Allan Massie: No place at the ballot box for expatriate Scots
Even if you’re directly descended from William Wallace, but live outside Scotland, forget voting on your country’s future
So WE know, more or less, when the vote will take place, even if we don’t yet know which questions will be asked. But who will be allowed to vote? Everyone, obviously, who is at present on the electoral roll (and still alive in 2014).
However, if Alex Salmond has his way, as he usually does, 16- and 17-year-olds will also be given the opportunity to have their say on Scotland’s future. This would of course require a revision of the electoral roll, which means, I suppose, that the decision regarding them must be made a year or so before the vote takes place.
There are good reasons why the change should be made. The first, and most obvious one, is that they will be affected by the decision. Indeed, it may make more difference to them than it will to those of us who have passed the biblical allotted span of 70. They will certainly live longer with the consequences.
This isn’t an argument for denying us oldies the vote, even on the grounds that some of us may already be failing, and some will be in the grave, before negotiations over the detail of independence are complete – if, that is, the majority should go that way. We are entitled to be consulted and even to bring to bear all our supposedly mature wisdom. So-called primitive tribes respect the experience and sagacity of their elders and there is happily no suggestion that we shouldn’t do likewise. I merely make the point that 16- and 17-year-olds have more of a stake in the future than we oldies have.
You might of course remark that this is equally true of ten-year-olds and even babes in arms. But you have to have a cut-off point, and 16 seems reasonable. At that age you are allowed to leave school. You are allowed to join the Army. You are allowed to marry and assume the responsibilities of an adult. Admittedly you are not allowed to drive a car or buy a packet of cigarettes or pint of beer – actions which in the bizarre view of our political class require a greater degree of responsibility than marrying or casting a vote on the future of Scotland.
But then it would be ridiculous to demand much in the way of consistency or even sense from our rulers. We must be content with such as we can get.
So we must accept that it is reasonable for our rulers to decree that a 16-year-old is sufficiently mature to vote on the constitutional future of our country, but far too immature to be allowed to buy cigarettes or a can of lager.
What about expatriate Scots? Some of those working abroad on short-term contracts still appear, I assume, on the electoral roll and will therefore have a vote. But many will not, no matter how lively their interest in the future of Scotland. (Is Sir Sean Connery, I wonder, among these unfortunates?)
There are others who live beyond our borders, but who have the intention of returning home when they retire. Such people will be denied the opportunity to vote; it will be for others to decide whether the Scotland to which they mean to return will be an independent country or still part of the United Kingdom.
On the other hand, English people who live and work in Scotland but who intend on their retirement to return to the warmer south – to Bournemouth or Torquay for example – will have polling cards to mark. I don’t know how many Scots there are whose work has taken them to England, but I would guess that the number is well up into six figures – and this refers only to those born and raised here, not to second, or third, generation Anglo-Scots who still support Scotland at football and rugby.
All these people may think of themselves as Scottish – what used to be Fleet Street is full of them, including many who learned their trade on this newspaper – but there is no intention of giving Scots who live south of the Border a vote. At least Scots working in the media will have their say – and many will give their views clearly and loudly. But no polling-card will come through their letter-box.
This, my Nationalist friends may think, is just what they deserve. As you sow, so shall you reap, and they are guilty of the cardinal sin of voting with their feet and committing themselves to the United Kingdom by the manner in which they have pursued their careers. Living out of Scotland, they have forfeited the right to vote in a referendum which will determine Scotland’s future. A few may cannily have kept, or recently acquired, a domicile in Scotland and so may appear on the electoral roll here. But most, probably, will not have done so.
They may be 100 per cent Scottish. They may care passionately about Scotland’s future, but as far as eligibility to vote in Mr Salmond’s referendum goes, they are non-persons, even non-Scots. Many, but by no means all, are likely to be Unionists, which is of course an excellent reason for denying them a vote on Scotland’s future. Yet even a life-long Nationalist will be in the same boat if dwelling among the Sassenachs.
Of course it is much simpler to restrict the vote to those who are on the Scottish electoral roll, but, since Mr Salmond and his followers continually insist that independence is a matter for the Scottish people to decide, it is somewhat arbitrary to decree that only those who live or have a domicile in Scotland are to be considered as belonging to the Scottish people.
A Scot who happens to live in London is entitled to feel aggrieved to find that he or she is regarded as being non-Scottish while an Englishman, Irishman, Pole or Pakistani living in Scotland is held, for the purposes at least of Mr Salmond’s referendum, to be a member of that great clan designated the Scottish people.
But there it is. You are a Scot if you live in Scotland, no matter what your antecedents are. But you are not a Scot if you live in England, even if you were born and brought up in Scotland and can trace your Scots ancestry back to Robert the Bruce or Robert Burns. Accordingly, whether Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom or becomes an independent state is none of your business.
Email to a friend
Print this page- Alan Pattullo: Dignity, not sanctimony, is required at Parkhead
- 300 jobs at risk as Ryanair axes five Edinburgh routes
- Suzanne Pilley trial: I kissed her goodbye then never saw her again, says would-be lover
- Rangers administration: Craig Whyte’s promise to step aside and hand Rangers over to fans ‘ludicrous’
- David Cameron is playing into the SNP’s hands, says Michael Forsyth
- Scottish independence: Spectre of border controls raised by top Tory
- David Cameron is playing into the SNP’s hands, says Michael Forsyth
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond hits back at Tory ‘Bourbons’ in battle over devo-max
- Scottish independence: Anti-Scottish jibes boost separation, Michael Gove warns Right
- Scottish independence: Let Scotland vote on independence in 19 months, says Michael Moore
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Thursday 23 February 2012
Today
Light rain
Temperature: 7 C to 14 C
Wind Speed: 26 mph
Wind direction: South west
Tomorrow
Sunny spells
Temperature: 5 C to 10 C
Wind Speed: 29 mph
Wind direction: West
Comments
There are 54 comments to this article
Page 1 of 4
Kobi
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 10:19 PM#41 "Under customary international law the new state starts with a clean sheet in the case of bilateral treaties with other single states" Sorry, but the position is NOT as clear cut as you suggest, despite your daily attempts to portray it as so. The implications of what you are saying is that no part of the UK would be part of the EU, of NATO, or of the UN, and all parts would have to apply for re-admission. It also implies elsewhere in the world that no agreement that the Palestinian Authority makes with Israel relating to the formation of a Palestinian Arab state could ever be binding the minute such a new state had been formed. Contrary to your bald assertions, there are two competing views on this point, and the authority of neither has been determined conclusively.
Kobi
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 10:15 PM#42 "I think you will find that what you imply about ths SNP tactics are in fact what the Unionist cabals are trying to influence by widening the voting to even beyond our shores who have not lived in Scotland for many years and not even voted since." I think you will find that the UK Coalition government would have the referendum based on the electoral roll (whether the same as the voting for the UK parliament or the Holyrood parliament to be decided). I think that what you will also find is that the only party which has suggested adjusting that arrangement and adding to the electoral roll is the SNP. So for the SNP and their hacks to moan about some punters proposing to change the roll in a different way, is gross hypocrisy in the extreme. But that's Art 1 of the SNP constitution for you, the pursuit of hypocrisy.
Anagach
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 09:47 PM47 Faceless_bureaucrat Allan, remember less than 80% of the population of Scotland self identify as Scots - in other words the newly arrived Afghan off the back of a truck and granted a passport, has more rights than you in having a say in the future of your ancestral homeland, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kind of strange that immigrants would expect to vote in their old country, maybe they are not making the effort to adapt to their new home and culture. Thats the Scots who left and still want to vote, not the Afghans who have come to Scotland. Oh and the biggest immigrant group in Scotland are the English.
Tartancult
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 09:21 PM#10 As for Sean Connery, he lives in Spain to avoid paying taxes.....................................................A common misconception, Sean lives in Spain so that he doesn't have to come into contact with the likes of George Coutts (see #49 for an example of Georgies bizzare ramblings). Think about it - it is people like George and Charles who will be deciding the fate of Scotland and if that thought does not chill your very bones...
mordor
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 09:21 PM#41 There are numerous employers (very big boys) that appear to be under the impression, based upon legal advice, that Scotland and England, Wales, Northern Ireland would be bound into all EU treaties that the UK presently is.
George Coutts
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 08:15 PMAnd remember any as you call them ethnic minority,me I call them Scottish of Indian decent. If your born in Scotland you are scottish with maybe parents from abroad. But 16 maybe and definately 18 Scots of any cast born here are the real thing and dont forget it. I bought a Kilt onlin fron Sco Kilt Co, Mr SHING and Lots from Abdul on the Royal Mile, goodlooking tall eastern looking bandana with edinburgh nice accent. Hope we meet at the polling station,Brew laddy,
Faceless_bureaucrat
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 08:01 PM#23 - Idiotic comparison - you once again live down to your MINUSCULE powers of deduction and reason. Dah, just to spell it out .. LONDON IS NOT A COUNTRY.
Faceless_bureaucrat
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 07:53 PMAllan, remember less than 80% of the population of Scotland self identify as Scots - in other words the newly arrived Afghan off the back of a truck and granted a passport, has more rights than you in having a say in the future of your ancestral homeland, The SNP are looking to Pakistan for their future voters, you do not concern them. Think about the bright side, when it does go pear shaped i.e. Albania 2,then your savings and wealth will be safe, unlike those living there.
Shawfield Urchin
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 07:48 PMI missed the parliamentary debate on this issue this afternoon but I did catch a short extract on the STV news later.......This featured a female Labourtory MSP from Dumfries, (name escapes me), who was seemingly complaining that although her English born husband would be eligible to vote, her sister, a long time resident of England would not........Leaving aside the implied hint of racism inherent in such a remark, she did not mention that exactly the same criteria applied to her own election to the Scottish Parliament...........As a former ex-pat who retained his domiciliary status, I have yet to see\hear a coherent argument as to why non-domiciled individuals, who may or may not have any intentions of returning should have a vote in this referendum..........I give you for example Baroness Taylor of Bolton, whose name features in the above article and appears to be somewhat confused about whether she was born in Motherwell or Bolton..........
Danielrober2
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 07:41 PM# 41 Dr. James Wilkie ............................. Jimbo man, chill out. Your an educated dude so you will be quite familiur with Deconstructive Theroy peddlars of misery. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, What music do you play. Maybe Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds, by the classic Beatles? ........................................ http:www.youtube.comwatch?v=A7F2X3rSSCU
Anagach
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 07:41 PMMaurice the Dolphin Here's an idea for wee rotund Eck. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No Maurice thats not an idea, thats just dumb ranting.
George Coutts
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 07:13 PMWeel Alan a bus or plane and we'll sighn the dole and vote......Sorted Granda Yo could join me for a whisky if it doesnt chock the life out of you . Aricht cheel.
zetetic
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 06:37 PM34 Kobi, I think you will find that what you imply about ths SNP tactics are in fact what the Unionist cabals are trying to influence by widening the voting to even beyond our shores who have not lived in Scotland for many years and not even voted since. I think you''ll find the ones fighting for change in our country to acheive a better future for Scotland and its people, are certainly NOT the one's who are fighting for their own jobs and trying to keep their seats on the 'gravytrain' that is Westminster, ie: Scottish Unionists!! The Scottish electorate are fed up of Unionists talking their own country down just to save their own littie world from collapsing. The one's who peristently tell you that Scotland is TOO POOR, TOO STUPID and TOO WEAK a country to even contemplate Independence. As was said in the Sunday Herald "If the past 300yrs of Union have been such a blessing for Scotand , why are we left so poor and weak to even contemplate Independence". The moral to the story, or Unionist rhetoric is, never listen to anyone who has a further agenda other than that for Scotland and the people spoke in May and decided they DID NOT want Unionist parties in power north of the border!
Dr. James Wilkie
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 05:30 PM#39: Not quite. Successor states may be bound by SOME localised treaties entered into by the predecessor states, but by no means all. Under customary international law the new state starts with a clean sheet in the case of bilateral treaties with other single states. Accession to such treaties would have to be negotiated afresh from the beginning. It can accede to a multilateral treaty (e.g. disarmament) through a "declaration of continuity" to the depository of the treaty. No such right exists, however, in the case of the so-called "plurilateral treaties", like those of the Council fo Europe, the EU and others. In all such cases a fresh application for membership would have to be made. I recommend looking up the concise and understandable explanation of State Succession given in the Constitution-Independence section of the SDA website: www.scottishdemocraticalliance.org
Penny Dainty
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 05:27 PMToday's 16-17 year olds watching this debate will actually be old enough to vote in 2014. Interesting.
Page 1 of 4
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.