Here’s the burning question – why aren’t England, Wales and Northern Ireland also getting that same say?
For months – years really – we’ve been hearing arguments from both camps on the benefits and pitfalls of an independent Scotland.
My family is a Border family which through generations has straddled the Tweed, which is why I am so aggrieved that I don’t get the opportunity to have a say on something that affects my heritage. I firmly believe that a ‘Yes’ vote would be the wrong move, but I’m powerless to do anything. As British citizens, I strongly believe we have a right to be part of the decisions which shape our future as well.
I concede this is a thorny issue. Perhaps there are many English, Welsh and Northern Irish voters who would gleefully mark the ‘yes’ box if given the chance, and frankly, that’s what democracy and the right to vote affords us. But that’s just the point – we do not have the opportunity.
This month‘s referendum gives people living in Scotland the chance to be part of a decision which will shape their future. But we’re not getting that same chance, nor are people who were born Scotland and now live in other parts of the UK. This is even more absurd when the Interim Constitution for Scotland states that people who are not now resident in Scotland, but were born there, can become Scottish citizens.
Furthermore, we’ll see the voting age for the referendum lowered to 16 to ensure as many Scottish residents as possible can have their say on seceding from the Union. The lowering of the age for the electoral franchise is a major constitutional issue that has not been discussed in the wider United Kingdom, where it has significant implications both now and in the future.
Everyone, not just Scottish residents, will be affected by the result of a ‘yes’ vote. People who think that things will just go on as usual are gravely mistaken. Citizens of Scotland will be foreigners to us; no more a part of our polity than any other foreign citizen.
When Czechoslovakia separated and became the Czech Republic and Slovakia in January 1993, thousands of different pieces of legislation which needed to be enacted to complete the transition. Should the ‘yes’ vote prevail, we will be subjected to years of wrangling while the rump of the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament work through the constitutional and other legal ramifications.
As a nation, there are real financial concerns about the situation which current and future generations of England, Wales and Northern Ireland could inherit. .
All three main parties in Westminster have ruled out Scotland’s use of the British pound if they secede from the Union – a currency Alex Salmond is insisting they will retain. There are huge financial implications for any change; fluctuating currency rates, higher prices for goods and services, and a rush on withdrawing currency and capital flight, as happened in Czechoslovakia.
This again begs the question why isn’t anyone south of the border being given the chance to make their views heard when it affects us all so deeply?
Under the interim Constitution for Scotland, the Queen would remain Head of State – continuing the Union of the Crowns of 1603. While the Queen will not intervene in the political debate over the referendum, the constitutional conundrums remain. Although it would gravely annoy a significant proportion of the Scottish residents, is there any reason why a newly elected United Kingdom Parliament in 2015 would need to be bound by a ‘yes’ vote? And what would Her Majesty’s Government advise her to do in such circumstances?
by Professor Scott Davidson
Deputy Vice Chancellor