The Scottish Parliament, actually. The Edinburgh Agreement of 2012 stated that the Scottish Parliament would pass an act regarding the “Franchise”, which included who is eligible to vote. This was passed in the “Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Act 2013” which passed in June 2013.
The ineligibility of Scot-born British Citizens was brought up in the Scottish Parliament and was summarily ignored:
That’s really nice for you.
My main worry is as to whether I can have British, Scottish and Swedish citizenships, seeing as I lose my right to vote in the UK in November. Seeing as I am planning to stay here I really should get round to becoming a citizen.
No. One counter signatory, but they need to confoirm BOTH that the photograph is a good likeness AND that you are known to them for several years as the person who is making the application.
THUS your statement that all you need for a passport is a Birth Certificate is in error- you need a BC PLUS a person, with a British Passport, willing to be interviewed if necessary about your identity.
Certainkt you need a birth certificate or proof of right to full citizenship, but you also need to be in a position to confirm your identity beyond a simple Birth Certificate.
Your original comment was about registration to vote which is based on residence and a claim to have that right which is not checked. Getting a passport is a different matter, but your statement that “Birth certificate. If it is good enough to get a passport …” is in error. It is not sufficient to get a passport.
Now it is conceivable that they could have fathered and grandfathered the right to vote to expatriates born in Scotland but the London and Edinburgh governments decided that residence was the best choice.
I approve and ignorance fought.
Well most of the air has been taken out of my sails, but I’d advocate a majority vote to approve of and negotiate for separation, followed by detailed negotiations, followed by a requirement for a 60% approval for the detailed agreement. Or something even more Rube Goldberg, maybe with approval voting. FTR and from my armchair. I’m skeptical of separatists movements from established and working democracies.
SUch a proposal would cause an uproar in Scotland, even from supporters of the Union. It still rankles that a majority of Scots voted for devolution under Thatcher and she turned it down by legislating that at least a 40% of the total possible vote had to be a YES for it to be valid- they got a majority but not 40% so devolution was delayed by over a decade.
It would be toxic to as such a requirement of 60% would be linked to Thatcher (who is almost universally hated in Scotland) and her Poll Tax which was imposed in Scotland, closure of Scottish Pits and failure to support Scottish industry.
I do agree that if what we get is a narrow decision (which looks very likely) there will be bad blood on both sides, but such is the nature of humans and democracy.
If there is a narrow YES vote IMHO we shall see the problem revisited within a decade, not a generation, and if there is a narrow YES vote there may be major recrimination and manoeuvring in Independence detailed negotiations.
There will be uproar if there is a narrow NO (which is what I think you meant to type) and the question is revisited within a decade.
What would result would be almost the worst of all worlds (the worst being Independence) - permanent uncertainty. Business needs to be able to plan for at least 10 or 15 years. Hell, I need to play at least 10 as my income (and pensions) are from England but I live and own property in Scotland.
A NO vote should put this to bed for a generation. It should be a generational decision - our children can have another bite at it when they have children. But for gods sake, leave it alone or Scotland will destroy itself. The hard core independence activists are pure poison but surely even they know to leave it alone. A narrow YES would be decisive so a narrow NO should be equally.
You do realise that the rUK could revoke your British passport, on the grounds that you are now Scottish?
As an update, I’ve pretty much decided to vote Yes. The only real obstacle is the bigotry of some of the Yes camp. I need to assure myself that they will not define Scotland’s future. I have come in for serious abuse from such this past year on another messageboard. I’ve got a thick hide, but I don’t want my nephew and niece growing up as and to be second-class citizens.
Could if I was a terrorist. But otherwise according to current laws they could not. And would not! Many Brits hold Irish, US and Aus/NZ/SA passports and Pakistani/African/Caribean and so on. Britain is very liberal about dual nationality except with terrorism in less than 30 cases in the last decade. Unlikely that they would make Scots and example. And even then Scotland would be part of the EU or at least EEA and would have access to the UK as a EU/EEA.
Not something to worry about! Or just another Bitter Together meme.
Should, but won’t. Another decade of government from London without major pandering to Scottish needs should do it. The sabre rattling on the back benches of the two main parties at the minute may lead to anti-Scottish interest legislation- giving Scotland less than due to it under the Barnett formula or the true amount that Scotland gives to the UK economy, or failing to live up to the latest plans for devolution of more powers (Calman Commission etc.) or even an attempt to take back devolved powers.
I am now feeling somewhat more positive about a YES vote (I have moved from Devo Max to full Independence as the campaign has moved on) anyway with the latest polls and the way the vote swang in 2011 after the central belt Labour (women particularly) voted in private for the SNP rather than breaking tribal loyalties to the Labour movement. Also the latest figures suggest that moves from undecided to YES are out pacing votes from undecided to NO.
But even if it is a NO, I can see a head of steam building over a decade to revisit it.
Assimilate. Once you have a Scottish Passport there is little to be said about your loyalties. I put my and my family’s easy ride down to the fact that we have fully assimilated and do not run with the country club English immigrants who often put up the backs of locals.
This is a whole new topic, but we have worked hard to understand Scottish history, culture and aspirations, to welcome people speaking broad Scots as using their own language rather than “correcting” to standard English, to ensure that the appellations British, Scottish and English are applied rigorously and correctly, to understand Scottish Laws and customs (not talking about 12 good men and true, or mistaking Hogmanay for merely an excuse to get drunk), and History- not misrepresenting Culloden and understanding the meaning of a Presbyterian rather than a Bishop led established church and so on.
We have worked hard to become good immigrants with a respectful attitude, but have seen other families and individuals crash and burn because of a near colonial attitude to the country in which they have chosen to live, pointing out the flaws in Scottish society (of which there are many) and explaining why English ways are better (which is not always true!), rather than trying to understand and work from within for any political changes desired. We also have a very limited circle of English friends locally and so are not at risk of being seen so much as outsiders. I have even managed to accept Robert Burns as a national poet rather than a good songsmith!
Perhaps it is worth debating assimilation and culture as a separate topic.
What are you babbling on about Pjen - hating Thatcher is one thing but it doesn’t allow you to re-write the past. The devolution referendum in 1979 was under the labour government of Callaghan, and the controversial 40% turnout requirement was introduced as an amendment by a labour backbencher. It’s failure to pass incensed the SNP MPs who withdrew their support for the parlous labour government, precipitating its immediate collapse and Margaret Thatcher’s ascent to power. So the SNP were Thatcher’s midwives, from a certain perspective.
You present this as a linear progression - it’s more like a log scale and a 50/50 vote to break up the union is well out of order, IMHO. Obv this has been a calculated risk by Cameron, in that he’s confident in the outcome and by being very fair it will give a decisive answer.
That’s just it: they can pass a new law.
Which they have never done for any other dual nationality person. Equally they could just ban Scots from crossing the border. In reality it will never happen. Removing 23 passports from terrorists has caused enough rumblings among civil rights and internationalist activists and lawyers. Wholesale removal of passports for being uppity Scots would never pass. This is a neo-colonial attitude.
People on the Bitter Together campaign criticise Cyber Nats and the people who broke up Jim Murphy’s IrnBru crate appeals for the Union, but how about this- real violence by Union Jack British Nationalists outside Hearts ground after a football match:
Insulting someone on the internet pales by comparison.
My error. I thought the referendum followed the election. Despit that Thatcher was blamed for not going with the people of Scotland after running a British popularist campaign. Mind you, many up here would blame Thatcher for many evil events over which she had no control, so demonised is she.
Current trends suggest a likely 50/50 split by polling day.
Let’s look at the only trend that really counts:
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome
3/1 yes v 1/4 no? Doesn’t sound like 50/50 to me - possibly a value bet there for you Pjen if you think the bookies have misjudged this one?
Odds by bookies tell you little except the expectations of bookies. You could get similar odds on a Labour victory in Scotland in 2011 three weeks before the election. The SNP won by a landslide despit the polls showing them behind in the race.
All such odds show is the bookies laying off potential losses from various scenarios. As such, given that only one in ten bets is likely to be based in Scotland, this is a poll on what the English think is a likely outcome- not a particularly unbiased group.
Apart from that what you are missing here is the reluctance of people to admit that they are going to vote one way when they are socially committed to another. The largest such community is working class labour supporting women in the central belt. There is an expressed tribal loyalty to the Labour movement but a likelihood to vote YES silently among all Labour supporters, but particularly this group.
We shall know in three weeks.
It can’t be that silent if you’ve got an inkling that this is going to happen amongst this group. Either they’re telling people that they are likely to vote Yes, in which case they’re not silent or they’re not telling people about their voting preference at all - in which case they’re silent but then you’ve got the problem of ascribing action to a group that isn’t telling you about their voting preferences.
For what it’s worth, I think you might well be right about this - it just seems an odd way of saying it.