Independence Referendum
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-01596, in the name of Elaine Murray, on the independence referendum and let Wallace vote. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that for generations Scots have taken up opportunities to work in other parts of the UK and beyond and that many have subsequently returned to Scotland to use the skills and experiences that they have gained elsewhere; understands that Scots working outwith Scotland at the time of the independence referendum will not be eligible to vote on Scotland’s constitutional future whereas anyone eligible to be on the electoral register in Scotland will be entitled to vote; believes that Scots living outwith Scotland should be able to register to vote in the independence referendum on the same basis as expatriate UK citizens can vote in UK elections, and congratulates Dumfries-born James Wallace on his online campaign, letwallacevote, to bring this issue to the attention of the public.
17:03
I lodged the motion as an individual MSP—it is not a Labour Party position—to use members’ business to discuss some ideas and air some views on a particularly important issue: who should be entitled to vote on Scotland’s constitutional future.
I raised the franchise a considerable time ago in a debate, because it has always struck me as slightly strange that my husband, who is English and has lived in Scotland for many years, will get a vote on Scotland’s future, whereas my sister, who is Scottish but has lived in England for a similar length of time, will not be able to vote on her country’s future.
Does the member think that people’s ethnic origin should be taken into account when deciding the franchise?
No, absolutely not. As I speak, Joe Fitzpatrick will hear more of my view about how the matter could be addressed.
Will Elaine Murray give way?
No, I will not take another intervention just now.
I considered the issue in more depth after I was contacted by James Wallace. He is naturally a constituent of Alex Fergusson’s, but I have known him for many years. He was at school with my daughter and did some work experience with me after school and when he was first studying at the University of Edinburgh.
Mr Wallace was born in Dumfries, attended Dumfries academy, supports Queen of the South—which is a bit of a trial at the moment—and is a proud Doonhamer and Scot. Indeed, it is precisely because he feels so profoundly Scottish that he wants to be able to vote in the independence referendum. He has gained graduate and postgraduate qualifications in law and is a clever, ambitious young man who wants to pursue a career in international law. This year, he has taken up a trainee position with Baker & McKenzie, a global law firm that was based originally in the USA and which has its UK office in London. He would be in the gallery this evening wearing his kilt and “Let Wallace Vote” T-shirt were he not at the firm’s headquarters in the US negotiating something to do with his traineeship.
As he is not a student, Mr Wallace is not entitled to be registered to vote at his parent’s Scottish address and if he is still in London in autumn 2014—or whenever the referendum takes place—he will not have a vote. However, he is doing only what generations of Scots have done. They travelled outside Scotland to get work, training or experience. Of course, many of them returned—my grandparents, my parents and I certainly did—while some, like my sister, would like to return but the employment to which their experience is applicable is not available in Scotland. I believe that several current Scottish National Party MSPs have worked in other parts of the UK and abroad and I am sure that, in returning to Scotland, they have brought valuable experience to their roles. Surely they will testify to the fact that living somewhere else does not make a person feel any less Scottish; no one ever loses their Scottish identity because they live in another part of the UK or elsewhere.
At a time when youth unemployment is high and graduates are finding it very difficult to get work, many young Scots, in particular, are applying for jobs throughout the UK—not because they wish to leave Scotland, but because they want to gain employment in the careers for which they are qualified. Had a referendum on Scottish independence been held when SNP members were living outwith Scotland they might have taken a different view on not being allowed to vote on their country’s future.
It is true that Scots living outwith Scotland do not have a vote in Scottish parliamentary elections, but then they are not directly affected by the decisions that we take here. I did not have a vote in the 1979 referendum because I was living in Cambridge, so one might well ask why I believe the franchise for this referendum should be different. It is because of the very nature of the question to be posed. After all, we are talking about what is probably the most important decision that can be made about Scotland’s future. Whatever the question might be, the choice is between remaining on the path of devolution or changing direction and following the road to independence. That is why Scottish Labour believes that there should be one question to determine whether the Scottish people want to follow a different route, which, if taken, will be very difficult to get off again. Devolution can evolve, but becoming a separate state is a final decision. Many Scots who might be living temporarily in other parts of the UK want to be included in this once-in-a-lifetime vote—indeed, I have received loads of e-mails today from Scots living in other parts of the UK—because it could fundamentally change the nature of the country to which they might wish to return.
How could this issue be tackled? Some have suggested that those affected could register to vote at their parents’ address. However, there are specific circumstances in which an elector is allowed to register at a former address—for example, students can do so—but people are usually expected to register at their current address. Indeed, I think that someone who registers at a former address where they do not actually live is probably breaking the law.
After looking into this, James Wallace has suggested that a mechanism similar to that enabling expatriate UK citizens to vote in UK and European elections could be applied to this referendum. Holders of UK passports who live abroad can register to vote in those elections if they have been registered to vote at a UK address within the past 15 years—or, in the case of a young person, if their parents or guardians have been so registered. I understand that similar criteria apply in many other democracies across the world. If we made a direct analogy with this referendum, Scottish people who had been resident in Scotland at some point in the past 15 years and wanted to vote could apply to be on the register. The Government would not have to seek them out; they could simply apply to get on to the electoral register in order to vote.
I realise that, as responsibility for the franchise lies with Westminster, the Scottish Government does not have the power to introduce those changes. However, the Scottish Government has stated that it wants the franchise to be extended to include 16 and 17-year-olds and I assume that it will attempt to negotiate that with the UK Government at some stage. I ask the Scottish Government to consider whether the franchise can be extended to people who have had an address in Scotland in the past 15 years or whose parents or guardians have such an address to enable them to have their say on whether Scotland should become an independent state.
In the meantime, while that issue is considered, I congratulate James Wallace on raising and researching the issue. He has certainly had some impact on the debate about the franchise and how we might consider extending it.
Speeches should be of four minutes.
17:10
I welcome the debate. I have three children and a stepson, all of whom are Scots born, who live in Surrey and Bedford. I have many—too many—grandchildren who were born in Surrey or Bedford, and I love them all to bits. My two daughters each have a framed poster of the declaration of Arbroath—one has it in her kitchen and the other, unsurprisingly, has it in a downstairs toilet, where it can command full attention, at least from men. [Laughter.] Thank you, Mr McDonald.
It has been some time since I have been able to instruct my daughters, “No you can’t,” but in the case of the younger one, Eilidh, I had great cause to do so last week, when she asked whether she could vote in our referendum. I was able to say in my best Obama-esque voice, “No you can’t,” and unless she comes home, neither should she be able to.
It is right, as so many leaders of the wide political and civic spectrum across Scotland have said, that the referendum on Scotland’s constitutional future, when it comes in autumn 2014, will be for those who are registered and eligible to vote in Scotland. It would be quite wrong to dilute the interest of those who live and are registered to vote in Scotland at the time of the referendum by affording those Scots and, indeed, those non-Scots who may have lived and worked here for a long time but who have now moved outside Scotland the right to participate and vote in the referendum.
The motion clearly states that the Parliament
“believes that Scots living outwith Scotland should be able to register to vote in the independence referendum”.
Is it referring to Scots in the UK, to Scots in Europe or to the whole Scottish diaspora? If it is referring just to Scots in the UK, why is that the case? The motion does not say where they might live, or when or for how long they need have lived outwith Scotland. As a consequence, no mention is made of the exorbitant cost, the logistics or the securing of the integrity of the vote that giving an expat Scots vote would entail. Would we have to extend the remit of the overseers of the referendum on an international basis? If so, under what rules? Under whose rules would they operate?
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I am sorry—I have only four minutes.
The motion neither answers nor gives foundation to the honest request that it makes or, indeed, to the many questions that it raises, but it confirms the ties that our fellow and adopted Scots abroad have to Scotland and to their identity as Scots, and their undying and emotional attachment to Scotland.
The motion does one other, extremely interesting thing. In its first line, it confirms why Scotland should and will be independent. As Elaine Murray suggested, many Scots—I am one of them—do not leave Scotland voluntarily to take up opportunities to work in other parts of the UK and abroad. The harsh reality is that many have had to leave to find work or better-paid work, or have been pursued because of their skills, experience and education, usually to work in the overheated economy of the south-east of England.
Therefore, it is right that the referendum be decided only by those who are registered to vote in Scotland. It is right that only they should have their say in its future, just as it is right to say to Scots abroad, “Come home and bring your independence votes with you,” so that we can say to them about voting on Scotland’s future, “Yes you can.”
17:14
Although I do not agree with what Elaine Murray proposes, I congratulate her on securing the debate. She was right to say that the independence referendum will be a final decision. No nation that democratically gains its independence ever gives that up voluntarily, which shows the success of independence.
In the previous speeches, we heard a strong argument against the union. Where is the union dividend, when we keep hearing that people’s relatives—brothers, sisters and so on—have grown up expecting to have to leave their country to fulfil their potential? My twin sister lives in Toronto. I do not think that people who grow up in Stockholm, Copenhagen and Oslo necessarily think that they must take the same path.
I confess that part of me thinks that it would be exciting to campaign for Scottish independence in Scunthorpe, Southampton and Swansea, rather than in Saltcoats, Shiskine and Skelmorlie, in my constituency. Why stop there? Why not open things up further and let native Scots in other parts of the world vote? Why not include Scots in the Seychelles, Singapore or the much more exotic South Africa?
If the member reads the motion, he will see that that seems to be the logical conclusion of Elaine Murray’s position.
The motion is all over the place. We only just heard from Elaine Murray about an apparent 15-year cut-off. Why not 14 years or 16 years? I do not understand.
An analogy is being drawn with the circumstances under which UK citizens who live outwith the UK can vote. We know how to operate that system, which is not onerous and relies on people registering to vote. The approach that is suggested is analogous with an approach that is already taken.
The cut-off is still arbitrary, is it not?
Can anyone say that Scots-born people who live in the Seychelles, Singapore or South Africa are less Scottish than people who live in the UK towns that I mentioned? Of course, if we extended the right to vote in the referendum to people across the world, I would have an opportunity to visit my sister, after leading street work on behalf of the yes campaign in Toronto. It goes without saying that making arrangements for such a campaign would be administratively difficult. It is wrong that Dr Murray thinks that her sister in England but not my sister in Canada should get a vote.
As Joe FitzPatrick said, the issue is not and never has been identity. The Scottish National Party supports independence for Scotland because we think that it is the best way of developing a fairer and more prosperous Scotland. If it was about identity, why would the SNP have so many members, from the Cabinet to the grass roots, who were born outside Scotland? I know many people in my constituency who were born in England or other countries, who have made a life here and call Scotland home, and who think that independence is the best way forward for their adopted country. The corollary of Dr Murray’s approach is that we take away such people’s votes because they were not born here.
The United States has struggled on reasonably successfully since gaining independence from London. During the American revolution, the cry was, “No taxation without representation!” Labour now seems to want representation without taxation. From Malta to Montenegro, there is no precedent for Dr Murray’s suggestion. Even when the Baltic states secured independence from the Soviet Union—which Labour no doubt opposed—only the people in each Baltic state could vote.
I acknowledge that it is not only Elaine Murray who thinks that Scots who live outwith Scotland should be able to vote in the independence referendum. As of noon today, 155 people had signed Mr Wallace’s petition. I understand that Labour chief whip Baroness Taylor of Bolton agrees with it. I disagree with her, but I accept that she is a proud Scot, and I accept that many Scots who have made their lives on both sides of the border identify themselves as Scots or British or both.
The wider debate on Scotland’s constitutional future is and should continue to be about the path that offers the best prospect for a fairer and more prosperous Scottish society. The SNP believes that that path is independence. People who live in Scotland, whether they are Scottish, Pakistani, Indian or Chinese, or indeed English, Welsh or Northern Irish, by birth—the people who pay Scotland’s taxes, who elect the members of the Scottish Parliament and who have chosen to make a life for themselves here—are the most important stakeholders in the wider debate. They must decide Scotland’s future.
17:19
I welcome the debate and congratulate Elaine Murray on bringing it to the Parliament.
I have considerable sympathy with Mr Wallace’s proposition. He has raised what Tam Dalyell called in 1997 the Gary McAllister question, in reference to the then captain of the Scottish national football team, who was playing for Coventry at the time and did not have a vote in the 1997 referendum.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you—let me make progress.
As a Scot and a citizen of the United Kingdom, albeit one who is no longer resident in Scotland because he works in London, Mr Wallace does not have a vote in Scottish Parliament or local council elections. As matters stand, he will not have a vote in a legal referendum on independence if the franchise is the same as applies in Scottish Parliament elections. In that context, it is worth noting the many thousands of people who are resident in Scotland and who are not UK citizens but who will nonetheless have a vote on independence for Scotland and the break-up of Britain.
First, we have the Irish, whose ancestors voted for independence and breaking away from the United Kingdom. Secondly, the franchise extends to European Union citizens. There are more than 58,000 citizens of other European Union countries on our electoral register who could vote in a referendum as the rules stand. Thirdly, citizens of Commonwealth countries who are resident in Scotland will also be eligible to vote. The numbers involved are a bit more difficult to calculate but, in the UK as a whole, the annual population survey in 2010-11 estimated that well over a million citizens of Commonwealth countries are resident in the UK and would be entitled to register to vote. No doubt, a significant number of them who are resident in Scotland will have chosen to do so.
So we have it that the Irish, Poles and Australians who happen to be resident in Scotland at the relevant time will all be able to vote on the break-up of Britain, but Mr Wallace and many others like him who were born in Scotland and who retain a substantial Scottish connection will not be able to do so.
What can be done about the issue? We have heard about the amendment in the House of Lords that has been tabled by Baroness Taylor of Bolton. I do not think that that is the correct approach, because it is based on place of birth and, as Elaine Murray correctly pointed out, if we are to have a proper analogy with UK parliamentary elections, it should be on the basis of people who have been on the Scottish register within the past 15 years and, of course, who are United Kingdom citizens.
Mr McLetchie seems concerned that Irish voters who might be more naturally disposed to independence will have a vote in the referendum. Some of those Irish voters might vote for centre-right political parties in Ireland and then move over here, but I do not object to their having the franchise for Scottish Parliament elections on the basis that they might then vote for the Tories.
I was simply illustrating the anomalies in the franchise for UK and Scottish Parliament elections and pointing out that the Irish, in common with many other citizens of foreign countries, will have a vote that determines the future citizenship of people in Scotland when they themselves are not citizens of the country in which they are resident. That is actually quite unfair.
The arguments that have been made will have a strong resonance with tens of thousands of Scots who are resident elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The interesting thing is that those expat Scots might themselves qualify for Scottish citizenship in future, although we await with interest the SNP spelling out the precise rules on citizenship and rights to residence that would apply in an independent Scotland. I trust that those will be forthcoming before we vote in the referendum.
I caution members that we are getting into difficult territory if we start to argue that there should be a special referendum franchise.
Mr McLetchie—
Sorry?
I was going to point out that your time is up.
I beg your pardon.
All I will say in conclusion is that, if we have a special referendum franchise and argue that 16 and 17-year-olds should have a right to vote, people such as Mr Wallace will argue they should be included, too, and others will argue that many people in Scotland are not UK citizens and should not be entitled to vote at all.
17:24
To echo Kenny Gibson’s comments, I thank Elaine Murray for at least bringing the subject to the Parliament. I cannot find much to agree with in the motion, but I welcome the fact that we are continuing to debate Scotland’s constitutional future. That will be part of the context of the coming years.
It is unfortunate that Mr McLetchie did not let me intervene during his speech, because I was merely going to point out that if Gary McAllister had dispatched his penalty against England in 1996, he would probably have been the figurehead for the devolution campaign, never mind getting a vote in the referendum. However, that is another matter.
Like others, I congratulate James Wallace. I profoundly disagree with the terms of his campaign, but he is absolutely right to raise the issue and is to be congratulated on doing so. However, Scotland’s future should and must be determined by people who live here. Elaine Murray said in response to Joe FitzPatrick that her proposal was not to determine who got the vote by ethnicity. However, what other conclusion are we to draw when she suggests that Scots who do not live here should get a vote—presumably by virtue of their ethnicity?
My proposition is that the criterion would be similar to that used for expatriate British people voting in European and British elections: people who want to vote in the independence referendum should have been resident in Scotland during the past 15 years. That has nothing to do with ethnicity, and it would be up to them to determine whether to take advantage of the opportunity.
In a moment, I will come to the nightmare that extending the franchise in that way could be. I was going to say that it was for others to explain their obsession with ethnicity, so I suppose that Ms Murray has at least attempted to do so.
Mr McLetchie seems to be riled at the prospect of Irish and Commonwealth citizens getting a vote in the independence referendum. However, they may want to take advantage of the potential to have Scottish citizenship, which will be their right in future. It is absolutely right that people who live here have that chance to vote.
There are inconsistencies in the position adopted by those who say that the franchise should be extended in the way that the motion proposes, but who also say that 16 and 17-year-olds who live here should not get the vote. Many members of Ms Murray’s party said that the franchise should have been extended to 16 and 17-year-olds in the alternative vote referendum. I say to Mr McLetchie that, unlike those Labour Party members, neither I nor my party believes that the franchise should be extended on a special basis. My party believes that 16 and 17-year-olds should have the right to vote in each and every election in Scotland. We have demonstrated that through our actions in the pilot health board elections and the elections to the Crofting Commission. We have a positive record in that regard, which Mr McLetchie would do well to remember.
The suggestion that citizens outwith Scotland should get the vote is interesting. I wonder whether there is any precedent for that happening across the world. For example, among recent referenda was the one in Montenegro. Did citizens outwith Montenegro get to vote on whether Montenegro should be independent?
Will the member give way?
Do I have time to give way, Presiding Officer? Will I get a little leeway?
Yes, indeed.
If the Scottish National Party achieves independence, would people who previously resided in Scotland get a vote on Scotland’s future in Scottish Parliament elections thereafter, or has that been ruled out?
I just about followed Neil Bibby’s logic. Frankly, the only basis on which we can determine Scottish citizenship is from a position of independence. Although I may not have time to do so, I want to deal with that point.
Determining the criteria for who is eligible to vote in relation to people outwith Scotland is a problem. Who is a Scot? The only clear and concrete fashion in which we will be able to decide that is when we can grant citizenship. At the moment, we are not Scottish citizens. We can grant citizenship only in the context of independence. I would be quite relaxed at the prospect of people from outwith Scotland demonstrating at that stage their willingness to become Scottish citizens and participate in Scottish Parliament elections. However, that is a separate matter.
Will the member give way?
I do not think that the Presiding Officer will be able to extend me that much leeway. In fact, she is indicating that I cannot take an intervention, so I apologise. If Mr McLetchie had taken my intervention on Gary McAllister, I would have let him in the next time.
I do not think that there is any international or, indeed, domestic precedent for extending the franchise in the way that the motion proposes. It was interesting to hear Elaine Murray say that the independence referendum is of such importance that the franchise should be extended in this case. Was the referendum on devolution not of such importance that the franchise should have been extended then? If the franchise that we had for the devolution referendum was good enough for that referendum, it is certainly good enough for the coming independence referendum.
17:29
I congratulate Elaine Murray on bringing the debate to the chamber. As she might have guessed, I do not agree with the position that she and Mr Wallace take on this matter.
I have to be honest and say gently to Mr McLetchie that he has to be careful about how he frames the notion of people who were not born in Scotland having a vote in the referendum, because he seemed to suggest that some special criteria were being used. That is not the case. The people he referred to are entitled to vote in the elections to this Parliament, so they have a right to a vote on the future of this nation. They have chosen to come to Scotland and to make it their home, and they demonstrate that they are willing to participate in the future of this nation. As our departed but never forgotten colleague Bashir Ahmad quite rightly said,
“It isn’t important where you come from; what matters is where we are going together as a nation.”
That is the important element to this debate.
With regard to the issues around residency and who should vote, Jamie Hepburn has made the point that, in other referenda—such as the devolution referendum in 1997, the recent referendum in Wales on the extension of powers to the Welsh Assembly and the recent independence referendum in Montenegro—residency was the criterion that was used, not place of birth.
Jamie Hepburn rightly raised the issue of how we define and capture the Scottish expat. At the moment, no one has Scottish citizenship; we have British citizenship. Expats are allowed to vote in UK-wide elections because British citizenship is a legally defined term. Elaine Murray’s motion and Mr Wallace’s campaign ask us to establish some quasi-legal criterion of Scottish citizenship or Scottish expat status to entitle those people to vote in Scottish elections.
I agree that there is no such thing as Scottish citizenship, in the sense that people do not have Scottish passports. I am suggesting that people who have a UK passport but have been resident in Scotland at some point during the past 15 years will have the chance to register to vote.
I think that Elaine Murray has introduced an even stranger burden of proof. Initially, she spoke of expats as being people who were born in Scotland, but she is now talking about people who have spent some time living in Scotland at some point in the past 15 years. Now we will have to find proof of people’s address and so on, adding an even greater burden to the process.
I am disappointed that we are talking about the extension of the franchise in a way that I do not think is necessarily logical. If someone leaves Scotland at the age of three and is resident outside Scotland for 15 years, under Elaine Murray’s criteria, they would be entitled to a vote—
No.
If they chose to register.
No.
I am sorry if I have taken the member’s point wrongly. However, I still do not see why we are talking about extending the franchise to people who live outwith our borders and not to those who live within our borders, who contribute to society through taxation, employment and so on. Why should my aunt and uncle, who left Scotland for Canada many years ago, be entitled to a vote in this referendum, but not my cousin, who will be 16 and perhaps in employment at the time of the referendum?
I believe that we are having the wrong argument today. If we are going to extend the franchise, we should be extending it to include those who are aged 16 and 17, who live in Scotland, who contribute to the future of Scotland and who will, I hope, continue to play a valuable role in the future of Scotland.
I apologise for the misunderstanding that clearly arose, but I do not think that that in any way diminishes the fact that the proposal would result in a process that would be extremely difficult for the Scottish Government to administer and would require great leaps of logic in many areas. We would do far better to focus our efforts on extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds than to extend it to those who might not have known Scotland as their home for a very long time.
17:34
I congratulate Elaine Murray on securing the debate. In her speech, she mentioned expats who have UK passports who had been resident “at some point” in the past 15 years. For how long in the past 15 years? Where? Where is the evidence?
If I could just clarify that, I said that the person would need to have been on the electoral register at an address in Scotland. That is the equivalent criterion to that which applies to expats’ ability to vote in UK and European elections.
So, “at some point” could mean that they been on the electoral register for just a period of months. Someone could put themselves on the register for that year but not re-register. That is the point that Elaine Murray is making.
Elaine Murray has introduced complexities—quite apart from a principle—that I cannot quite follow. The democratic principle, as I understand it, is that someone is on the electoral register to vote in various elections in which they are affected by those policies. That is why we are on the electoral register for UK elections, and why people must be on a Scottish electoral register for Scottish Parliament elections. A person has to live in a ward to vote in council elections. There is a direct connection between people’s right to vote and what happens as a consequence of their vote.
I cannot follow the argument that people—goodness knows how to define them—who say that they are Scottish but will perhaps never return to Scotland, or have no intention of doing so, should have a vote on the future of this nation and whether or not it is free and independent. That cannot be democratically right in principle alone, if one follows the logic of the argument.
Putting that argument to one side, it seems that Elaine Murray wants to extend the franchise, but I cannot for the life of me understand—others have said the same—why she opposes 16 and 17-year-olds having the vote in the country to which they are committed. Neither can I understand why Mr McLetchie has unfortunately introduced the idea of immigrants who take the trouble to put themselves on the electoral roll. That does not just happen—people have to make sure that they sign the form every year to ensure that they have their vote.
I would say to Mr Wallace, with whom I have every sympathy, that he has two years to come back to Scotland, put himself on the electoral roll and vote for independence. That would be the cure for him.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have finished.
17:36
I congratulate Elaine Murray on bringing the debate to the chamber. I am glad that she has lodged the motion, because the issue deserves to be aired to allow some of the facts to surface.
I will begin with a fact that I think is already accepted: the Scottish Government has an overwhelming mandate to hold an independence referendum. The Secretary of State for Scotland, for example, told the BBC in May 2011:
“I firmly believe that the Scottish Parliament, if it so decides, can proceed with a referendum ... we could, I suppose, try to make a constitutional issue about where the powers lie or don’t, but I don’t think that would be a sensible use of anybody’s time.”
I happen to agree with him.
Similar comments—not all of them so detailed—have been made by senior members of the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties. The common theme of those comments is that the election result last May gave the Government a mandate to hold the referendum, and that that referendum is a matter for the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government to determine.
The Scottish Government has repeatedly set out its view that the referendum should be designed and built in Scotland, after a thorough consultation process that takes account of the range of views across Scotland’s political parties and civic Scotland. As members know—and as they can see in today’s Business Bulletin—the Scottish Government will publish a consultation paper on arrangements for the referendum on Wednesday 25 January. We have taken into account the responses from our previous consultation and have considered lessons that have been learned from last year’s National Assembly for Wales and alternative vote referendums. Among other things, the consultation document will set out our proposals to ensure that the referendum will meet the highest international standards for transparency and fairness. Members will need to wait until next week to see the details of what we propose, but I will not give anything away if I confirm our thoughts on the franchise at the referendum.
The draft referendum bill that was published in February 2010 confirmed that it is our intention that eligibility to vote in the referendum should be based on that for the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government elections. That means that those who are resident in Scotland will be eligible to vote, with the exception of the citizens of non-Commonwealth and non-European Union countries. I understand that that causes frustration for some people, including James Wallace, who will be unable to vote in the referendum.
The referendum will be of worldwide interest and it will, understandably, engage both the intellects and the emotions of the many people in the other nations of these islands and in the wider world who feel a strong affinity for Scotland. Scotland as a whole benefits hugely from the fact that so many people with ties here, but who live elsewhere, retain a deep and abiding interest in this country. However, in determining the rules for an independence referendum, the Scottish Government’s view is that voting rights should be based firmly on residency.
There are two very good reasons why the Scottish Government proposes to use a franchise that is based on residency. The first is practical. Estimates vary, but hundreds of thousands of people who were born in Scotland now live elsewhere in the UK and beyond, so registration and validation of entitlement to vote would add significant complexity to the task of electoral professionals in organising and running the referendum.
Are not the people who would be entitled to vote under Elaine Murray’s proposition exactly the same people who would have been able to apply and vote in the 2010 general election? [Interruption.] I think that that is the proposition. It is exactly the same number, and it is not
“hundreds of thousands of people”.
I ask Mr McLetchie how, in those circumstances, we would deal with Commonwealth and EU citizens who stayed in this country up to 15 years ago and who were registered to vote. Would they be included in the process and allowed to vote?
No.
Of course they would not.
They are not citizens.
That would create an absolutely complex set of circumstances.
No, it would not; it is very simple.
I would be grateful if any points from members were taken through interventions; otherwise, the cabinet secretary should continue with his speech. Thank you.
For example, voters would be asked to demonstrate that they were entitled to vote in the referendum based on their birthplace. That would require registration officers to develop a completely new electoral register.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Let me finish this important point. There are issues beyond the practicalities. The second and most important reason for our proposed approach, however, is that there is an internationally accepted principle that the franchise for constitutional referendums should be determined by residency. There is evidence from decisions of the United Nations Human Rights Committee that the international community might question the legitimacy of the referendum if the franchise were not territorially based. That principle is accepted by international organisations that are charged with monitoring referendums. As other members have said, it was adopted for the referendum in Montenegro in 2006 and, closer to home, for the referendum in Wales in 2011
That approach is also consistent with the franchise that was used in Scotland in 1997 for the devolution referendum. During the parliamentary stages of the 1997 Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, Donald Dewar made clear the Labour Party’s view that the local government franchise
“most nearly accords with the residency test, which we believe is the proper way to decide someone’s eligibility to vote.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 21 May 1997; Vol 294, c 728.]
We see no reason to depart from that precedent or from international principle in relation to the franchise for the 2014 referendum.
I clarify once again that my suggestion is that people who are eligible to vote will have a UK passport with a passport number that can be easily verified. They will also have to have been registered at an address in Scotland within the past 15 years—again, records of that are kept and it can be simply verified. That is done for every UK and European election. It is not that complex.
Let me come to what the UK Government says in that regard. It agrees about the complexity of the issue. Our not following international principles would potentially undermine the credibility of the referendum process and the eventual referendum result. That is one view that the UK Government shares with us. Members will know that the UK Government published a consultation paper on our referendum last week. Although there are areas where we disagree with the UK Government document, we agree with what it says about the need to base the franchise on residency. The UK Government agrees that the Scottish Parliament franchise achieves the right balance of clarity, consistency and transparency and would be administratively straightforward to deliver. The UK consultation document concludes:
“In considering the two existing franchises, it is the UK Government’s view that the devolved legislature and local government franchise would be most suitable. This is of course the franchise that elected the current Scottish Parliament and it was also used in 1997 for the referendum that established the Scottish Parliament.”
That is the UK coalition’s view. We must assume that it is also the Labour Party’s view, because Ed Miliband and the Prime Minister made it clear last week that they speak with one voice on the referendum.
Next week, the consultation paper will set out in more detail our proposals for the independence referendum in 2014. In doing so, it will mark the start of a period of consultation across civic Scotland about how the referendum process will work. The result of the consultation process and the subsequent legislation will produce a referendum that will be seen by everyone to be a process in which we can have faith and which was legislated for by Scotland’s Parliament, in the interests of Scotland’s people. That is the outcome that everyone should support.
Meeting closed at 17:45.