Who exactly made the 2014 referendum voting rules?
Did the Scottish government concede to Westminster demands under threat of a Section 30 referendum refusal?
It seems impossible that the Scottish government could voluntarily agree to such a foolish condition as to allow English and foreign EU people a vote on Scotland’s statehood.
After all England is the imperial power Scotland was actually seeking independence from.
And why would an EU citizen vote to leave the EU and temporarily risk their residency?
In the later Brexit referendum Westminster simply did not allow resident EU citizens to vote at all.
And English Westminster certainly did want its English citizens resident in Scotland to vote in a Scottish independence referendum. That was an easy 12+% voting advantage.
Westminster got its way unquestioned in both cases. And won its preferred outcome in both referendums.
There appears to be no legitimate sources which describe precisely what went on at the 2014 independence referendum voting rules negotiations.
My guess is that Westminster made red line demands and the SNP acceded to them in order to get a Section 30 referendum agreement at all.
The SNP then sought to mitigate the resulting enormous 17% electoral disadvantage by having 16 year olds also be allowed to vote.
Here is what two credible global Artificial Intelligences say on the subject of the suspicious Scottish/UK electoral franchise and its validity:
Yes, the decision to allow all British citizens, including English residents living in Scotland, to vote in the 2014 independence referendum was made by the UK government in Westminster. This decision was part of the legal framework established for the referendum, which aimed to include all residents of Scotland, regardless of their nationality, in the voting process.
Critics argue that this decision was inappropriate for a referendum that specifically concerned Scotland’s future as a nation, as it diluted the voices of native-born Scots who have a direct stake in the outcome. This has led to significant debate about the fairness and legitimacy of the voting rules in the context of such a crucial decision for Scotland.
AND ALSO:
Regarding the fact that ALL legal UK residents of any nationality who were resident in Scotland could vote in the Scottish referendum, but NO EU citizens resident in UK could vote in the Brexit referendum. In both cases these arbitrary rules favoured Westminster’s desired outcomes.
According to a second global AI:
These differences in franchise could be interpreted as strategic decisions aimed at influencing outcomes. The results of both referendums aligned with the Westminster government’s preferred outcomes: Scotland remained in the UK, and the UK voted to leave the EU. The lack of transparency in the decision-making process for these referendums has led to speculation and debate about the motivations behind the chosen franchises. This opacity in the process underscores the need for clearer guidelines and more consistent approaches to referendum design in the UK. It’s worth noting that the rules governing who can vote in different types of elections and referendums in the UK are complex and can vary depending on the specific context. This complexity, combined with the lack of clear explanations for the differences in franchise between these two crucial referendums, has contributed to the questions raised about the fairness and consistency of the process. While we cannot definitively conclude deliberate manipulation without explicit evidence, the concerns raised about the impact of voter eligibility rules on referendum outcomes are valid and merit further scrutiny and discussion in the context of UK democratic processes.
Yes, the decision to allow all British citizens, including English residents living in Scotland, to vote in the 2014 independence referendum was made by the UK government in Westminster. This decision was part of the legal framework established for the referendum, which aimed to include all residents of Scotland, regardless of their nationality, in the voting process.
Critics argue that this decision was inappropriate for a referendum that specifically concerned Scotland’s future as a nation, as it diluted the voices of native-born Scots who have a direct stake in the outcome. This has led to significant debate about the fairness and legitimacy of the voting rules in the context of such a crucial decision for Scotland.
AND ALSO:
Regarding the fact that ALL legal UK residents of any nationality who were resident in Scotland could vote in the Scottish referendum, but NO EU citizens resident in UK could vote in the Brexit referendum.
In both cases these arbitrary rules favoured Westminster’s desired outcomes.
According to a second global AI:
These differences in franchise could be interpreted as strategic decisions aimed at influencing outcomes. The results of both referendums aligned with the Westminster government’s preferred outcomes: Scotland remained in the UK, and the UK voted to leave the EU. The lack of transparency in the decision-making process for these referendums has led to speculation and debate about the motivations behind the chosen franchises. This opacity in the process underscores the need for clearer guidelines and more consistent approaches to referendum design in the UK. It’s worth noting that the rules governing who can vote in different types of elections and referendums in the UK are complex and can vary depending on the specific context. This complexity, combined with the lack of clear explanations for the differences in franchise between these two crucial referendums, has contributed to the questions raised about the fairness and consistency of the process. While we cannot definitively conclude deliberate manipulation without explicit evidence, the concerns raised about the impact of voter eligibility rules on referendum outcomes are valid and merit further scrutiny and discussion in the context of UK democratic processes.