 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
50%+1 is a dangerous precedent to set for such things. tbh it's the most worry thing about the EU vote.
Anyhow I argue this from the point of view of a supporter of Scottish independence(no not Scottish nationalist, there's a difference 😉 ).
Anyhow, I think for the next indy ref, and any other firth coming referendums(apart from another vote on the EU, as you need to go with the same rules for that), I'd like to see 60%+1 before it's allowed to happen.
Thoughts?
Yep. Tell that to the jocks.
I'd like to see 60%+1 before it's allowed to happen.
and should we do that for elections too? just because the remain lost, the voters are coming up with "new rules" which would effectively mean a remain win even if they lost like they did. Its plain bollox to keep whinning about it.
and should we do that for elections too? just because the remain lost, the voters are coming up with "new rules" which would effectively mean a remain win even if they lost like they did. Its plain bollox to keep whinning about it.
I see no whinging here. He's even said he's an Indy supporter and would rather see that rule for the referendum too. It's not a bad shout, if you have a referendum you want the result to be big enough that you're not pissing off a huge portion of the country. That said, the last referendum in Scotland with clauses like that felt like a bit of a stitch up...
I'd like to see 60%+1 before it's allowed to happen.
Let me guess, the question next time would be "should we stay in the UK?"
and if less than 60% vote yes, then you leave
I think you'll find we're not actually coming out of the EU, we're just going to think about it for the next 10+ years and then decide it's not worth the hassle.
Is it like committing to join the Euro?
Ninfan, I know you like to put words into people's mouths but that's taking it to a whole new level. I was quite clear in what I was saying.
But for the hard of thinking, I mean status quo has the protection of the super majority.
You still optimistic foot flaps? Don't share your enthusiasm.
So, the dead vote for the status quo? The "can't be arsed" vote for the status quo?
Nah.
[quote=scotroutes ]The [s]"can't be arsed" [/s] things seem ok as they are, vote for the status quo?
Nah.
I know you like to put words into people's mouths but that's taking it to a whole new level. I was quite clear in what I was saying.
Aha, the Leadsome defence...
allthepies - did you intentionally misinterpret my post? Just to clarify - if you can't be bothered to cast your vote for the status quo, why should anyone assume that's what your in favour of?
I'd make it so that you'd need more than 50% of the total electorate not 50% of who actually voted. Big changes should need a big consensus.
Dont agree with 50%of total electorate, maybe have a minimum requirement of 30% or so, but if you don't vote you just pass on your franchise to others, tough titty, particularly in things like referendum.
If the mark is 60/40 I think one major thing will happen. We won't have referendums, parliament will decide.
Without wishing to derail the thread leaving the EU shouldn't ever have been allowed to bec e a major constitutional change. The EEC has morphed slowly over the years into the EU. This is a perfect example of how you facilitate major change bit by bit without a lot of people realising what is happening.
Compulsory voting and a 60% threshold, there should also be 2 questions first are you angry about something and want to stick it to the man? Second the actual question.
Decisions are made by people who'll actually make a decision. Not voting isn't a vote for the status quo, it's choosing to let other people make decisions for you.