Should Eu Citizens Living In Scotland Qualify To Vote In Any Future Scottish Eu Independence Referendum, After Brexit?

[willbewhatiwill]

Having Scottish independence referendum at the same time as UK negotiating Brexit complicates & hinders negotiations with the EU. Surely once UK left EU, EU citizens living in Scotland should not qualify to vote in any Scottish Independence referendum, unlike in 2014.

1. Only Westminster Parliament (not devolved Parliaments) has the legislative competence whether to allow (with the approval of the monarch) an independent referendum to any home nation (like Scotland).
It is also for Westminster Parliament to decide on (i) the wording of the referendum question (ii) date & (iii) suffrage franchise of voters in the independence referendum.

2. The franchise of voters for any future independence referendum (should they ever occur again) should be only be for British Citizens currently living in Scotland and expats (i.e. British citizens born in Scotland, but not currently living in Scotland). Scottish residents that were able to vote in the last Scottish independence referendum in 2014 included current Scottish residents who were: British citizens, commonwealth students & workers, Irish citizen, EU citizens living Scotland at the time.

3. A 60% majority rule in a referendum should also apply to all referendum that involve the constitutional break-up of UK.
Examples of supermajority (or a qualified majority) voting in a democratic process are:
:: Article Five of the US Constitution for example states: “The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses [the House and the Senate] shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution . . .US States can also propose changes, or amendments. Three-fourths of the states have to approve the amendment for it to become law" Goodbye.
:: According to the Danish Constitution, the Danish Parliament may delegate specific parts of the country's sovereignty to international authorities, provided that five-sixths of its members approve of the bill.
:: In South Korea, the approval of three-fifths of legislators is required before a bill can be put to a vote in the National Assembly.

[jim360]

Thanks, TTT.

My counter to your last would be that the 1975 referendum was also, really, a political convenience (part of Labour's pre-election promises, I think), rather than a well-designed referendum that was really about the question asked. At any rate, by the rules I have in mind the result was 67% in favour on a 64% turnout, ergo it would have passed on supermajority rules anyway.

In the long run we really should lay down the rules for referendums. When they can be called, by whom, on what questions, and what are the requirements to win. At the moment, in the UK, they are just a tool for politicians to try (and, in 2016, fail) to "kill" issues that they'd rather not worry about. I would be happy for referendums to continue to insist on simple majorities if the rules were clearly established in law.

[albaqwerty]

Some of the Scots I know think that the TGL (hah, aye, right) moved the goal-posts.

[THECORBYLOON]

TTT there have been only two votes where a minimum percentage had to be achieved (other than a simple majority) and that was in the first Scots and Welsh devolution referenda where 40% of the electorate had to vote in favour.

Since there was no vote by the public when the Union was created, your EU argument should apply to any independence vote too and a simple majority would apply.

[New Judge]

I would agree with your suggestion of a minimum turnout, Jim, but not with anything other than a simple majority. To insist on,say, 60% implies that one model or the other of whatever is being voted on is somehow superior and warrants additional protection. The matter is for the majority to determine and the poll should not be unduly weighted in favour of one side or the other. Apart from that, insisting on 60% means that 59.9% of those voting can have their wishes ignored. The Remain camp in our referendum are often heard to say that 48% of those who voted should not be ignored. No doubt had there been a "60%" condition they would have been quite happy to see 59.9% of voters disappointed.

[ToraToraTora]

well jim political convenience in 1975 and perhaps political necessity in 2016. Cameron bought his 2015 majority with a promise of a referendum on the EU to placate rising effect of UKIP and the party's own EU sceptics, myself included. He probably thought, as I did that with all the parties supporting remain the result was a foregone conclusion and that would put it to bed for at least a generation. No wonder he went straight way must have been a shock, I know it was for me.

[ToraToraTora]

TCL, yes, I was merely acknowledging the idea that the status quo for for major constitutional change should be protected. For reasons explained I agree that both the Scottish independence and the EU referendums should be 50%.

[youngmafbog]

I too dont get the 60% bit. A majority is 50% + 1. Anything else is manipulating the vote one way or another.

[Zacs-Master]

The 60% bit is supposed to prevent the discord resulting from a close result but I agree, it is undemocratic.

[jim360]

Well, NJ, perhaps then we should just stick to the "Swiss model" of requiring a majority of regions in support of the measure. Otherwise you could have, say, a referendum passed because London, Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester were in favour but nowhere else was, and still passing, which could indeed amount to "tyranny of the majority".

I think before the EU referendum there was talk, mainly from the SNP, that it should be a rule that *all* of the nations of the UK should be in favour to require the EU referendum to pass. That, at least, was a fairly transparent excuse to stop it from passing altogether, but at the very least illustrates that regional divides do exist and shouldn't be trampled over. I think my "majority regional" rule would probably have seen the EU referendum pass, because it seems to me to make no sense to count all of England as just one region. I'd probably have picked either counties or constituencies, and, as far as I remember, a majority of constituencies also were in favour of leaving:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wTK5dV2_YjCMsUYlwg0l48uWWf44sKgG8uFVMv5OWlA/edit#gid=893960794

So long as the principle behind drawing up referendum rules isn't that you pick rules deliberately to block results you don't want to happen, then I hope it's still clear that there's a case to be made for enshrining the rules we do have about conducting referendums in law properly, once and for all.

[willbewhatiwill]

ToraToraTora states, "If they leave the UK at any time they will be out of the EU and would have to apply separately to join if they then wanted to join the EU"

I was not referring to Scotland leaving EU. I was referring to Scotland leaving rest of UK (rUK), after Brexit by whole of UK.

[New Judge]

Quite honestly if Scotland wants to quit the UK I don't particularly care who has a vote. I have no particular wish to see the UK broken up but devolution has engendered (as any fool could have forecast) division and rancour across the entire country. Nowhere is this more apparent than with the result of the EU referendum. As a result of devolution the minor "Nations" of the UK (in articular Scotland) have been granted delusions of grandeur way beyond their station and if they wish to thwart the will of the vast majority of UK citizens (i.e. the English) then they should think again. Either that or they should bite the hand that feeds them very well and quit the UK.

[THECORBYLOON]

"major constitutional change perhaps should require a greater percentage of support that the status quo" I'm not aware of any major change implemented as the result of a UK vote where a simple majority did not carry the day (where a vote was involved) other than the previously mntioned referenda.

That being the case TTT, under what particular circumstances should a 60% rule (for example) be applied if it has never applied previoudly?

[albaqwerty]

oh, here we go, Scotland couldn't survive without England route. AGAIN NJ?

Personally, I think voting should be compulsory, that way there would be no more of this ' 50.4% of the electorate who bothered to turn up and vote' debacle.

[New Judge]

I'm not saying Scotland would not survive without England, alba. All I'm mentioning (and I don't think it's disputed) is that vast sums of cash are transported up the East and West Coast main lines every day because UK government expenditure is about £1,800 greater per head in Scotland than it is in England. Should those funds dry up I dare say Scotland will survive but their government may not be able to demonstrate the largesse that it currently does by providing "free" for Scottish citizens goods and services for which the Engliah have to pay.

[Old_Geezer]

I can see the sense on having greater than a simple majority to change the status quo on major national issues. The system needs some hysteresis to prevent it flopping from one state to another. A few votes move and suddenly the majority tips in the other direction. All change. Then a few votes move the other way and we are off again. All change. But that criteria has to be decided before, not after a result is achieved. As for 1975, a larger than simple majority would have changed nothing , the status quo was that Heath had already dragged us in without asking us, and we were voting on whether to leave. Since we were lied to and told it was a simple trading area who were going to standardise specifications and remove trade barriers, we naturally thought it made sense to remain with our close neighbours for trade. As it turned out it eventually meant we would be dictated to in all sorts of unrelated areas and no longer had control of even our country's borders as far as other member countries were concerned. It was to move towards being one nation, which we don't want. The cultures, beliefs etc. are too diverse to be one unit, and the minority culture/belief just gets pushed around.

As for the OP question, if one is not a citizen of a country I don't see why you should be considered for voting rights on the direction that country takes. If I visit another family I don't expect them to allow me to participate in their family decisions, even if I've been there for weeks.

[whiskeryron]

Excellent OG.

[willbewhatiwill]

ToraToraTora stayed, "both the Scottish independence and the EU referendums should be 50%"

It is proper for major constitutional issues (like the break-up of UK) to require supermajority (i.e. voting over the majority of 50% of the votes casted and/or high percentage of eligible voters had voted for the constitutional change are required).

Many countries supermajority votes to change constitution - i.e. in other words, a sort of veto.

[willbewhatiwill]

Why should UK try to regain sovereignty by being able to decide which EU citizens can come to UK - but on Brexit, lose the sovereignty of parts of UK like Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, (and/or even Gibraltar)?

NB
I believe many foreign students, those on work permits, asylum seekers, EU Citizens voted ‘Yes’ in the recent Scottish independence 18th September 2014 referendum with the hope of obtaining Scottish citizenship of independent Scotland (not the unity or best interests of UK).

[willbewhatiwill]

I meant: Many countries supermajority votes ARE REQUIRED to change their constitution - i.e. in other words, a sort of veto.

[albaqwerty]

Gibraltar? what on earth has that got to do with your Q about Scotland?

next thing is, does Scotland after voting for independence want to have anything to do with the Falkland Islands? may well be your next question.....