Drive to give Scots expats referendum vote
Picture: Ian Rutherford
A BID to open up the independence referendum to Scottish-born exiles living in other parts of the UK has been launched in the House of Lords, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.
The prospect of about 750,000 voters living in England, Wales and Norhern Ireland being given a say in the country’s destiny has been raised as the unionist parties attempt to seize control of the referendum poll from Alex Salmond.
The move has been made by former Labour chief whip Baroness Taylor of Bolton, who has lived most of her adult life in England but was born in Motherwell. Her proposal to dramatically increase the size of Scotland’s 3.99 million electorate has been outlined in an amendment tabled to the Scotland Bill, the UK government legislation on the constitution passing through the Lords.
Her amendment has been drafted so that it would extend the voting franchise for the referendum to include those born in Scotland but now living in other parts of the UK.
Nationalists are likely to interpret Taylor’s move as an attempt to skew the result, based on the assumption that those who have settled and married in England are more likely to disapprove of independence.
The SNP itself has been accused of trying to influence the result by arguing that the vote should be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, who tend to be more sympathetic towards independence than older voters.
The SNP government believes eligibility for the referendum ought to be based on residency in Scotland. If passed, the Taylor amendment would enable Scots who were able to present proof of their place of birth to vote, even if they were living outside Scotland.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, who has been in discussions with his Labour colleague, said: “Ann [Lady Taylor] wants to open this up for debate. She was born in Motherwell and has a strong connection to Scotland. She still supports Motherwell. She is as interested in Scotland as some people are who are still living here. She wants the Scottish diaspora in the UK to be included.”
Last night her proposal had attracted cross-party support from those who believe that people born in Scotland don’t become any less Scottish when they move and should be allowed to decide the future of their native land.
Tory peer and former lord advocate Lord Fraser of Carmyllie said: “For many, there is a view that if you were born in Scotland but were working in Brighton, then why the hell shouldn’t you have a vote in a referendum?”
The amendment is due to be debated in the House of Lords towards the end of January and will be considered alongside an attempt to force Salmond to hold the referendum within a 12-month deadline.
But the First Minister’s spokesman said: “It is the height of absurdity that unelected peers in the House of Lords should try to lay down the law about the democratic referendum we will have in Scotland. Labour had their chance to govern Scotland – and were comprehensively rejected in May 2011.
“The more unelected peers interfere and front up the No campaign, the worse it will get for anti-independence parties.
“The draft referendum bill, published by the Scottish Government in February 2010, follows the precedent of the 1997 devolution referendum: eligibility to vote is based on the franchise for Scottish Parliament elections. This is consistent with the internationally accepted principle that constitutional referendums should have a franchise determined by residency.”
The spokesman added: “The referendum will be held in the second half of this parliament, when the people of Scotland voted for it to happen, and when Scotland’s parliament, not Westminster, wants it to happen.”
The timing of the referendum has been a major bone of contention between Nationalists and unionists with those who want Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom arguing that the matter should be settled as soon as possible.
In an amendment of his own, Foulkes is hoping to alter the Scotland Bill to introduce a sunset clause that would force the referendum to be held within a year. The introduction of such a clause would involve legal control of the referendum being handed from London to Edinburgh under a section 30 order – a provision that allows for powers normally reserved to Westminster to be given to Holyrood.
If that were done, Westminster could insert clauses, that would place a time limit on when the referendum could be held and a guarantee that the poll would be overseen by the Electoral Commission.
Email to a friend
Print this page- Family mourn death of Glasgow ‘fight’ schoolboy
- Rangers takeover: Duff & Phelps threaten legal action against BBC
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Rangers administration: Fans fear Duff & Phelps claims could scare off Green
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- Scottish Independence: SNP ‘won’t be Yes campaign’s only voice’
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond’s pledge to sign up 1m voters
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Sunday 27 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 720 comments to this article
Page 1 of 48
Joe M.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012 at 10:33 PMIt is logical that the future governance of Scotland should be decided by the people that actually live here.
samcoldstream
Wednesday, January 11, 2012 at 10:08 AMThis is a dangerous proposal? Whatever their birthplace, most people Down South aren't interested in Scotland as the newspapers show today. HS2 takes up more column inches than a Scottish Referendum? A large turnout will also be required. With the exception of Stormont, UK elections have a poor turnout. Millions of voters aren't interested in politics which may explain why the Nationalists want 16 and 17 year olds given that right.. One third of voters in local and central government elections in Great Britain don't bother turning out.
Rhynieman
Monday, January 9, 2012 at 01:38 PMThe Cameronian Rant is a great Strathspey played on the bagpipes but it could also apply to the misguided utterances of a Prime Minister who is clearly out of his depth.Even Obama of all people described Cameron as a political lightweight. Then again perhaps his surname is really a clue to what he really feels (sorry to remind the proud Cameron Clan of their black sheep son.) Maybe he is a double agent acting for Scotland and the cause of Independence...in which case the old boy is doing a jolly spiffing job.
Buford Van Stomm
Monday, January 9, 2012 at 11:04 AMIt would be genuinely hilarious if the SNP's independence drive was scuppered by the diahorrea during their year of homecoming....talk about being hoisted by your own petard.
Buford Van Stomm
Monday, January 9, 2012 at 10:59 AMI thought the SNP valued the diahorreaa of scots living outwith nation.
alanx
Monday, January 9, 2012 at 05:15 AMRegarding the timing of the referendum, I'd be disappointed if it really made much difference. I'd hope that in any case people would take a view about what is best in the long term, and not be influenced by whether or not the vote happens to fall on the anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn. I think that in general the electorate *can* be trusted to do that, and that it does the electorate a disservice to assume that timing will have a significant effect on the result, something for which politicians on both sides of that argument should be ashamed.
alanx
Monday, January 9, 2012 at 05:04 AMIt seems there is attempted manipulation from both sides about this referendum. I feel that it would be fair for the Scottish Parliament to decide on the content and timing of the referendum, but not for them to allow under-18s to vote. I also feel that the vote should be open to those eligible to vote in Scottish Parliament elections (regardless of place of birth). I reject the proposal about the Scottish diaspora: I am English, living in England, and with no offence to my local Scottish friends, if they choose to come and live in England then they should have no more right to vote in this referendum than I do. Oversight by the Electoral Commission seems sensible, and I hope nobody would argue with that.
Scotindy
Monday, January 9, 2012 at 03:04 AMIT is time FOR.. Scotland has enough of this english suppression and we are DONE. INDEPENDENCE AT ANY COST...........
ELDee
Monday, January 9, 2012 at 01:35 AMWell informed, temper, temper!
footdee
Monday, January 9, 2012 at 12:55 AMlebanon Sunday, January 8, 2012 at 10:38 PM to those who say 'its our oil' the question is what happened to our famous Scottish Community spirit?! -----------------our oil has already paid for tax cuts for the higher earners for 40 years and there are more higher earners in England ----------------Scotland has deprived areas worse that many parts of Europe --Dont you think we have given enough away?
NCA999
Monday, January 9, 2012 at 12:31 AMI'm so glad that this idea is being debated, even if it doesn't come to fruition it highlights a major problem which is the 1 in 6 Scots who live in other parts of the country and who will now be forced to become foreigners in their home without being given a say in the matter. Every year there are tens of thousands of Scottish graduates who head down to London to work for the civil service, the foreign office, the Intelligence Services, the Parliament. There are thousands who go for the first few years of their graduate schemes with the financial firms. These people didn't leave their country, as their country is currently the UK, yet they are now being denied a vote on their own future. There are thousands of Scots serving in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force based around the country who won't get a say in whether they will be forced to choose between their home, their family their career, their friends and their nationality. How is it right that soldiers in the SAS, living in Hereford because that's where their base is, fighting and dying to protect us, should be denied a vote on the future of their country but an English pilot posted in Fife should be given one. How is it right that a Scottish cook on board a destroyer should be denied a vote but an English cook on board a submarine shouldn't simply because of where they are based and live? Those who have moved around the country with work, those who have married and had families, these are the people who arguably both know the costs and benefits of the UK the best and even more who will be the most affected by the outcome of any decision on our future. Surely they don't just have a right to a say but they have a more valid contribution than most to make in doing so. The simple reality is that currently, regardless of what the cybernats on here would like to believe, the UK is our country and Scotland is not. People cannot join the Scottish army and cannot choose where they will need to move in the country for their job based upon being around for Salmonds latest Independence referendum. The majority of those Scots who live in other areas of the country probably do so for a short period, 5 years in the army, 2 years on their graduate job, before returning home and spending most of their life in Scotland. These people are having a decision taken for them that will affect them for the rest of their lives but they aren't being given a say in the matter. What is democratic about that?
mordor
Monday, January 9, 2012 at 12:24 AMTenerife tom, I wish I was making it up. George Foulkes in his younger days was, from what I have heard, despite his incredibly posh backgorund, a pretty decent guy, but he turned into something else entirely as soon as he got a sniff of power. There is something about rich kids and the idea of socialism that does not go well together. You only have to look at Michael Foot and the way he desecrated the Cenotaph to see what those with high ideals and morality that is little more than 'the end justifies the means no matter what the means are' to see what happens when these people believe that they are 'helping' those 'beneath' them. The superiority complex that they are raised with never goes away.
Arthur G
Monday, January 9, 2012 at 12:18 AMI see the Onionists have rolled out the cream (sour) of their crop, their (not very) heavyweight performers and their (pseudo) intellectual elite in order to hill the argument for Scottish independence. =================================================== What a pity no-one really bothers with the demented ramblingsof the Hootsmon online comments page desperados. =================================================== The people you have to convert to your way of thinking i.e.the voters :"...you are too wee, too stupid and too poor to run your own country..." don't appear to be too enamoured of your 'rough wooing' approach. Perhaps it is time that the more intelligent Onionist (yes, I know it is a deviant collocation)started to think of how they will respond to living in an independent Scotland and how they can engage in the political process as opposed to their vurrent position of negative sniping.
Kennedy Clan
Monday, January 9, 2012 at 12:03 AM#697 Well spotted. The madness of Lord George rumbles on; he says "Ann [Lady Taylor] wants to open this up for debate. She was born in Motherwell and has a strong connection to Scotland. She still supports Motherwell. She is as interested in Scotland as some people are who are still living here.” She says "I was born in Bolton, my husband, David, is from Bolton and I went to school in Bolton." How can you tell if a member of the Labour Party is lying to you? Their lips are moving.
Cynicus
Sunday, January 8, 2012 at 11:57 PMWardog Sunday, January 8, 2012 at 10:19 PM 676. Hitler was possibly te craziest unionist ever and nearly the most succesful. Headmired British colonialism and suited the bowler hat like rufus.# ___________________________________________________ LOLOL ___________________________________________________ Even by Wardog 's standards- that has to be the most ludicrous post of the day, (Mind you I have not read any of Spanners'. Indeed, I rely on Smee to keep me informedwarned of Spanners' moniker changes in case I read any by accident). __________________________________________________ I think the "bowler hat" fraternity would have refused Herr Schicklgruber membership: he was baptised into the Holy Roman Church. Even Adolf's zest for organising marches could not have overcome that. __________________________________________________ A Unionist? Well, since the time of Frederick the Great of Prussia, arguably every German nationalist was a unionist and every unionist a nationalist,! but Adolf (Herr Schicklgruber) actally founded a German National Party - or National Socialist Workers' Party which, in German, generates the acronym, "NAZI." __________________________________________________ Good lunch-break that, Wardog. 9 hours? Surely a record.
Page 1 of 48
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.