Monday, October 4, 2021

"Name one country that allows FOREIGNERS to vote in constitutional referendums. Go on, James, name just ONE!"

Naming no names, but someone has been challenging me today to...well, to do what you can see above in the title of this blogpost.  Where on earth is this nonsense coming from all of a sudden? Brexit has given EU citizens an enormous incentive to vote Yes in any future independence referendum, and anecdotally that does seem to be exactly what the majority of them plan to do.  This is absolutely the last moment to be retreating into 'blood and soil' nationalism and trying to strip 'non-natives' of their right to vote - it makes no strategic sense, even leaving aside the profoundly anti-democratic nature of the proposal.

I am, however, going to answer the challenge directly.  Before I do, though, I'll explain why the question would still be a monumental red herring even if it could not be answered.  It wouldn't actually matter if there was no country in the world that allowed foreign nationals to vote on constitutional matters, because excluding foreign nationals is not actually what is being proposed here, or at the very least it's not the main thrust of the proposalThe suggestion is that some English people who hold both residency and citizenship in Scotland, in other words people who are not foreign nationals, should be stripped of their right to vote.  You only have to think of it in those terms to realise what a total non-starter this proposal is - even if it was remotely desirable, which it is not.

But my answer to the challenge is very simple, and it's the United Kingdom, which allowed non-British Commonwealth citizens to vote in the referendums on European membership if they were resident in the UK.  That includes, for example, citizens of India, a country that contains eighteen per cent of the entire population of the world.  As I was only asked to provide one country that allows foreign nationals to vote in constitutional referendums, I don't need to go any further than that, but there will almost certainly be other examples if anyone wants to trawl through the electoral rules of other countries.  One possibility is New Zealand, which allows all resident non-citizens to vote.  If there's any exception to that general rule for constitutional referendums, I haven't been able to find any sign of it yet.

24 comments:

  1. Scotland is a partner in a voluntary union with England, but nonetheless is a separate and distinct nation.
    Applying the principles of the right to self-determination in the UN charter, any Scottish vote to end the union should not allow voters from the other partner nation a vote on the matter (which in effect would allow a veto) no matter where they reside
    Unfair? No, see 1 above

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Barrhead Boy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's quite simple you allow a prescribed period of residence to apply for the vote. A generation of residence? Don't let the Tories dictate everything. Let them specify a generation and hoist them from their own petard.



    ReplyDelete
  4. New Zealand allows all non-citizens with a residence class visa (includes holders of Australian residence visas) to vote in all elections/referendums after 12 months residence in the country and they are included in all votes in all issues.

    Also Jamaica and a few other Caribbean nations allow citizens of Commonwealth countries full vote rights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown - any of these countries looking to hold an independence referendum any time soon.

      Delete
  5. James you met the challenge - so well done. Of course the UK franchise for the EU ref was very abnormal due to the historic legacy of the British Empire. Not something I would hold up as a standard to be followed. Not that I am suggesting you are doing that. It does however illustrate the fact that Scotland within this Empire legacy is also an abnormal situation. A colonial type situation. It is not a straight democratic decision as Scotland has never known democracy. Scotland has no democratic control over who enters Scotland. We have no say over these matters even during a pandemic. Ultimately we do what England wants as evidenced by the EU ref itself. Also as evidenced by the 2014 referendum. As the Daily Mail gleefully reported at the time - it was the English that won it for us.

    What a weird and not so wonderful situation in the world of Scottish independence. I blame Sturgeon - no surprise there I hear people saying to themselves. Absolutely no leadership by Sturgeon of the yes movement. In fact she is actively trying to divide it. It's a disgrace if she is not being paid for her services by the British State.

    James Kelly and Stuart Campbell taking the same side on this matter. Who would have thought it. Has James fallen out with another blogger but this time one he has to work with on the Alba NEC?

    As there isn't going to be an independence referendum any time soon it's an academic argument about what the voting franchise should be. But hey we might as well argue amongst ourselves as nothing else is happening on the independence front.

    I agree with MBoyd - there should be a prescribed period of residence. That is not blood and soil nationalism.

    Blood and soil nationalism is saying your parents must be Scottish and you must be born in Scotland to get a vote. Who is suggesting this?

    "and citizenship in Scotland," not aware there is such a thing James. If there is I would like to have it instead of The British Citizenship that we are currently forced to have. Your point about UK personnel from Wales/ England and NIreland not being foreign nationals is undermined if you say there is a Scottish citizenship.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "James Kelly and Stuart Campbell taking the same side on this matter. Who would have thought it. Has James fallen out with another blogger but this time one he has to work with on the Alba NEC?"

      No is the short answer to that. My disagreements with Barrhead Boy date back years, so nothing has changed. If I recall, the issue began when he was denouncing anyone who wasn't coming on board with ISP (which in the overall scheme of things was practically everyone) as traitors to independence. When he messaged me out of the blue today (largely on a wind-up mission, it seemed), I made the point to him that we've both been elected to a democratic body to represent very different views, in some cases diametrically opposed views, and that's fine. I told him that I look forward to both of us disagreeing courteously and constructively. I think that's the only realistic approach to take - there's no point pretending we're on the same page about everything, because we're simply not.

      As far as Stuart Campbell is concerned, I do agree with a lot of what he said about blood and soil nationalism and how Alba should disassociate itself from it. However, he ruined his point slightly by shoehorning in his irrational hatred of the Gaelic language - something which has nothing to do with ethno-nationalism.

      The fact that there is currently no Scottish citizenship is precisely the point. That's what makes it impossible for English people living in Scotland to be "foreign nationals".

      Delete
    2. That would be the same Barrhead Boy who loves Scotland so much that he resides in Spain?

      Delete
    3. Ok, he loves Scotland so much that he resides in Catalonia.

      Delete
    4. Lomax, there are two things consistent about your posts.

      1. Very few words.

      2. Snidey Comments.

      A classic WGD numpty. You ain't no intellectual giant are you Lomax.

      Delete
    5. Yeah, well I know where to put commas and full stops.
      Oh, and as the Bard of Avon wrote, "Brevity is the soul of wit".

      Delete
    6. And I just love those super patriots who can't be arsed living in Scotland.

      Delete
    7. Lomax, thanks for proving my point with more of your one line snidey comments.

      Although I do recognise your increased intellectual effort in posting two lines at 11.10am. Well done you.

      Wit - nothing witty about your snidey comments.

      Lomax - a classic WGD numpty.

      Delete
  6. 2014 set the precedence. To be recognized internationally the same process has to be applied. And as it is likely that the English government won't accept the validity of the vote international recognition is paramount.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeans-Jacques, I'm not sure that there is any issue Internationally with the next referendum (I don't actually think there'll be one any time soon anyway) if there is a new constituency agreed by the various parties involved. Personally, I think there MUST be a minimum residential qualification. Personally I think 10 years, but am open to be persuaded on a different timeframe.

      There is NO "gold standard" (as someone likes to say) on what a nation's independence campaign should be, or how that would present itself in a national referendum. There ARE however many criteria which the UN endorses that were NOT adhered to last time. So some changes are absolutely required.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Jean - Jacques you just argued against the validity of your precedent/gold standard comment by saying the English government would not accept the result anyway. Not much of a gold standard is it. Not much of a precedent if Westminster won't accept a yes vote but will accept a no vote.

      Delete
    4. The English government will never accept Scottish Independence because of its economic effects on the English economy. The strategy for Independence should now focus on getting International recognition of an Independent Scottish State and it should include a de facto hostile English state.

      Delete
  7. As you mention in NZ non nationals who have residency can vote both in national elections and in referendums. In fact as an NZ non national resident I voted in the most recent general election and in the two referendums held concurrently.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bernard - Was one of the two referendums you refer to an independence referendum? So not really comparable are they?

      Delete
    2. With respect, I think you are missing the point. The last constitutional issue put before the electorate was in 2011 concerning the reform of the electoral system. The same rules applied then.

      Delete
    3. With respect Bernard I do not know what point you think I am missing. My point is that I am referring to an independence referendum in Scotland not a reform of an electoral system. Hardly in the same ballpark.

      Delete
    4. "Constitutional referendums" are what was specified. There was no requirement for them to be on the subject of independence. I'd have thought, actually, that there's been a much more recent constitutional referendum in New Zealand than the one Bernard mentioned. There was the one on changing the national flag to remove the Union Jack.

      Delete