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.

[albaqwerty]

when are we, who live in Scotland having this referendum?

Must have missed the News today.

[Peter Pedant]

Ha ! I like the US constitution bit

what was the question ?
who will vote in a future democratic contest ( I cant say election )
well the answer is: it will depend on the act setting up the future vote and what that act says about who can vote

(answer for a general election - it depends on the Representation of the People Act in force at the time and NOT EU law)

there

two answer for the price of one

can we talk about something else please

Look no paste job here either

Hahaha I missed the bit about the fount of democracy - one South Korea ! o god keep on posting

[New Judge]

"3. A 60% majority rule in a referendum should also apply to all referendum that involve the constitutional break-up of UK."

Why?

Why should one side of the argument (i.e. retaining the status quo) have a considerable advantage over the other (voting for change)? If such a condition should exist why should it be for retaining the status quo and not for enabling change?

The idea of democracy is (for the moment) that the decision of the majority (i.e. 50% + 1) of those voting prevails. Why has this idea of 60% or whatever suddenly gained a hold? Is it because the 50% + 1 are perhaps increasingly likely to vote the "wrong" way?

[webbo3]

No, they are European but not Scottish.

[THECORBYLOON]

Were you suggesting a vote by 60% of voters would be required to leave the EU for the vote to be carried at the time of the EU referendum?

[willbewhatiwill]

albaqwerty,

I am referring to, in event of, any future Scottish referendum sought by the SNP (lead by Nickola Sturgeon et al, etc) and/or other political parties.

[Togo]

Wee Burnie will sort it. If they are liable to vote for independence they will get the vote, if they are liable to vote against it then they won't. That is how democracy works donncha know?

[webbo3]

Danish constitution?
South Korea?
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 . ?

And this is related to Scotland how?

[ToraToraTora]

I don't understand the question. Scotland is part of the UK, they may choose at some point to leave the UK. The UK has already started the process of leaving the EU. Either way Scotland will be out of the EU anyway. 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.

[albaqwerty]

NICOLA Sturgeon will not call for a referendum.
She knows she won't get the reply she wants.

err, what on earth has S. Korea, the US or even the Danish Constitution got to do with Scotland?

am I missing something here?

[jim360]

"Why has this idea of 60% or whatever suddenly gained a hold?"

I'm not sure how sudden it is, when in the US constitution I think it existed from the very beginning (1787, see Article Five). 230 years is hardly "sudden".

[willbewhatiwill]

Peter Pedant,

As always they are my own opinions, take, authorship & perspectives.

[Celtigra3]

Well if you want a 60% rule then brexit is out of the window. No doubt once the oil has all been squandered by Westminster Scotland will get independence. Finally England is always wailing on what a drain the Scots are on their economy so why not cast us adrift. Unfortunately too many unionist Scots have Stockholm Syndrome, believing the lies the MSM promote.

[ToraToraTora]

BS Scotland do not own the North Sea.

[THECORBYLOON]

There was no benchmark set for leaving the EU other than a simple majority so why should there be one for an independence vote. The same applies to a border poll in Ulster. If a majority were to vote to leave the UK in a border poll, that would not require a 60% vote, only 50% plus one vote.

[THECORBYLOON]

TTT, who has said Scotland owns the North Sea?

[jim360]

"Why should one side of the argument (i.e. retaining the status quo) have a considerable advantage over the other (voting for change)? If such a condition should exist why should it be for retaining the status quo and not for enabling change?"

As to the details of the question -- well, let's try to set the obvious recent referendum on the EU aside, as it's obvious that any discussion on how referenda should work might be influenced by your perspective on that. Obviously I'm annoyed that a rule that could, and perhaps should, have been in place wasn't and allowed something to happen that I didn't want -- but, to be clear, I accepted the result at the time, and when I voted it was in an understanding of the rules and the potential consequences, and I am not attempting to undermine the legitimacy of that referendum.

Still, the fact is that most countries that have referendums as a constitutional norm tend to have rules alongside to effectively demand that serious changes can't be imposed just based on 50%+1. The "status quo" is protected because -- well, because it seems to be common sense that if you are going to implement serious changes then you had better be as sure as possible that the country is on-side with those changes. That means that you could require a reasonably high turnout (not really an issue in 2016, as it was about 72% I think); or some sort of enhanced majority; or a supermajority in another sense.

In Switzerland, where referenda are just a part of the system, the minimum turnout requirement for a positive result to be implemented is 40% (so not outrageously high). The majority requirement is still only 50%+1 but (perhaps in order to protect less populous regions from the "tyranny of the majority", in a similar spirit to the electoral college of the US) there also has to be a majority of the cantons in favour of the proposal for it to pass. If the rule had applied in the UK then -- well, it would depend on what our equivalent of "Cantons" was as to how it would have impacted things.

But essentially the aim of requiring more stringent conditions for referenda isn't to stifle the electorate from getting what they want but to try and ensure that significant national changes have broad popular support across the entire country. Perhaps because the UK doesn't really do referendums, except when it's politically convenient (the three most recent have been, essentially, to try and get the Lib Dems into a coalition, to satiate the SNP and get them to shut up, and to bring UKIP-leaning voters back to the fold in 2015 and take on the Eurosceptic Tories), then we never really got around to writing rules that are, in fact, the standard across those democracies that hold referendums.

There are a few other arguments either against referenda altogether, or at least in favour of tightening the conditions for victory for the "change things" side, although some of them stray a little too far into the "Hitler did it so we shouldn't" argument.

[ToraToraTora]

read celtigra's post.

[THECORBYLOON]

I've read that post but it doesn't mention the North Sea or its ownership so my question stands still.

[ToraToraTora]

Jim makes some good points, yes I accept the notion that major constitutional change perhaps should require a greater percentage of support that the status quo but it would not have been right to apply that to the 2016 vote because when we voted to stay in in the 70s that was a simple majority too.