butterypowered

Found an old newspaper in our attic that was a day or two shy of being 100 years old. Great coincidence and perfect for the story to run on the 100th anniversary.

We bought a copy and put both back in the attic, ready for whoever sees it in another 100 years!

Yeah don’t be surprised if you find an old family member under all of that after Christmas.

I think they’re confusing it with Fourecks.

Good.

Brexit was actually a very good thing. If you’re a multimillionaire owner of a multinational business, or looking to short the pound, or any number of things that are only available to the rich. Shite for the rest of us though.

Nice to meet you, Gregório Felipe. 👍

Then it’s the equivalent of 2 Texan cups (or 2 and 4/13ths Federal cups).

Will save a few clocks to the Daily Mail owned This Is Money site:

• Amazon
• Royal Mail
• DPD
• Yodel
• Evri (worst)

Goodbye independence marches too then.

Yeah I would never count non-voters as for, or against, something. But I disagree that apathy (or ignorance) equals a vote for the status quo.

I didn’t vote at all until I was about 28. Not because I was happy with the incumbent party, but because I knew I hadn’t researched any of the options well enough to vote for them.

On making sure it is the will of the majority by requiring >50% of the population, it makes it remarkably easy to prevent change. If the media are on your side, they can simply downplay any vote. Or, like I mentioned previously, make voter registration difficult/biased.

I do get what you say about ideally being >50% of the population. But I think it’s far too easy to subvert such a rule, leaving us stuck with >50% of votes registered as the most practical (if not ideal) option. Even though I also hate to see outcomes from really low turnouts. (Local election turnouts are embarrassing.) I’d love to see a minimum turnout requirement but I do just think it would be abused.

At this point, btw, I’m not even sure how we got to discussing turnout. :) It does seem like we fundamentally disagree on what’s acceptable though.

🤫

I know what you mean, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume every non-voter is a vote for the status quo. There will be lots of sick, incapacitated, and (most of all) apathetic people out there.

To count those as the status quo is plain wrong IMO. It also gives motivation to those in power to make it difficult to vote for certain demographics, like we’ve seen recently with voter ID.

I know what you mean. Big decisions being made by 50%+1 votes are definitely messy. But the alternative is that a minority wins. e.g. 60/40 or whatever. That’s even worse.

Maybe there should be a series of referendums and you need a majority 3 times in a row? But those might all be 50%+1 again.

Like it or not, people can even be found guilty of murder on the basis of a single person deciding one way or another.

Scotland isn’t just a region, it is still a country in its own right. Would we have been okay with the EU refusing us a Brexit referendum, or telling us we can only have one every X years? Of course not.

And, to be honest, people get tired of voting. If anything, frequent independence referendums would only put people off.

To be honest it’s all hypothetical. The UK government will never allow another independence referendum. And nor will Labour. Cameron only allowed one because he thought there would be no chance of a Yes vote. There is no getting out, no matter what percentage of the Scottish population want one.