SO there will be an EU referendum. The worst kept secret in British politics is finally out – the Queen’s Speech confirmed an in-out vote by 2017.
For English voters it’s the first since 1975 – for Scots, the second referendum in almost as many years. So are the two similar? Are they heck.
Of course, the indyref and EU referendum both tackle big constitutional questions about leaving or staying in a larger political union. But there the similarities end. Firstly, there’s the vexing question of who can vote. In 2014, all those over 16 and resident in Scotland were on the electoral register, irrespective of birthplace. So EU nationals living here helped decide if Scotland should become an independent country, while born and bred Scots living elsewhere did not.
That single, glorious fact was one reason the indyref did not become ethnically divisive despite the predictions. Indeed as the French-born MSP for the North East of Scotland, Christian Allard, has pointed out, the generosity of the Scottish franchise was one reason incomers like himself felt free to contribute to Scotland’s public life. EU nationals have been able to vote in the game-changing Scottish election of 2011, council elections in 2012, and European elections in 2013, and 90,000 registered to vote in the 2014 referendum.
The first time this group discovered they had been shut out of voting in Scotland was at the General Election. Poles, Romanians, French, Swedes, Spaniards, Italians, Germans and other Scots-based EU nationals could see their names on the electoral register but couldn’t vote. Why? Because the election was held on Westminster’s terms, not Scotland’s. The next lock-out will be the EU referendum – arguably even more relevant for UK-based European citizens.
The message is clear. Scotland takes an inclusive attitude towards citizenship putting the decision to bide above the accident of birth – powerful though upbringing always will be in terms of personal identity. The UK Government, however, thinks otherwise. Ironically – given David Cameron’s suggestion that independence campaigners were somehow anti-English – it is he who has shamefully introduced ethnicity as the basis to vote in a referendum on the future of Britain.
About 100,000 16 and 17-year-olds will also be outside the EU referendum – able to work, pay taxes, marry, and vote on Scottish independence but unable to decide whether Britain should resume splendid isolation or engage wholeheartedly at last with the European project.
Most Scots expect little better from David Cameron but though the Labour Party will argue for the inclusion of 16 and 17-year-olds it won’t challenge the exclusion of resident EU nationals – presumably too scared of antagonising Ukip voters to stand up for the broadest, most inclusive franchise that could be offered.
Of course Labour and the Tories say they are simply using the same register and therefore the same criteria as the Westminster elections. Nice. After an election that saw a party with 37 per cent of the vote win 100 per cent of the political power, the Westminster system is still viewed by London-based parties and commentators as the only viable template for any new test of public opinion.
However, their explanation isn’t quite accurate. UK-based Commonwealth citizens of Malta, Cyprus and Gibraltar have been added to the Westminster voting register along with the unelected peers of the House of Lords – an institution Scots voted overwhelmingly to abolish when they elected 56 SNP MPs. So David Cameron can bend the rules for the barons, lords and ladies – but not for tax-paying incomers who have opted to make Britain their home.
The SNP also stood on the platform of opposing an EU Brexit. Of course that clear mandate will not carry any legislative force because nations have only prescribed powers within the state of Britain. Foreign affairs are reserved to Westminster and last year Scots voted to keep things that way. However, David Cameron has acknowledged the massive endorsement of the SNP means he must offer more extensive powers to Holyrood.
In the spirit of that deal he must also accept that the prospect of five million Scots being brought out of the EU against their will looks as undemocratic here as five million Scots vetoing the desires of the rest of the UK may appear in London.
The other big difference between the Indyref and EU referendum is that no major political party looks set to back one of the two options. David Cameron is sounding tough for the benefit of Tory Europhobes and Ukip voters but he knows big business wants Britain to stay. So come the Euro vote, it’s almost certain he will declare the broken European project reformed by his own heroic efforts and will urge Brits to stay. So will all the rest. So the Out vote will be formally backed by one Ukip MP, Tory backbenchers and the Daily Mail.
By contrast most Scottish MSPs and 45 per cent of the electorate backed the Yes vote in the indyref. Beware false comparison between the two referendums, there are none yet.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here