To ask all Scottish MNrs to work together 2

[siiiiiiiiigh]

Sorry, filled the last thread with this, thought I'd better be part of Team Scottish MN and work together for those of us on the old thread...

Here's Armando's thoughts. I vote him in for everything.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/21/scottish-referendum-massive-voter-turnout-means-politics-changed-for-ever

My 16 was just old enough to vote, but not really mature enough IMO., he was very lazy about discussing the pro's and cons and was firmly of the "f*&K it, it will be a bit of excitement/ drama" school of thought, I am sure other young voters were more sensible though.

Some 16 and 17 year olds will be well informed and mature, with considerable life experience. Some 18 year olds will be immature, with little life experience. We let 18 year olds vote, I don't see why we shouldn't let 16 and 17 year olds vote.

This^ If we start judging whether people should be able to vote based on life experience or analytical ability then we start being on a very slippery slope.

Does anyone know yet what it cost to run the referendum? I have found a BBC news story, from April 2013, saying that, at that point, the estimated costs if running the referendum, and of regulation and mail shots was £13.3 million.

Do the people who are calling for another referendum think that this would be the best way to spend this sort of money in Scotland? How many do they think we can afford - and what services should be cut, in order to pay for another referendum/more referenda?

I'm fairly certain it is considerably less than is spent on non UN-sanctioned wars...

*Some 16 and 17 year olds will be well informed and mature, with considerable life experience. Some 18 year olds will be immature, with little life experience. We let 18 year olds vote, I don't see why we shouldn't let 16 and 17 year olds vote.

This^ If we start judging whether people should be able to vote based on life experience or analytical ability then we start being on a very slippery slope.*

I agree - but there will be more immature 16 yos than immature 18 yos - so it a case of weighing up if you think the majority of 16 yos are mature enough. (Honestly at 16 I don't think I was - I thought I knew everything but knew nothing!)
Extend the argument - there are some incredibly mature 14 yos - so lets move the voting age to 14...or 12...

bold fail ...damn...

Except, especially in Scotland, being 16 is pretty much when you become an adult, and start being legally able to make adult choices. Voting should be one of these.

Personally, I would ban anyone who reads the DM from voting....

After talking to someone - well educated, well paid, professional in their late 20s - who was voting for Blair in the 1997 GE because he thought he would bring back free eye tests and a whole load of other stuff that was not in the manifesto - I thought everyone should have to pass a test to see if they knew what they were actually voting for ...

I am sure we could think of a number of things that cost more than the referendum, ItsAllGoingToBeFine - that still doesn't make multiple referenda affordable or fiscally responsible for Scotland, does it?

So...ban DM readers but not FB - which is pretty much the source of all news for 16 year olds

Nah, still don't think 16 is old enough to vote. DS and his friends (all 16/17) are great kids - really academically bright, well rounded articulate young people, but with zero life experience and their judgement has not matured. I've seen a huge difference in him in the last year and Im sure Ill see another jump in maturity over coming 12 months. There has to be a cut off point for everything and I think we've got it pretty much spot on at the moment.

But again, thats down to democracy. Yes parties can have as their manifesto that there will be another referendum in eg 2016. Other parties can point out that this financially is a bad idea. Electorate decides.

No, thst won't work - the electorate rarely votes for one single issue.

Nah, still don't think 16 is old enough to vote. DS and his friends (all 16/17) are great kids - really academically bright, well rounded articulate young people, but with zero life experience and their judgement has not matured. I've seen a huge difference in him in the last year and Im sure Ill see another jump in maturity over coming 12 months.

So do you think it would make more sense to raise the age of consent/marriage/leaving education/working etc instead?

No, thst won't work - the electorate rarely votes for one single issue.

Sorry was simplifying. The point is, there won't be another referendum until there is a party in a majority in Holyrood who promises one. This can't happen without them being voted in.

For certain things, yes, I would raise the age at which young people can do certain things. I don't think it's possible however to lump everything together - each issue has to be looked at separately.

Argh, bloody computer keeps freezing - grammar is not usually that bad...

There won't be another referendum until one party promises it - but how and when would that promise be made? And given that the SNP is down to a majority of, what, one(?) in a country that has unanimously rejected independence again I think we're safe for quite a while yet.

Given the huge surge in SNP membership, who know what they will have on their manifesto by 2016! I'd say a pretty sizeable number of those who have joined are single issue members really

That's true - I'm sure for many of them it's independence or bust. There's still a majority of Scots however who retain the sense they were born with who have rejected independence and will do whatever they can to kick another referendum way into the future.

It could be messy though. If SNP put another referendum in their manifesto then a lot of Yes voters will vote for them, even if the other policies involve kicking kittens

And given that the last Holyrood elections had a godawful turnout, and the No vote will be divided between other parties they could easily end up forming another majority or at least minority govt.

What are you on about, Scotland did not unanimously reject independance. Excuse me? It was only a week ago, it was 45/55, it was close. How on earth was that unaminously?

Convincingly rejected independence?

Fair point. Rejected independence by a majority.

And it was bloody brilliant

Rejected independance by a majority is factual. I wouldn't agree that it was convincing.

So it's 7 days since the referendum here's some stuff that's happened since then...

1- Cameron and Miliband have backtracked and sidetracked and argued on extra powers for Scotland , despite a public pledge that broke purdah rules that affected the outcome

2- the oil that was going to run out in 20 years is now gonna last 120 years, the Clair field alone will produce 120k barrels a day

3- the NHS that was perfectly fine 7 days ago according to labour is now being privatised

4- plans for the Barnett formula to be scrapped

5- spending to be cut in Scotland

6- Fracking given the green light in Scotland....yippee!

And number 7 best of all we get to follow America into another illegal war!! Happy days!

You were definitely right when they said we were better together . Bloody brilliant , you are disgusting. But hey, happy that your house price is ok ( until it gets franked under) and the markets didn't wobble.

So, if the vote had gone the other way, 45% No and 55% Yes, and people were saying this wasn't a sufficiently convincing majority for Scotland to take such a big, irrevocable step, would you accept that, deeedeee?

I am sure Yes would be calling it a resounding victory or a convincing one or some other similar phrase.

It would still be close if it was the other way round . Ofcourse it would be.