you saying that the norm in the UK and across the EU ( and Western Europe generally) of allowing non-residents to vote on important national issues, and that the arguments laid out in the article that I gave you a link to, are nonsense - or is it only when I say it that you consider it to be so? Alternatively, are you saying that it is nonsense because a future Indy ref would not be about an important national issue? It has to be one or the other that you consider to be nonsense, so which one is it? And, more to the point, as I said before, whatever you think doesn’t matter here because the electorate for any future referendum will be extended to include non-resident Scots (at least those based in rUK) - and non-resident Scots, particularly those based in rUK, will vote heavily against independence. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Mar 18, 2023 16:11:30 GMT
Thats for westmisnter no? Not the scottish parliament or local elections?
Tell me then happy , what percentage of the scottish electorate are overseas citizens when voting for scottish constituencies for westmisnter?
im not avoiding answering any question ..in fact ive went into depth replying to much of your nonsense on this forum repeatedly.
If its the norm as you insist , and scotland must copy what europe does , then why is the uk government not allowing non resident scot birth certificate holders like stuart campbell of wings fame the vote ? You tell me one minute the uk government has the power to give referendums , then demand i answer the question of why they wont let scottish emigrants vote in a future referendum you told me we wont be allowed?
I mean you really do go all over the place at times.
if non resident scots were to be included , then presumbly the only fair way to include them would be to includ all , not just those in the rUK.
As it stands , its highly unlikely anyway.
You must be getting increasingly desperate to want to stack a future vote in your favour with all these weird and wonderfull unionist schemes you keep dreaming up. Just a pity neither the uk nor scot gov agree with you as things stand.
Knowing your luck , scot emigrants will be included and they will vote overwhelmingly for independence from brexit uk.  |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Mar 18, 2023 18:38:45 GMT
Delusional SNATs might think that. But nobody else does.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Mar 18, 2023 18:42:46 GMT
Delusional SNATs might think that. But nobody else does. Think what vinny? I know i have a hangover after celebrating st patricks day yesterday , but is it me or are you being rather cryptic today to the point im not picking up what you are blabbering about as i usually do in among all your screaming.? |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Mar 18, 2023 18:43:26 GMT
Re read your previous deluded SNAT propaganda post.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Mar 18, 2023 18:47:15 GMT
Re read your previous deluded SNAT propaganda post. i have . What part worries you? |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Mar 18, 2023 19:17:32 GMT
Worried? I'm not worried. I'm laughing.
|
|
