James Wallace, the London-based Scot who is calling for the coming referendum to include all Scottish expats with his Let Wallace Vote campaign, has garnered remarkable coverage to boost his profile. James’ logic is as follows:
“If I was living in America, I could vote for my Scottish MP in the Westminster elections, but living in London I would be unable to vote on the independence of my country. My vote will be taken away from me without me having any say about it.â€
Labour MSP Elaine Murray has picked up the campaign and run with it as far as Holyrood, leading a member’s debate on the issue yesterday.
However, the idea that people living outside of Scotland, people who may well never return to the nation, should have a say on Scotland’s constitutional future is dumbfounding. There is an element of people wanting to have their cake and eat it here, and such people will hopefully be told in no uncertain terms to dry their eyes.
To move outside of any country and take yourself off the electoral register, whatever the circumstances, is to forfeit your right to have a vote. There may well be a rule that one can vote in Westminster elections 14 years after you have left the UK but two wrongs do not make a right and what Mr Wallace is calling for here is most certainly wrong.
There is of course a political side to this, with the thinking being that a majority of the 800,000 expat Scots would vote for the union and one could argue that that is why Elaine Murray is pushing the issue so ardently. I don’t really know where this logic stems from though as I see quite clearly Scots’ ‘Scottishness’ coming to the fore when they move away from home, largely due to a mix of pride of how we are viewed around the world and also as a defence against crass generalisations made against us (are you having that deep fried, bunch of scroungers, unintelligible etc etc).
We do live in a global world and people are moving further and further afield to get an education, get jobs or to settle down. I know this all too well, living and working as I do in London right now due to the limitations of certain courses that Scotland provides. Not getting to vote in the independence referendum would be annoying if a return to Scotland doesn’t take place before Autumn 2014, but there will be no sense of injustice on my part.
They say that decisions are taken by those that are in the room and that logic needs to apply for Scotland for this decision on its future. A referendum is a collective opinion at a certain point in time and if Scotland means that much to you, then you’ve got over 2.5 years to get yourself back there to make your opinion count.
#1 by R.G. Bargie on January 19, 2012 - 12:07 pm
The much simpler objection is that any such proposal opens a huge can of worms about ethnic vs civic nationalism. If you can vote because you’re “ethnically” Scottish even though you don’t live there, the logical flipside is that if you’re NOT ethnically Scottish you shouldn’t get a vote even if you do live there. It’s a real shame that Labour lords and MSPs are endorsing such backdoor racism.
#2 by Jeff on January 19, 2012 - 1:14 pm
I think that’s a very important point to make and a risk that really needs to be guarded against. I hope that between ‘ethnic’ and ‘civic’, most people would choose civic.
#3 by GMcM on January 19, 2012 - 2:35 pm
The risk here is nationailism, as this clearly shows there would be division and as you suggest Jeff people would have to choose.
I’m Scottish by nationality and Irish by ethnicity – I feel no need whatsoever to choose between the two. I am comfortable being an Irish-Scot.
My worry is that nationalism leads to people having to choose one part of themselves over another. That is not the mark of a democratic, multi-cultural society IMHO.
This could prove to be a prickly issue if not handled properly.
#4 by Indy on January 19, 2012 - 3:51 pm
How is that pertinent to what is being discussed? If you are resident anywhere in the UK you can only vote once precisely because the UK is a unitary state.
#5 by Martinb on January 19, 2012 - 12:14 pm
Or alternatively, if you retain enough ties to Scotland to have some degree of residence (or at least a postal address), and are happy to choose that as your home for political purposes, there’s nothing to stop you getting on the register at that address (rather than your English one) and using a postal vote.
Given that I’m in Southampton 3 days a week, I don’t expect to be able to vote in both places, so I’m happy to choose to be on the Scottish register, and vote by post should I be down there on the day.
In Ireland, of course, you can only vote if you’re actually *in country*, even if you’re on the register and happen to be away at the time.
#6 by forfar-loon on January 19, 2012 - 12:39 pm
In classic style I’d like to agree and disagree with you Jeff. Expat Scots do have some right to a vote in the referendum (as opposed to none as you suggest) – the result might well dictate their nationality after all, and many will plan to return to Scotland at some stage. But I agree they don’t have as much right as those people actually living in Scotland.
The real problem is simply that giving expats the vote wouldn’t work. Who is an expat? Do we define it by birth in Scotland, having at least one (or more?) Scottish (grand)parent(s), previous residence in Scotland (and if so for how long?), education in Scotland (school or university, for how long?), etc, etc.
Whichever way you define it you would of course need to check that the criteria were indeed met by each person, otherwise the vote could potentially be swamped by people with little or even no link to Scotland. I imagine that doing all that checking wouldn’t come cheap. Who would do the checking? And who should foot the bill? Seems impractical to say the least.
The only solution I can think of is to treat it as a big job creation scheme: each expat who applies to vote pays a small fee to help with the costs of vetting their application.
There is of course a bigger issue here. Some countries allow expats to vote in all elections, indeed some even require it. Will we hear Labour campaigning for this for all UK elections?
#7 by Doug Daniel on January 19, 2012 - 1:24 pm
“Some countries allow expats to vote in all elections”
Indeed, I remember Michael Portillo saying he had made his vote in the Spanish election a few months back. How ridiculous is that? He wasn’t born there, he has never (to my knowledge) lived there, so why is he allowed to vote from afar for a government who have no jurisdiction over him?
Bizarre.
#8 by BM on January 19, 2012 - 1:37 pm
It won’t dictate their nationality (they’d still be Scottish/British/whatever). It probably won’t even dictate their citizenship (getting Scottish citizenship wouldn’t negate your British citizenship).
#9 by An Duine Gruamach on January 19, 2012 - 5:51 pm
Romania has a parliamentary seat voted for by the Romanian diaspora (held by Petru Roman at the moment – you may remember him giving interviews in French to the world’s media as the 1989 revolution unfolded), but I think only Romanian citizens who were born in Romania and live abroad can vote for it. Seems a better solution than having them vote for constituencies in which they don’t live.
More nationalistically, I believe the current Hungarian government is trying to enfranchise ethnic Hungarians in Austria, Slovakia, Romania, Slovenia etc. – I think because they tend to be quite nationalistic.
But as regards this referendum, I agree that only those living in Scotland should be allowed to vote.
#10 by Indy on January 19, 2012 - 12:43 pm
I listened to some of that discussion on Call Kaye and became quite confused.
If this chap is only going to London temporarily and wants to make sure he can vote in the referendum then he should stay on the register here.
But if he is moving to London permamently and adds his name to the electoral register in London there then he cannot also vote in Scotland. That’s not even a point thatc can be debated: it’s the law and there’s no way round that.
#11 by Benjamin on January 19, 2012 - 12:44 pm
I completely agree that the electorate for the referendum should not extend beyond those who are registered to vote in Scotland.
However, I’m glad that Elaine Murray has chosen to frame the issue in the way that she has, i.e. by proposing that people who have been registered to vote in Scotland during the last 15 years should be able to vote. It does, in my view, make marginally more sense than George Foulkes’ and Ann Taylor’s proposition to extend to the vote to everyone who was born in Scotland. Though this just highlights than any extension of the franchise beyond Scotland would be on completely arbitrary terms.
#12 by Doug Daniel on January 19, 2012 - 1:19 pm
Mind-boggling stuff. We’re all very quick to cry foul when non-domiciled millionaires try to influence elections in the UK, even though they pay no tax. I see no practical difference to this idea, as he is demanding to be allowed to influence the future direction of a country that no longer has anything to do with him in the present, and may not again in the future. So he has lived here all his life? That’s lovely, but what if he had been born here and his family moved when he was 1? Would he still be wanting to vote? What if he had been born in England, moved to Scotland when he was 1, then moved away again after 22 years? Would he expect a vote then? Would that make him more or less Scottish than if he had been born here but hardly ever lived here?
It was the same with Kevin Schofield on Scotland Tonight last night, banging on about how his family still lived in Scotland so why he shouldn’t he get to vote. Jamie Hepburn was perhaps a little bit disingenuous to say he could just get a transfer to the Scottish Sun if he wants to vote in Scotland, but the fact is you vote for the government that makes you pay taxes and whose laws you are obliged to abide by.
I lived in Glasgow for four years. I don’t now expect to have a lifelong say in who is elected to Glasgow City Council.
Some of the reasoning I’ve seen by signatories on the petition James Wallace has set up have all the hallmarks of irrational ramblings that you see by people on the Guardian/Daily Mail comments pages who bang on about the rest of the UK getting to vote. It’s quite simple: if you live in Scotland, you get to vote on how you are governed. If you live outside Scotland, then you aren’t governed by Scotland, thus you don’t get to decide how the people that DO live here are governed.
Anything else will just be an administrative nightmare, which will merely serve to enhance the risks of vote-fixing etc.
#13 by BM on January 19, 2012 - 1:43 pm
“the fact is you vote for the government that makes you pay taxes and whose laws you are obliged to abide by”
I’m expat, living and working in Norway. I pay my taxes to the Norwegian states, but have no vote: such rights are restricted to citizens. If there’s some sort of revolution or otherwise, then I cannot expect the Norwegian government to protect me or my interests here; that is the job of the government at Westminster (which, incidentally, I also can’t vote for due to postal practicalities). So it really isn’t as simple as you might think.
#14 by Jeff on January 19, 2012 - 1:56 pm
Interesting. In that situation, I would expect that you would have wanted to stay on the UK/Scottish electoral register in some way – through a family member’s address e.g. I don’t see any down side to that approach.
#15 by BM on January 19, 2012 - 2:02 pm
I think that might unfortunately count as electoral fraud, Jeff.
#16 by Doug Daniel on January 19, 2012 - 7:14 pm
The way other countries carry out their voting doesn’t mean the concept isn’t simple, though. Personally, I’m baffled that you can’t vote in Norway, even though you live there and you help fund their public purse. I suppose it’s just proof that the Scandinavian countries aren’t quite perfect democracies yet (along with all three retaining their monarchies as well). As a matter of interest, do Norway allow expat Norwegians to vote as well?
Of course, in your situation we would generally say “no taxation without representation”, but I also think the reverse should hold true – no representation without taxation – thus why expats should not get to vote.
#17 by BM on January 20, 2012 - 7:36 am
I think the rationale for not extending the franchise to non-citizens is to protect against entryism, and to give some incentive for people to apply for citizenship (I also don’t think the more vocal elements of the population would stand for it – you think the Daily Mail is bad, don’t read the comment section of Dagbladet).
Norwegian expats can vote at their nearest consulate/embassy, but this is often far away, and therefor impractical. Your vote goes in with all those from the last county/municipality you were registered in.
#18 by Thomas Widmann on January 20, 2012 - 10:18 am
I actually don’t know any country that gives full voting rights to all residents. As a Danish citizen in Scotland, I can for instance only vote in the elections for the local council, the Scottish Parliament and the European Parliament, but neither for Westminster nor the Danish parliament (Folketinget).
After Scottish independence, I’d expect EU citizens to lose the right to vote for the Scottish Parliament because it won’t be a local election any more in EU terms.
#19 by Indy on January 19, 2012 - 1:39 pm
The 15 years thing is how long you can stay registered as an “overseas voter†which would entitle you to a vote in a UK general election – if you live outwith the UK. And that’s the key point. People living in England, Wales or Northern Ireland do not live outwith the UK. They will be registered to vote where they live, in the UK. We really can’t have people who are registered to vote in London for example also being registered to vote in Scotland. That would kind of undermine the whole system in which each person is entitled to one vote. And it wouldn’t be legal. That’s why the franchise that is proposed is the same as for Scottish and local government elections. It’s people who are permanently resident in Scotland. It would be far too difficult to do it any other way really.
#20 by Duncan Hothersall (@dhothersall) on January 19, 2012 - 1:45 pm
I do agree that it’s not practical to conduct the vote on anything but the existing electoral register (which incidentally also means it’s not practical to extend the franchise to 16 year olds unless VJBs amend electoral returns, which I suspect means legislation needs to start now). But I do think it’s a valid argument to say that a vote which would change ones nationality and invalidate ones passport is a vote one might reasonably want to be engaged in. So it is far from a simple issue.
The difference between the hand-waving “of course it’s possible” response to the plans for votes at 16 and the pouting “not feasible” response to this issue is stark. Both are about constructing an electorate out of the norm. Why is one fine and the other impossible?
#21 by Jeff on January 19, 2012 - 1:53 pm
I don’t think having to get your passport changed is an inconvenience that counterbalances the logistical and unjust can of worms that would see people outside of Scotland, possibly permanently, deciding on Scotland’s future.
Indeed, if the referendum becomes ‘do you want to keep your passport because it’d be a hassle (and £80) to get it changed?’ then that would make a mockery of the actual question being asked, surely? The merits of UK/Independence would take a backseat to the extent of personal administrative hassles.
I just don’t see the passport argument as strong enough or even valid enough to justify having a vote in any way I’m afraid.
#22 by Duncan Hothersall (@dhothersall) on January 19, 2012 - 1:57 pm
Polls suggest that were the charge £500 it could be a vote loser. 😉
Interested in your views on the other point though – if we can happily decide to create a special ref-only electorate starting at 16, which will itself require new legislation to achieve fairly, why can we not decide to adapt the electorate in another way too?
#23 by forfar-loon on January 19, 2012 - 2:55 pm
Duncan, Humza Yousaf seems to suggest that 16 and 17 year olds are already on the electoral roll: http://www.humzayousaf.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38%3Avotes16&catid=1%3Anews&Itemid=3&lang=en
Far be it from me to simply take an SNP MSPs word for it though. Can anyone confirm if this is indeed the case?
#24 by Jeff on January 19, 2012 - 2:59 pm
Ha, good one.
It’s much easier to extend the voting age to 16 using a bank of known addresses than it is to extend the vote to Scots abroad without any idea where to start in terms of contacting these expats.
We can send out a standard electoral register document in Scotland asking households to add any individual to add to the list the names of anyone who will be 16 or over come Autumn 2014 and that’s it, job done. The practicalities in allowing and verifying 800,000 Scots around the world to vote in a referendum is very complicated indeed.
#25 by Benjamin on January 19, 2012 - 1:58 pm
It would not change anyone’s nationality or invalidate anyone’s passport. British citizens will still be British citizens in the event of Scottish independence because the UK will still exist. Those eligible would be able to apply for Scottish citizenship *in addition to* British citizenship if they wanted. Some might choose to renounce their British citizenship if they wanted, and some might choose not to apply for Scottish citizenship for one reason or another, but those who wanted to could happily retain both, and it would be a choice either way.
The idea that anyone born in Scotland or anyone with a Scottish accent or whatever you imagine the criteria is resident in England would immediately lose their British citizenship is a non-starter.
#26 by Indy on January 19, 2012 - 3:58 pm
Well, think about it. The issue with 16/17 year olds is getting them onto the register. The issue with people who want to vote in the referendum but don’t live in Scotland is not simply getting them onto the register here, it is also getting them off the register wherever they happen to live.
You cannot vote in two places at once, that is just not allowed.
#27 by Jeff on January 19, 2012 - 4:19 pm
Why not?
It might be counter-intuitive but it can certanly be ‘allowed’. Scotland can set its own rules on this one, isn’t that part of the idea of independence?
#28 by Craig Gallagher on January 19, 2012 - 4:34 pm
Jeff is right, Indy. If I stay in the United States another three years and apply for citizenship, I’ll be a dual passport holder (although under U.S. law I have to renounce British/Scottish citizenship as my first nationality and accept American instead) but I will be able to vote in UK general elections and US general elections, either as an overseas voter or if I happen to be resident in either country at the time. With the UK general election scheduled for 2015 and the US Presidential for 2016, it would be feasible for me, were I eligible, to vote in both.
#29 by Indy on January 19, 2012 - 5:08 pm
I am talking about people who live in the UK – and if you live in the UK you cannot vote in two places at once. That’s different to overseas voters. The rules on overseas voters only apply to people who live outwith the UK. I simply cannot envision a situation where we said that Scots who live overseas can vote in the referendum – but Scots who live elsewhere in the UK cannot.
#30 by Indy on January 19, 2012 - 5:02 pm
I don’t think we can set our own rules though, that’s the point. We’re having a referendum on independence but that doesn’t make us independent! You could hypothecate a situation in future where someone of Scottish citizenship could reside somewhere else and yet be able to vote in Scottish elections. But at this point in time we are all UK citizens and subject to the same law which says that you can’t vote in two places (in the UK) at the same time. So it’s really a non-starter as far as I can see.
#31 by Jeff on January 19, 2012 - 5:20 pm
I reckon if it’s an advisory referendum and the Electoral Commission don’t oversee it, then we absoutely can set our own rules.
That said, I’m now arguing in favour of something that I was arguing against in the original post so I’ll stop now before I confuse myself 😉
#32 by Indy on January 19, 2012 - 5:23 pm
I don’t agree on that – electoral law is still reserved and any proposal to extend the franchise to people living outwith Scotland would require the co-operation of EROs both within and outwith Scotland. I think they would say no and they would be within their rights to do that.
#33 by Jeff on January 19, 2012 - 5:34 pm
My thinking is that electoral law would not apply to an advisory referendum (did it apply to Souter’s Section 28 hoo-ha for example?). I, of course, have nothing to back that up.
#34 by An Duine Gruamach on January 19, 2012 - 6:01 pm
They’re all advisory, though. Soutar’s wasn’t a referendum in any case, it was a well-publicised private opinion poll. Split the hairs on those! 🙂
#35 by Indy on January 20, 2012 - 7:45 am
It does though. Electoral registration officers and returning officers have to do things by the book.
#36 by Doug Daniel on January 19, 2012 - 7:51 pm
The voting age issue is hardly about constructing an electorate “out of the norm”. These people are already on the register and will be allowed to vote within two years anyway. All that needs to happen is for the database query that works out the electoral roll to have the “WHERE DateOfBirth >= dateAdd(yyyy, -18, @referendumDate)” clause removed from it. Or something like that.
Conversely, involving expats gets you into the whole murky mess of deciding who exactly is an expat. Only those who were born here? What about those who moved here when they were one and have only recently moved away? What about people who spent 10 years here? 5 years? 3 years? Besides which, 16 and 17 year olds wil be affected by the result far, far greater than people who might have to update their passport (“dry your eyes”, as Jeff said).
This referendum is about the future, not the past.
#37 by Thomas Widmann on January 19, 2012 - 2:02 pm
The problem with giving Scots in England the right to vote in the referendum is that it’s not registered anywhere whether you’re Scottish. As far as I know, the Soviet Union registered its citizens’ ethnic origin as well as their domicile; if the UK had done the same, every UK citizen would in their passport be marked as Scottish, English or whatever, and in that case it would have been very easy to give the vote all Scots in the referendum.
However, as things stand, there’s just no easy way to do it. I guess it will also be interesting to see after a Yes vote in the referendum who Scotland will give Scottish citizenship to, but that’s another can of worms.
#38 by BaffieBox on January 19, 2012 - 2:28 pm
Just to clarify, it has been policy to change the voting age for all elections, not just the referendum and the franchise is reserved.
Also, at least there is logic in the 16/17 year old argument – these people at least will live to bear the consequences of the referendum decision. This argument can be made for all elections but at least on these occasions, there is another election 5 years down the line in which youngsters who missed out last time can vote and overturn decisions they might not have agreed with were the given the chance. In the referendum, this will be a decision that they will not have a chance to overturn – 16/17 year olds will have to live, probably a huge part of their lives, with the result of the referendum and irrespective of the current franchise, I think there is a valid reason for them having a vote.
Compare and contrast this with some who lives out-with the country and may, or may not, come back. I appreciate the gentleman in this case states he wishes to return to Scotland in time but that is by no means a given and we should not assume or second-guess the motivations of expats. This guy might support the Union, but Id feel exactly the same for someone who supported independence. It is absolutely ridiculous to even consider giving anyone outside the country a vote.
Id sooner an Englishman residing in Scotland were able to vote “No” than a Scotsman living in London were able to vote “Yes”. I think Elaine Murray and the gentleman in question are getting a predictably easy ride on this issue – Id go so far to say they only support it as they believe it will help their vote and that’s “rigging” in Unionist parlance… an accusation that has been fired the SNPs way with far more venom and spite, and it is of no surprise that this is almost taken seriously and without the same harsh scrutiny.
#39 by Gordon Darroch on January 19, 2012 - 2:34 pm
I can see both sides on this argument. It’s a fair point that people whose citizenship status will be affected ought to have some say in the referendum. They will become Scottish citizens, take Scottish passports and deal with Scottish embassies in future. The passport argument is not just about what type of little book you carry in your pocket: Scotland would have to make its own visa arrangements, which could have a real effect on people in some countries. So the moral case exists.
However, the practical case does not. There is no such thing as Scottish citizenship (obviously) and it would be an administrative nightmare to set up a separate register of expat voters now. The fairest solution for everybody, on balance, is surely to use the electoral register.
There’s a flip side to this question that nobody is asking: if Scots living outside Scotland should have a vote, should non-Scots within Scotland’s borders get one? I’d argue yes, since they have a stake in the future of the country too, but I’d be interested to know how it’s seen by those gnashing their teeth at the perceived injustice of expats being ‘deprived’ of a vote.
The dual nationality issue is another thing to add to the long list of things to be thrashed out in the negotiations if we get that far. It seems reasonable to assume that people won’t be stripped of their British nationality on day one, but will this be indefinite? What about when passports are renewed? And what about children born after independence day? All food for thought.
#40 by forfar-loon on January 19, 2012 - 3:02 pm
Agreed. You could even go one further. What about non-Scots who used to live and work in Scotland and who might want to return one day? Should they not be entitled to a vote? Clearly allowing “expats” the vote would open up a huge can of worms.
Regarding dual nationality, what happened when Ireland went on its merry way? Common sense would suggest a certain grace period in which people could choose which nationality to take. The way Cameron & co. are grandstanding though who knows what view they’ll take if Scotland votes the “wrong” way.
#41 by Dr William Reynolds on January 19, 2012 - 2:38 pm
It is not a case of people taking themselves off the electoral register because they have moved abroad.Expats abroad are required to apply each year to be registered as overseas voters.This enables them to vote in the constituency where they last lived.Thus registered overseas voters are on the existing electoral register.This privalage,if you want to call it that,continues for ten years.
I believe that expats can vote in Westminster elections and referendums up to ten years after moving abroad.Thus many people who have lived abroad for less than 10 years and,who hold a UK passport (nothing to do with ethnicity) and are registered as overseas voters,are eligible to vote in the Scottish referendum.My Finnish wife cannot understand why people should lose their voting rights just because they move abroad.Finland does allow Finnish citizens who live abroad to vote forever in Finnish elections,including the current one for President.Finnish expats have to go to the nearest Finnish Embassy,but they can vote,if they wish.I have a friend in Saudi just now who tells me that the Finnish embassy there are providing meals for their citizens that go there to vote.
Arguably,Scottish expats should enjoy the same freedom to vote.Many that I know still pay taxes in the UK and paid a lot of tax during the years that they lived there.I know that a lot of people disagree but I believe myself that there is an argument and a precedent for allowing people who live abroad to retain their vote,should they meet the criteria to register as an overseas voter.The system for registering as an overseas voter is well tried and tested,and not difficult to implement.
#42 by Thomas Widmann on January 19, 2012 - 3:17 pm
Expat voting rights vary wildly from country to country. Denmark disenfranchises its citizens after two years abroad (up from zero when I left the country in 2002), and I don’t see a priori why Scotland should follow Finland rather than Denmark.
#43 by Indy on January 19, 2012 - 4:04 pm
If you go down that road you end up with a situation where Scots living abroad – outwith the UK – would have a vote. But Scots living in London or Liverpool or somewhere else in the UK would not have a vote because they cannot be registered as overseas voters.
That would obviously be unfair so it’s a non-starter in my view.
#44 by gavin on January 19, 2012 - 2:52 pm
Difficult to know whats right here, I have a brother in Canada who might want to vote but he’s been there for 40 years. My daughter in England might want to vote as well, as she plans to come home. However I dont feel good about the ethnic side of this, if we include foreign based Scots then do we ask non-Scots residents to butt out? Surely not.
A point of interest. James Wallace is apparently a Labour activist, nothing wrong with that. Did he ,however, argue against a referendum before the last election? If he did not believe that anyone in Scotland should have a say at all, in a plebicite, then it puts his special pleading in a somewhat dubious light.
#45 by Richard on January 19, 2012 - 2:56 pm
I have to agree with you whole-heartedly on this Jeff. The referendum has to be conducted according to the electoral roll. The idea of making special exceptions raises the ghost of 79’s 40% rule and diminishes the moral standing of the referendum.
#46 by glynbeddau on January 19, 2012 - 3:11 pm
At the risk of opening another bag of Worms. Will students studying in Scotland who are from otherparts of the UK but registered to Vote be able to vote ? They may not even be in the country a year after voting having returned home.
Perhaps the criteria should be only those who are permanently resident in Scotland (ethnicity having nothing to do with it ) and therfore directly affected by their decision should vote in tthe referendum.
Remember Labours 50% rule in 1979 meant that those who were still on the electoral role but had died or moved away were counted as having voted NO in the first devolution referendum.
It looks like they are trying to fix it again
#47 by Indy on January 19, 2012 - 4:08 pm
Well that is an interesting one because students are a group who can legally be registered to vote in two different places – in their halls of residence or wherever, and at their parents house. They are supposed to only be registered in one place but in practice it is recognised that they may be registered in two places. But they can only vote once.
#48 by Jamie on January 19, 2012 - 6:52 pm
Students are able to vote at either of their addresses for Westminster and Holyrood addresses, and at both their addresses for council elections. I don’t think this is at all discouraged: the registration form has a box to tick saying I’m a student please keep me registered at my other address too.
Students from rUK with term-time addresses in Scotland would be allowed to vote at Holyrood, so I imagine they would be in the referendum too. Likewise students whose folks live in Scotland but they’ve gone down south for uni would also be allowed I’d have thought.
#49 by Indy on January 20, 2012 - 7:52 am
No they are not allowed to vote twice in Westminster and Holyrood elections or in European elections. They can be registered at both addresses because I think it is recognised that elections can be held either during term time or outwith term time. Technically they can vote twice in local government elections – but only if their term time address and their home address are in different local authority areas but that is a bit of an anomoly.
#50 by Chris on January 19, 2012 - 5:15 pm
I have not lived permanently in Scotland for 17 years and will be disappointed not to vote in the referendum. Even though I think it would boost the No vote (I’ll explain this later) I don’t think it should happen.
The only point would be if it made a difference to the result. Supposing on a tight result (unlikely anyway) the vote of the expats threw the result in the other direction.
(Why I think Anglos would vote No – most of us have families here, are married to English (in my case Welsh) spouses and have children born in England. Independence looks like a complete pain in the posterior: getting a new passport from a Scottish High Commission in London, sorting out birth certificates to get children born in England Scottish passports. But maybe more fundamentally a gnawing concern at being left behind and separated off, we haven’t chosen to emigrate, usually work has brought us here and having met someone we moved.
#51 by Indy on January 19, 2012 - 5:25 pm
Who says you would need a new passport? You could keep your UK passport or if you wanted a Scottish one you could apply for that at the time when you were going to renew your passport anyway.
#52 by commenter on January 19, 2012 - 8:56 pm
So, if the UK would still exist after Scottish independence, does that mean rUK is the ‘successor state’?
#53 by Indy on January 20, 2012 - 7:53 am
No idea.
#54 by Doug Daniel on January 20, 2012 - 12:15 pm
Some EU dude recently stated that both the UK and Scotland would be seen as successor states. But until proper negotiations are under way with the EU, who knows?
Stuff like this is exactly why a referendum in 18 months time would have been daft – there’s too much to sort out in that time.
#55 by Indy on January 20, 2012 - 5:07 pm
There is no law about this scenario because it has never happened before. It will all be finessed in the usual EU way, the same way they deal with everything. But in practical terms it will hardly matter. Scotland is fully integrated into the EU. It would be a heck of a job to be de-integrated. They are not going to say please de-integrate and then re-integrate at some future point. Things will carry on as normal while the negotiations are ongoing. Apart from anything else think of all the Scots working in Brussels. Are they going to be deported? I think not.
#56 by Thomas Widmann on January 19, 2012 - 5:31 pm
When you say “we haven’t chosen to emigrate, usually work has brought us here and having met someone we moved”, that’s true for many migrant workers from the EU, too.
Just to use myself as an example, I’m from Denmark, and back in 2002 I was looking for a job, when I happened to see an interesting job advertised at Collins Dictionaries in Bishopbriggs. I applied for the job and got it, thinking it would just be for a few years, but I then fell in love with a Scottish woman, and we’re now married with two daughters, and I don’t expect ever to move back to Denmark again.
I don’t think that experience is radically different from yours.
#57 by Chris on January 19, 2012 - 5:26 pm
glynbeddau
It was a 40% rule in 1979 and it wasn’t a Labour rule. It was introduced by a Labour backbencher (George Cunningham who was Scottish but an MP for a London seat) who later defected to the SDP. It was opposed by the Labour party but got through by a combination of Tory votes and some Labour rebels. Labour did not have a majority in the House of Commons at that time so were vulnerable to this sort of escapade.
#58 by Chris on January 19, 2012 - 5:29 pm
I am on a roll here…
The reasons for not fiddling the franchise to allow me to vote also apply to not fidding the franchise to allow 16 & 17 year olds to vote. If grown-ups voted No but were overruled by kids voting Yes then it would undermine the result.
#59 by Benjamin on January 19, 2012 - 6:08 pm
How would we know how 16 and 17 year olds had voted?
#60 by Doug Daniel on January 19, 2012 - 7:40 pm
No, they don’t. The reason for not fiddling the franchise to allow expats to vote is because you’ve then got the problem of defining who is a Scot. Is it just people who were born here, or is it anyone who has lived here for a certain length of time? If that’s the case, how long is that? Besides all that, as Indy keeps pointing out, you then have the problem that Scots in other parts of the UK are already on the electoral register in their new home, so we can’t just put them on the electoral register in Scotland as they would then be registered twice in the UK.
The only reason to not include 16 and 17 year olds, however, is simply that the voting age is 18. Nothing to do with logistics, nothing to do with trying to determine who is a Scot and who isn’t, and pretty straightforward to change, particularly as electoral register forms already ask for everyone in a household of age 16 and over. Essentially, the work has already been done!
But quite apart from the logistical reasons, why should someone who has flown the coop get a say, while 16 and 17 year olds who will be directly affected by the changes in Scotland (and there will be changes, regardless of the result) be prevented, just because they fall just short of an arbitrary voting age?
#61 by Observer on January 19, 2012 - 7:15 pm
Why doesn’t he just stay registered to vote at his mum’s address? I didn’t register to vote when I moved to London as I knew it was a temporary move & I would be coming back. So I decided my mum’s house was my principle residence. I suppose whether you do that depends on where you want your vote to count – the country you are temporarily living in, or the one that you know your future lies in.
#62 by Peter on January 19, 2012 - 7:33 pm
Part of the confusion seems be because there are two electoral rolls involved:
Local and Scottish elections use the EU rules that say any *Scottish resident* who is a EU citizen can vote
Westminster elections are more based around *citizenship* – so the link with the last constituency emigrants voted in sort of makes sense, and I guess *could* be extended to include voters who were entitled to vote in the 2010 (or even 2005) elections in a Scottish constituency. A right bother though
What this argument seems to be about is trying to create a union (sorry!) of the two sets – ie a blend of two sorts of voters. Which seems to be leading to the confusion.
The basic question is: should we use the Westminster or Scottish rules? Is it more important that current EU residents vote or (recent) expat Scots?
#63 by Iain Menzies on January 19, 2012 - 8:56 pm
What is interesting about this whole discussion, is that it isn’t, IMHO, actually about the referendum. But it does tell us a lot about the referendum.
What it seems to me to be about, and this is a view that is reinforced by a lot of what is said in the comments above, is that this is really about what it means to be a ‘Scot’.
There are a whole number of issues that have been mixed together here.
First off on the issues of voter registration. As I understand it, I may be wrong and I haven’t checked the law, but actually you can vote more than once. Just not for the same body. Now you can argue if this is just for students or for everyone, like I said I haven’t checked the law, but we seem to accept that you can. Why shouldn’t someone, be it a student or someone who stays in one place for work during the week and the weekends with family get to vote, for example, in two council elections? They would be impacted by the services offered by both, and have to pay council tax to both. Isn’t it right, in principle that that person can be registered to vote in two places?
On Ex-pat voting. This totally misses the point, the only thing i would say as to what other countries do….is that that is their business, and if you want to go and live in another country, but don’t seek to take the citizenship of that country then your a guest in that country and have to accept the limits that said ‘demos’ places on you.
I don’t however think that this adds anything to the understanding of this issue. First off, a Scot living in London, for whatever reason, is not an ex-pat. They have not left the country. If they had, then there wouldn’t be a heck of a lot of point in having a referendum on independence…..
In fact i would go so far as to say that a Scot in London is no less a Scot for living in London than a Glaswegian is any less a Glaswegian is he finds himself living in Dundee (poor soul that he would be in such circumstances). And that is irrespective as to if he is ethnically Scottish or Is his parents were Pakistani immigrants.
The idea that ethnicity plays no part in Scottish identity is a nonsense. There seems to be a narrative being promoted from the SNP that ethnic nationalism is racist (probably) and therefore this new fangled civic nationalism (which i would say isn’t that new as its a pretty decent way to describe British Nationalism) is nothing to do with ethnicity. Which would be fine if it was believable. But i dont believe the SNP when they make this case for the simple reason that they like to wrap themselves in symbols of Scottish nationalism that are certainly connected with a time of more obvious ethnic nationalism.
In fact I think ethnicity does play a part in what it means to be Scottish. But only a part.
Also, there will be Scots who can vote even if they have left Scotland. I would imagine that a good number of them will be Soldiers.
#64 by Indy on January 20, 2012 - 8:05 am
No it’s not really unclear. In order to register to vote you have to declare that the place you are registered to vote in is your permanent residence. Technically, if you live in one house exactly 50 per cent of the time and you live in another house exactly 50 per cent of the time you could register to vote in both places and have two votes. But you would have to persuade the electoral registration office in both of the areas where you have your house that you split your time on an exact 5050 basis so that neither of those residences could be described as your permanent home and rather you have two permanent homes. And good luck with that to anyone thinking of doing it!
#65 by Doug Daniel on January 20, 2012 - 1:22 pm
I’ll agree that it isn’t really about the referendum, but I’d say it’s more about what should entitle you to a vote, rather than what it means to be a Scot. It’s interesting that there was that stooshie about whether prisoners should get to vote, and whether voting was a human right or a privilege… And yet as we can see, there are people who are deprived their right to vote just because they live in a country that only gives votes to citizens of that country. That suggests to me that there is something not quite right, and if we’re looking to create an independent Scotland that avoids the failures and inequalities of other countries, we would do well to start things off as we mean to carry on. That means having a referendum that offers those who should be allowed to vote in the first Scottish General Election a vote in the referendum.
To me, that means everyone living in Scotland who is 16 or over and lives here on a permanent basis. Doesn’t matter where you were born.
Incidentally Iain, you and every other unionist who refuses to believe that there isn’t a deep-rooted hatred of the English running through every person who joins the SNP really need to understand that it just isn’t true. Are we really going to have to put up with these thinly-veiled jibes for the next two and a half years? I was rather hoping Tom Harris’ blunder might start putting that one to bed a bit.
#66 by Iain Menzies on January 21, 2012 - 4:07 pm
I dont think that i did say that everyone who joins the SNP has a deep rooted hatred of the english. Indeed i know that not to be the case. But im also damned sure that there is a very strong current of anti english bigotry in the SNP. Hell I’ve seen it first hand. I saw an SNP councilor who liked to ask those campaigning for any other party where they came from. When i told him where i came from (which was not where we were) he sneered at me. When i saw him ask a girl i knew where she came from and she said she was from London, the only thing that surprised me about his reaction, considering the excessive hostility he then expressed, was that he refrained from spitting on the poor girl.
#67 by Martinb on January 20, 2012 - 8:00 am
Your Glaswegian can feel as Glaswegian as he likes – he can sing “I Belong Tae Glasgow” in the shower every morning, daily commend his new citymates on having a homely pair of football clubs conveniently sited next to each other and inflict daily Parliamo Glasgow lessons on his wains.
But he doesn’t get to vote in both Glasgow & Dundee. Once the next register questionnaire comes round, he’ll be as much a member of the Dundonian body politic as William McGonagall and Pa Broon.
#68 by Iain Menzies on January 21, 2012 - 4:11 pm
missing the point much?
Its not about what is, its about what should be. Doug Daniel at #65 said that the referendum should (to him) be conducted on the same lines of the ‘first’ scottish general election. If we agree with that, and its not actually a crazy way to go, then you have to treat scots living outside of scotland as expats who would get to vote in that election. unless your saying that in an independent scotland you only get to vote if your unwilling to leave the country for any period of time.
#69 by Chris on January 20, 2012 - 10:50 am
I don’t think moving to England is the same as emigrating to Denmark. First of all I moved within a unified state -same language, currency, can get a train home, not threatened with deportation if I broke the law(!), no changes to tax/NI. Frankly not all that different from living in Scotland. I can drive ‘home’ I can still get to Thistle matches if wake up and decide to go that morning, and in the pre-internet days I could look up the score in Ceefax. I don’t pay the bank 2% everytime I withdraw money, my work is under the same professional umbrella, I am a member of a UK wide institution.
The proof of the pudding is the sheer numbers of Scottish people all over England. I have lived in 3 villages in Oxfordshire and have never been the only Scot in the village and all married to local spouses with kids born here.
Regarding passports. I presume all Scots would be entitled to a UK passport: even though I oppose independence I would still want a Scottish passport.
#70 by Indy on January 20, 2012 - 12:09 pm
You would be hard pushed to find any village in Scotland that did not have English people living there. But really Chris so what?: That’s not really important.
An English person living in Scotland couldn’t say hold on a minute I don’t want to live Scots law, I want the law of England and Wales to be applied to me. They couldnt say I don’t want to have the Scottish Parliament passing laws that affect me because I am not Scottish – I’ll be governed by Westminster please.
Doesn’t work that way. And it doesn’t work that way for you either. You do not have a vote in Scotland. You don’t elect the government here. Why should you be able to vote on what powers that government can have?
#71 by Chris on January 23, 2012 - 7:44 pm
I don’t think I should have a vote, I was answering another’s point. The point that moving to England for most of us doesn’t feel like emigration. Unlike if I moved to Denmark (the contrast cited)
#72 by Doug Daniel on January 20, 2012 - 12:32 pm
You know, most of that stuff is as true of Austrians who have moved to Germany as Scots who have moved to England. Both spreche Deutsche, both spend das Euro, you can easily get a train back to Salzberg or drive to Vienna to watch Rapid Wein…
There’s a lot of things that people seem to think we’ll lose just because crossing the border will be taking you into a different country that are just a load of rubbish. Including some stuff in the Scotsman today…
#73 by Iain Menzies on January 21, 2012 - 4:13 pm
germany and austria both have the euro….which also makes things alot easier…..
#74 by Martinb on January 20, 2012 - 5:55 pm
Kinda like most of Europe then…
#75 by Topher Dawson on January 20, 2012 - 10:14 pm
The nub of this is that Scots overseas can still vote up to 10 or 15 years later as overseas voters; Scots in England can’t because at the moment they are not overseas or in another country. Because they live, however temporarily, in a country we are still joined to, they can’t have an overseas vote.
When expats in Canada, the USA and so on can still vote, and expats in England can’t, there is an anomaly which is unfair. I started thinking about this on the lines of, “Nobody who does not live in Scotland should vote” but then started thinking of those who work away from home. Scotland has always had many who left home to find work, and some return. If we offer overseas votes to some, the ones who live in England have a point.
The Tories want them to have a vote because the Tories think they will vote no, but I don’t think that’s a foregone conclusion. Remember the beer advert with Caledonia as the sound track? People actually left their London jobs to come home after watching that.
I’m sympathetic to them registering to vote as “overseas” voters even if they do not support my desire for independence.
#76 by Galen10 on January 22, 2012 - 9:41 am
This is a no brainer; only those in Scotland on the electoral register get to vote. I’ve lived in England for the past 19 years, am married to an English woman and have a daughter who was born in Scotland. I still consider Scotland “home” although I don’t know if I’ll ever move back.
I support independence for Scotland, and I’d definitely want a Scottish passport “come the day”, but this whole issue is a distraction. From what I can see the Unionists both her and in Scotland are in disarray, and appear to be doing everything to bolster His Eckness’ chances of success.
I think the Scottish people (without the aid or obstruction of expats like me!) are well capable of bringing about the result that suits them. That might just be independence in 2014 they way things are going; however, I have a feeling that even if they answer “no” in a one question referendum, the problem of where to go next is not going to disappear.
Given around 65%-70% say they would go for “devo-max” given the option, all the supporters of ultimate full independence have to do is sit back and wait; devo-max would almost inevitably tear the Union apart, as our quasi-medieval political system, and English particularism, will not be able to cope with the inherent contradictions of squaring the circle of the west lothian question.
#77 by Dave in Helsinki on January 30, 2012 - 12:02 pm
I moved from Scotland to England 25 years ago and from there to Finland just over 2 years ago.
I was a Scot living in the UK as a British Citizen, able to vote in Westminster elections on issues affecting Britain, but understandably not fully Scotland post devolution.
My move to Finland has meant a continued entitlement to a vote in Westminster elections as an expatriate. As a registered resident(not an entitlement as an immigrant) but not a citizen(would require taking nationality) I have only a say in local elections here. As I have no intention of renouncing my nationality, which according to my passport is as a citizen of the United Kingdom(does actually state place of birth), post independence, I assume, I will only have continued voting rights in England, as my last place of residential registration.
Is there indeed any way in which I will be able to transfer my right back to Scotland, or am I lumbered with being an expatriate Brit who lived outside of Scotland and therefore would become an expatriate Brit, to all intents and purposes English(entitlement to a Scottish passport aside).
It comes down to, I suppose, the difference between the current and potential future definition/recognition of Scotland as a nation/country.
Previously I had been moving from one place to another within what was technically my nation(UK). Now clearly outwith the boundaries of that ´nation´ I find myself trying to get my head round the mere definition and implications of ´expatriate´.
That´s expatriate and not ex-patriot by the way. I have always felt myself to be a Scot who happened to be not living in Scotland, and in a way that would be my main problem with this disenfranchisement. The residency issue. The use of the current electoral register enabling ´residents´ as opposed to ´resident citizens´(even though technically UK citizenship and regardless of place of origin) to decide the future status of a nation.
As an expatriate I would find this a less bitter pill to swallow.
With a decision of this magnitude, the actual debate over the electorate to be involved should have been greater.
All I´ve come across so far are references to whether it´s practical or there´s a precedent elsewhere, or that it might be an expensive process. If Scotland(?) is going to take such a step, it should be decided in the momentous fashion it deserves, and not as if it were just another local election.
#78 by Thomas Widmann on February 2, 2012 - 11:33 am
After independence, Scotland will pass laws that define who is a Scottish citizen, and we can only guess what the rules will be.
My guess is that any British citizen who was born in Scotland and is still living in Scotland will automatically become a Scottish citizen and will lose their British citizenship. Any British citizen who was born in Scotland but has left will need to apply (and can decide whether to give up British citizenship in the process). Perhaps the rules would also grant citizenship to British citizens whose parents were born in Scotland.
#79 by Michael Maynard on January 30, 2012 - 3:31 pm
Sorry, if I missed something, but what is the basis of the claim for for independence for Scotland if it is not national self determination based on notions of shared ehtnicity, culture, history, language etc? If is just based on residency of a particular territory arrived at by historical accident then why does it have any better claim than say Wessex to be free of the Norman yoke, ie. appeals to emotional notions of shared history?
#80 by Dave in Helsinki on January 30, 2012 - 3:43 pm
One query.
The enfranchised residents of foreign origin will have the right to vote to determine the independence of Scotland due to their current residency status.
Will they likewise be entitled to vote in Scottish general elections post independence, or revert to having the franchise for only local elections, Scotland then being legally a fully independent country?