Jump to content

Voter ID


madwullie

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Voter ID isn’t a topic I know much about but I haven’t heard of much fraud taking place in Scotland.

I have heard of fraud in certain Midlands and London areas but how prevalent it is, I don’t know.

However, in principle, I don’t think it should be too easy to vote as the right to vote is an important privilege and shouldn’t be looked on lightly.

At the risk of being branded ‘evil and a moron’ Ill state that I think it needs to be made such that at least some effort is required to exercise that privilege. We use postal voting but maybe that’s too easy and we should be made to attend in person unless we were away or through Illness.

Ideologically, I’m certainly not against any move to tighten things up.

trump-foreign-policy.gif?quality=75&stri

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

With a change in the description of the two parties involved in the sorts of "discussions" you set out in the second and third paragraphs, you have set out pretty well what would accurately be described as an abusive relationship. 

I'm not a fan of comparing politics to personal relationships. I hated all that "divorce" talk in 2014. It only works if you're talking about two equal people, but we're not, we're talking about a country of 5.4 million people within a sovereign state of 67.9 million people, with all the different opinions that involves.

There's no inherent reason why the SNP should be able to set the terms of the referendum any more than the UK government. Last time the question, timing and franchise all favoured independence, and if it had been run by a cross-party or non-partisan organisation it might have been different. I think Yes-No has to stay, it's too well established now, but it could have been Remain-Leave, or Independence-UK, or any number of formations, each with their own strengths and biases. I'm fiercely opposed to people who don't live in Scotland being able to vote but it's just an opinion, there's no automatic reason why not. Same for 16 & 17 year olds voting etc.

Anyway, this is for the indyref thread really. What's relevant here is that voter ID is a crock of shit and if they attach it to a future indyref we should riot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Am I wrong?

We all see what you do on here. You have done it with the trans community, you have done it several times over race related issues, most recently spouting some shite about how wished Falkirk players wouldnt take a knee, you mentioned the social media blackout as something like "jumping on the bandwagon". Making you wee snide digs under the cowardly act of "Oh i'm just asking the question" etc. Quite simply, there are far too many instances of you posting like a barely veiled bigot for you to be anything other than a bigot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Eric Pickles did a report about 5 or 6 years ago which showed that it was quite prevalent.

I have the report up. Can you point me to the page I should be looking at because I'm not seeing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

We all see what you do on here. You have done it with the trans community, you have done it several times over race related issues, most recently spouting some shite about how wished Falkirk players wouldnt take a knee, you mentioned the social media blackout as something like "jumping on the bandwagon". Making you wee snide digs under the cowardly act of "Oh i'm just asking the question" etc. Quite simply, there are far too many instances of you posting like a barely veiled bigot for you to be anything other than a bigot. 

Have you got a problem with free speech?

Thankfully, the government are bringing in legislation to allow freedom of expression.

Just in case I’m a fully paid up member of the FSU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Have you got a problem with free speech?

Thankfully, the government are bringing in legislation to allow freedom of expression.

Just in case I’m a fully paid up member of the FSU.

I don't think he said you weren't allowed to say the shit you say. Just that you're an absolute c**t for doing so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Have you looked at all his recommendations?

The worst case was probably Lutfur Rahman in Tower Hamles.

Yes but that wasn't voter fraud.

You said that voter fraud was quite prevalent in Asian communities, but it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems a reasonable article on the topic, it seems its very rare butsome areas may be more susceptible to claims of it due to how votes are gathered

From what Ive read before the claims of corruption are coming mainly from opposition candidates from the same community, it may be its been lack of transparency more than any found confirmed illegal vote rigging in most of the claims

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/another-rotten-borough-allegations-of-electoral-fraud-in-peterborough/

 

 

Edited by BigDoddyKane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no rules written down for any of this. David Cameron let the SNP run the show last time - he handed over power to pick the date, choose the question, decide who would be allowed to vote, the lot. It was a ballsy but smart move as nobody could credibly claim it was stitched up. 
Johnson doesn't need to repeat that example. So the legislation to allow the Scottish Parliament to pass a referendum bill could say it must be held between x and y dates, and the Scottish Parliament could only pick a date in there.
The UK government could also say that the question will be chosen by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the electoral register to be used will be the one used for general elections (so no foreign nationals or under 18s). The Scottish Parliament would be stuck with that and would either have to accept those terms or not hold the referendum, which would look like cowardice.
Not if power is temporarily devolved which would need to be. Then its up to the Scottish government
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:
9 hours ago, GordonS said:
There are no rules written down for any of this. David Cameron let the SNP run the show last time - he handed over power to pick the date, choose the question, decide who would be allowed to vote, the lot. It was a ballsy but smart move as nobody could credibly claim it was stitched up. 
Johnson doesn't need to repeat that example. So the legislation to allow the Scottish Parliament to pass a referendum bill could say it must be held between x and y dates, and the Scottish Parliament could only pick a date in there.
The UK government could also say that the question will be chosen by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the electoral register to be used will be the one used for general elections (so no foreign nationals or under 18s). The Scottish Parliament would be stuck with that and would either have to accept those terms or not hold the referendum, which would look like cowardice.

Not if power is temporarily devolved which would need to be. Then its up to the Scottish government

Nope, the UK government could make a s.30 Order with any conditions it likes. The s.30 Order for the first indyref had several conditions. The referendum had to be held by 31st December 2014; it could not be on the same day as any other poll or referendum; there could only be one ballot paper, and the paper must give a choice between only two responses. It also required that certain statutory provisions in electoral law must be applied.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111529881/contents

If the Scottish legislation for a referendum deviated outside the conditions in the s.30 Order then it would automatically be unlawful.

And they don't have to make a s.30 Order at all, they could make a more restricted Order under s.63 or they could give broad competence and then take back some functions under s.108. They don't even need to use an Order under the Scotland Act, they could legislate for it at Westminster either through a standalone act or by an amendment to the Scotland Act.

Everything is on the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...