Scots who DON'T vote... Why?

24

Comments

  • shackfanshackfan Posts: 15,461
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Centaurion wrote: »
    How does the OP know how many people will not vote ?
    Can they see into the future perhaps.

    Desperate reffa thread, of which there are too many.

    Bloody cheek. Last time I looked they predicted about an 80% turnout.
    No idea what your last comment means.. But thanks for your useful thoughts.
  • Random42Random42 Posts: 2,290
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Centaurion wrote: »
    How does the OP know how many people will not vote ?
    Can they see into the future perhaps.

    Desperate reffa thread, of which there are too many.

    The OP never claimed to know how many people won't vote. It was a simple question. I feel somewhat confident that they weren't announcing a paranormal ability to see beyond the shrouded mists of time that is our future.

    Desperate reffa response, of which there are indeed many.
  • uniqueunique Posts: 12,367
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Everybody has the opportunity to vote. That's the key thing and the reason why a majority turnout is not and should not be required. If people don't vote, then their opinion either way is irrelevant.

    that's simply not true.

    http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/who-can-vote-referendum-scottish-independence

    some people can't vote. i'd imagine many of the people who can't vote would disagree that their opinion is irrelevant

    why should people have to make the effort to vote against an idea that a minority of people want? surely if the idea is geniunely wanted by the majority then a vote should simply require the majority to vote for, without anyone being required to vote against it. vote only if you want a change
  • uniqueunique Posts: 12,367
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    stoatie wrote: »
    "Not having a strong opinion either way" doesn't equate to "prefers the status quo".

    no, but it usually suggests that they prefer a shitty rock band to a new wave band they don't like
  • shackfanshackfan Posts: 15,461
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    unique wrote: »
    that's simply not true.

    http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/who-can-vote-referendum-scottish-independence

    some people can't vote. i'd imagine many of the people who can't vote would disagree that their opinion is irrelevant

    why should people have to make the effort to vote against an idea that a minority of people want? surely if the idea is geniunely wanted by the majority then a vote should simply require the majority to vote for, without anyone being required to vote against it. vote only if you want a change

    What a strange thing to say. That is never how voting works. So you're saying the next general election should be that you only vote if you want a change :confused:
  • MonsterMunch99MonsterMunch99 Posts: 2,475
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    unique wrote: »
    that's simply not true.

    http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/who-can-vote-referendum-scottish-independence

    some people can't vote. i'd imagine many of the people who can't vote would disagree that their opinion is irrelevant

    why should people have to make the effort to vote against an idea that a minority of people want? surely if the idea is geniunely wanted by the majority then a vote should simply require the majority to vote for, without anyone being required to vote against it. vote only if you want a change

    Well, yes, not literally everyone, but everyone of a suitable age who actually lives in the country, if they've bothered to register, can vote. Unless you are just being argumentative for the sake of it I'm sure you understand my point.

    Like I said, having adequate opportunity to vote is the key thing. If you are legible to vote and you don't bother to spend 2 minutes filling out a postal vote form or walking to the polling station, why should your opinion matter?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 183
    Forum Member
    I don't know whether to vote or not mainly because I am undecided about whom I should vote for!

    If you don't know, vote no!!!
  • ItHasPotentialItHasPotential Posts: 7,817
    Forum Member
    if scotland goes indy, i so want to see england just go to war and invade scotland just for the fun of it

    i'll be watching it from my new home in new york.
  • lizbetlizbet Posts: 854
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Snow.drop wrote: »
    If you don't know, vote no!!!

    Agree....

    When I phoned to get postal votes I spoke to a friend who works there, she said they have never had such demand for postal votes before....with people saying "I've never voted before but I'm definitely voting this time". I'd hope that would be in favour of getting rid of the vile Salmod and Sturgeon ....but of course they are maybe saying they are only voting this time as they want independence....who knows:confused::confused:
  • realwalesrealwales Posts: 3,110
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Around here, a significant number of people, especially younger women, have no interest in the world beyond their jobs, their immediate circle of friends, and celebrity culture. They think of virtually nothing else from the time they get up in the morning until the time they go to bed at night.

    Typically, they buy OK! magazine, watch the X Factor, and those trashy programmes on MTV. The wider world, or anything that requires serious thought, is of no interest to them.

    That's how it is in South Wales. I don't know whether it's the same in Scotland but I suspect it may well be.
  • shackfanshackfan Posts: 15,461
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    realwales wrote: »
    Around here, a significant number of people, especially younger women, have no interest in the world beyond their jobs, their immediate circle of friends, and celebrity culture. They think of virtually nothing else from the time they get up in the morning until the time they go to bed at night.

    Typically, they buy OK! magazine, watch the X Factor, and those trashy programmes on MTV. The wider world, or anything that requires serious thought, is of no interest to them.

    That's how it is in South Wales. I don't know whether it's the same in Scotland but I suspect it may well be.

    Actually that is probably the same anywhere sadly. Even something with the huge ramifications this could have, these morons probably wouldn't want to miss Jeremy Kyle to go out and vote. They might well regret it.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,363
    Forum Member
    I don't care either way because there could be a chance Scotland will be fine if separated but I think it would have been better if everyone in the whole of the UK was included in the vote as well.
    Also why is Cameron saying there would there be no going back if the Yes vote wins? Surely a trial period would have been better.
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Snow.drop wrote: »
    If you don't know, vote no!!!

    This message should have been made loud an clear during the campaign. Vote No and there will always be another chance to get independence in the future but vote Yes and there is no going back. Ever.
  • jsmith99jsmith99 Posts: 20,382
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Everybody has the opportunity to vote. ................

    Not everybody. I'm in England, and I can't vote on it, much as I'd like to.
  • jrajra Posts: 48,325
    Forum Member
    jsmith99 wrote: »
    Not everybody. I'm in England, and I can't vote on it, much as I'd like to.

    Even if you are Scottish, but live in other parts of the UK you can't vote as far as I know.
  • MonsterMunch99MonsterMunch99 Posts: 2,475
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jsmith99 wrote: »
    Not everybody. I'm in England, and I can't vote on it, much as I'd like to.

    Realistically, the only way to do it is by those who are registered to vote in Scotland. Opening it up to, say, ex-pats, would be a logistical nightmare, not to mention making it wide open to fraud.
  • Gary_LandyFanGary_LandyFan Posts: 3,824
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    LIZALYNN wrote: »
    I don't care either way because there could be a chance Scotland will be fine if separated but I think it would have been better if everyone in the whole of the UK was included in the vote as well.
    Also why is Cameron saying there would there be no going back if the Yes vote wins? Surely a trial period would have been better.

    Why should we (the UK) give Scotland a trial period? They are the ones that are choosing to possibly break away, they have to live with the consequences of their actions.

    Quite frankly, anyone who votes YES given the fairytales they have been given deserve everything they get!
  • elliecatelliecat Posts: 9,890
    Forum Member
    lizbet wrote: »
    Agree....

    When I phoned to get postal votes I spoke to a friend who works there, she said they have never had such demand for postal votes before....with people saying "I've never voted before but I'm definitely voting this time". I'd hope that would be in favour of getting rid of the vile Salmod and Sturgeon ....but of course they are maybe saying they are only voting this time as they want independence....who knows:confused::confused:

    Salmond and Sturgeon are far to smug if you ask me, but Cameron really is making a balls up.
  • DiandalScotlandDiandalScotland Posts: 2,094
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    So the three amigos from Westminister are "Vowing" to give more powers as on todays Daily Record.

    Already we have had MPs down south stating they will not vote for these vows.
    These vows like previous promises mean nothing.No guarantee they will be given.

    Its too little too late. This campaign has been going on for last 2 years and only in last 2 weeks do we see Westminister interest.
    For FULL powers for Scotland, Scotland need to VOTE YES on Thursday.
    Are we Scotland the brave or Scotland the timid?

    Go out and use your vote. Go out and dont throw this chance away. Go out and vote YES
  • carnoch04carnoch04 Posts: 10,275
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    lizbet wrote: »
    Agree....

    When I phoned to get postal votes I spoke to a friend who works there, she said they have never had such demand for postal votes before....with people saying "I've never voted before but I'm definitely voting this time". I'd hope that would be in favour of getting rid of the vile Salmod and Sturgeon ....but of course they are maybe saying they are only voting this time as they want independence....who knows:confused::confused:

    If people are actually basing their vote on the personalities of the politicians involved, they really haven't understood the whole process. You don't decide the future of your country based on who has the least smug face!

    Should add that while a NO vote may get rid of Salmond (but probably not) , all that will do is promote Sturgeon to FM
  • uniqueunique Posts: 12,367
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    shackfan wrote: »
    What a strange thing to say.

    maybe to you


    That is never how voting works.

    wrong


    So you're saying the next general election should be that you only vote if you want a change :confused:

    no. what I said was....

    "why should people have to make the effort to vote against an idea that a minority of people want? surely if the idea is geniunely wanted by the majority then a vote should simply require the majority to vote for, without anyone being required to vote against it. vote only if you want a change"

    you see the ? - it means a question is being asked


    there is a big difference between a simply yes/no vote for independence and a general election. this vote requires a simple choice between two options, and the end result will last permanently, with no option to go back. as such, it's quite possible to have such a vote requiring only people who wish a certain option to vote, with the default option being chosen if there isn't a sufficient majority. so as this vote is to choose to change from the status quo to independence, surely it would be sufficient for those who expressly wish independence to vote and a decision is made if that vote marks a majority of the population?

    with a general election there are a number of options available. as much as it might look between a choice of two parties, that's not the case. you could potentially use the idea above and have people vote for a change, and if there isn't a majority voting then we keep the status quo, however if there was a vote for a change then you'd have to vote again to chose who you want. with a general election the elected government only stands for a specific period of time, after which a further election has to be undertaken, so if a chosen government wasn't what people wanted, they can change it the next time and the time after that and so forth. but that's not possible with independence. surely you can see and understand how different these two things are?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 491
    Forum Member
    unique wrote: »
    it's quite possible to have such a vote requiring only people who wish a certain option to vote, with the default option being chosen if there isn't a sufficient majority.
    Agreed, but that requires knowing exactly how many people were eligible to vote and didn't. How would you?
  • uniqueunique Posts: 12,367
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Well, yes, not literally everyone, but everyone of a suitable age who actually lives in the country, if they've bothered to register, can vote. Unless you are just being argumentative for the sake of it I'm sure you understand my point.


    but the point being made is that not everyone has the opportunity to vote, and that doesn't mean their opinion is irrelevant

    Like I said, having adequate opportunity to vote is the key thing. If you are legible to vote and you don't bother to spend 2 minutes filling out a postal vote form or walking to the polling station, why should your opinion matter?

    why should it not? why is it a less valid opinion?

    why should people have to take time out of their lives to have to vote against something they don't want, when it's not in place already? it's not just 2 minutes to walk to a polling station or post a letter. imagine all the time taken between everyone voting to actually vote when the reality is that based on current polls it's just a minority of the population who will actually vote in favour of a change, yet everyone else has to take time to vote against it, when that doesn't need to necessarily happen if the voting procedure was different
  • uniqueunique Posts: 12,367
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Agreed, but that requires knowing exactly how many people were eligible to vote and didn't. How would you?

    not necessarily. but using national statistics we can tell the population, and my view is that such a vote for independence should be such that a majority of the population has voted in favour for it to pass. not a majority of those eligible or registered to vote. the national statistics should be able to determine who is eligible to vote anyway

    obviously it's a bit late for such a suggestion, but the point is that a minority of people can vote in a change for such an important decision when the reality can be that the majority of people don't want the change
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 491
    Forum Member
    unique wrote: »
    not necessarily. but using national statistics we can tell the population, and my view is that such a vote for independence should be such that a majority of the population has voted in favour for it to pass. not a majority of those eligible or registered to vote. the national statistics should be able to determine who is eligible to vote anyway

    obviously it's a bit late for such a suggestion, but the point is that a minority of people can vote in a change for such an important decision when the reality can be that the majority of people don't want the change
    National statistics aren't always precise. That means that the people who voted "yes" would have to be significantly more than the amount who didn't vote, to account for inaccuracies in the statistics and ensure they're a majority,

    Someone who suggests such a separation obviously wants it to happen. The ones who did suggest it didn't do it to give people a chance to have their say, they wouldn't be happy with either result if it's what the people want. They did it because they want it to happen and will do their best to ensure it does. They'd prefer to do it in a way that allows them to "win" with 51% votes than (say) 60%.
Sign In or Register to comment.