“I am as you stated a settler and therefore I think you are saying you would prefer I didn’t have the opportunity to vote”

I am sorry if I did not make myself clear, but no, that is not my interpretation at all.

My interpretation of what rules Scotland should have (taking as a starting point those in other countries in Europe) is as follows:


Settlers (of whatever origin) are eligible to apply for Scottish citizenship and after achieving this vote in constitutional matters when they have lived in Scotland for acontinuous and defined period of time. As I mentioned above in my response to Duncanio, in my personal opinion, considering the small population that Scotland has, that period should not be less than 10 years, but that is my opinion. Others would be happy with just 5 years. In my view, the smaller the population a country has, the easier is for the constitutional decisions of this population to be diluted by people coming from elsewhere unless you restrict the amount of people that could come into the country per year, but restrictions in the access to the country from abroad is something I do not support.

Again, taking as base the conditions imposed by other countries in Europe, I am of the opinion that presenting documentation to prove having lived continuously in Scotland as the main address for the stipulated period of time and a ceremony of allegiance to Scotland should be part of the process to become a citizen. These are things most states in Europe, and I include here the UK union, already have as part of their process to grant citizenship.

If a person who has lived in Scotland for that stipulated period of time or more, but they do not feel they can swear allegiance to Scotland or the option of applying for Scottish citizenship is incompatible with them keeping the citizenship of the country where they originally come from, then it would be up to themselves to decide which citizenship to choose. But without Scottish citizenship I would not agree for them to have a vote in constitutional matters or even general elections.

For every person born elsewhere, not eligible for Scottish citizenship, but who entered legally the country, I would advocate for a residence card to give them full rights of access to all public services, full rights to request a NI number, full rights to find a job, buy property, opening bank accounts, vote in local elections and enter/exit the country to cite some examples. Again, I don’t think this is much different to the stipulations of other countries among which there is no freedom of movement.


Ideally, and the current FM has had 8 years to do this, I would create a registry of residents to which new information is added each year. From this registry, it would be easy to establish what people, not born in Scotland, would have lived in Scotland above the stipulated period of time that would give them rights to apply for citizenship if Scotland was independent.

In absence of such registry, for a quick referendum, the first thing I would advocate for is to set a threshold of length of residence in Scotland to be able to vote. This threshold must be reasonable, and in line with what other countries in Europe stipulate. I do not accept that a person who has just arrived to Scotland or has lived here for one or two years has automatically the right to vote in general elections and constitutional matters.

Again, if it was down to me I would establish that period to be 10 years. How do you go about this? By looking at the old electoral registries for local elections. People who was in the electoral registries OF SCOTLAND for the last 10 years before the deadline of registration for the referendum, should automatically be given the right to vote. If some of those who were not in the older registry (for example because they never registered to vote or because they were too young) they would have to demonstrate they were living in Scotland at the time. For children it would be easy – for example with records of School for example. For others, they could for example request confirmation from their GPs they were registered for over 10 years, confirmation from place of work, or confirmation from their city-councils. I appreciate this may be a bit more complex for those who have often changed address, but it could be helped with a record of where they paid their taxes.

You have been for over 40 years living in and voting in Scotland. In my view you should be granted automatic right to vote.

FOR USING A UK GENERAL ELECTION AS A PLEBISCITE ON INDEPENDENCE (Scotland is still part of the UK at this point) 

In this instance, and because Scotland has zero control over the franchise, the counting of the vote and the electoral rules like where the funding comes from, everybody elegible to vote under UK rules can and will do so, no matter where they were born or if they have lived in Scotland uninterruptedly all their lives, for 10 years or for 10 minutes. Under such circumstance, and as I said above, I do not consider fair to force on us the demands a proper referendum of a majority of the vote because those disadvantages cannot be balanced out by the benefits of holding a proper referendum. Examples of those benefits are controlling the franchise, controlling/approving new registrations to vote, setting rules to stop voting fraud and setting the rules of how/where the vote will be counted, to cite some. 

I hope this helps to clarify a little better how I would consider a fair system to work. This is my own vision of it and therefore it is meant to be just the starting point of a debate where not only my perspective, but that of all others reading this blog should be included too so we could all reach a common agreement and perhaps help design a better and more reliable system for Scotland.


The franchise is crucial. In 2014 Scots voted for Independence by 53% to 47%. people born elsewhere in the UK voted 72% against. We know from the inflow in the time since 2014 that the numbers coming from elsewhere in the UK to live in Scotland have soared in that time. This will be confirmed when the delayed, I wonder why, census is eventually published. No where else, anywhere in Europe, could this happen. Every other country has protections to ensure the native populations views are not diluted and submerged as happened in Scotland eight years ago. This is not ”blood and soil” nationalism this is common sense in line with other nations set for good reason. What Mia proposes is entirely reasonable.

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland.


Sadly some websites that claim to be pro Indy have turned out to be only Pro SNP sites and have sought to ban any websites that dare to question SNP Policy or tactics. They seek to avoid the public being aware that alternatives to waiting for Westminster to “grant” Scotland a Section 30 to hold a referendum exist. Issues like the flawed franchise, the Claim of Right route, the work of the SSRG and Salvo fill them with dread. As this blog promotes all routes, including alternatives I am banned from these sites and am therefore very grateful to my readers, who knowing about these efforts to ban and suppress go out of their way to subscribe and to share my articles far and wide. It is a good thing that attempts to restrict free speech and censor are defeated in this way.


Free subscriptions are available on this site from both the Home and Blog pages. This will ensure you will be notified every time a new article is posted. Each article already gets posted to many thousands of people, I hope you will come and join us. You will be most welcome.


Now that Salvo has been launched it needs everybody to join and get behind this important, vital even, development. I have never encouraged readers to donate to Yours for Scotland indeed I operate a limit that even when people are overcome and demand the ability to donate I operate a strict limit of £3 per donation. I said that any excess to the costs of running this site would go to worthy Yes events. I have made some donations in the past but yesterday I gave a three figure sum to Salvo. I want to do more so while I am keeping, at this stage, the maximum donation to £3 I am now encouraging readers of Yours for Scotland to donate regularly with the assurance that every penny raised, over the running costs of this site, will be donated to Salvo. Salvo is a people’s movement and it needs us, the people of Scotland, to give them the funds they need. Thank you.


  1. I am English, married to a Scot, and have lived here for over twenty years. At the last indyref I felt I uncomfortable about voting, as this was not my country of birth. I spoke to a couple of Scots friends, who said ‘you live and pay taxes here, you should be able to vote. So I did. But this time round, and with more knowledge under my belt, I agree with the above. Even though I love Scotland and want independence I would be happy not to be allowed to vote, even after twenty odd years. This is for Scots to decide on the future of their own country, not anyone else.

    Liked by 9 people

      1. I have lived in Scotland for over 40 years. As an English settler I would also happily not vote if it meant Scotland had a better chance of becoming Independent. A national voting franchise solves that issue of eligibility and Mia’s thorough analysis is a great framework to work on and evolve.

        Some thoughts:-
        Whilst 72% settlers borne elseware in the UK voted No in 2014 a lot of those doubters may have been persuaded by the UK Governments power grabs ,Brexit and acts of bad faith to vote YES.

        In the last 8 years a large number of ineligible children will be able to vote.

        A lot of older people who were also more likely to vote NO will be dead.

        I would be interested in statistical research which predicts the dynamics of these changes. Based on those comments alone it must work towards an increased YES vote. Now what are the -ve ones?

        I also often wonder if constitutional issues of such magnitude should be determined by weighting bias by age towards younger voters. It is their future that will be so dramatically changed? Therefore is it sensible for a 90 year olds to have a vote with the same influence?. Or, someone who has Alzheimer’s and cannot remember why the are voting, by the time they are at the polling booth. I know that is contraversial and definitely ageist and will annoy someone so sorry for that in advance.

        Thanks Ian for a great discussion.


    1. Have to say, as someone in a similar position to you, and who campaigned for indy last time around, I’d be happy to stand aside if the vote was only for Scots.

      Liked by 5 people

    2. @FizzingAda, you are someone that should be allowed a vote in Scotland even if you had chosen to vote NO last time, I agree with the 10yrs or more being allowed a vote..

      I agree with MIA on her full post, no other country allows holiday home dwellers or settlers in their country who have not taken out Citizenship, to vote on big ticket elections, it Hurt all the more that Indigenous Scots DID vote to leave the Union in 2014, but we were out voted by people from other countries. Many that didn’t LIVE here, but registered to vote here.

      That would NEVER be allowed in Any other country, just as the Europeans & 16 & 17yrs olds were NOT allowed to vote in the BREXIT referendum. England had completely different rules for it’s BREXIT. But Scotland has to have a WIDER base where everyone and their families from Other countries can OUT vote those of us born here who have lived here all of our lives..As a patriotic Scot I welcome you here. And I hope you DO vote next time. You have lived here longer that the voting age..

      @MIA…Great Post MIA, it is not being racist to want what was good enough for ENGLANDs BREXIT referendum for Scotlands. There were & still are Europeans who have lived in all parts of the U.K. for decades, who just never thought about needing citizenship, yet they were NOT allowed to vote in the BREXIT Ref.. But it was ok for them to vote in the Scottish ref, then the better together & MEDIA threatened them with the (they will have to leave the country as Scotland will be OUT of the EU) I don’t blame them for voting no, they had jobs and lives here, they were scared.

      Then England did what Scotland didn’t, & refused the Europeans a vote in BREXIT. That was never called being racist, or being nasty Nationalism. When infact it most definitely was, it was right wing English Nationalism at it’s worse, which has even proved..

      I do not want a referendum, as I do not believe that we can ever win a referendum run along the same franchise as 2014. I think to go that route will just see Scotland lose again, and I doubt the chance will ever come around again..As WM with have changed the boundaries, changed the rules, and set a high % threshold that Scotland HAS to meet. It has to be the MPS that leave that Parliament and end the treaty via our claim of right.

      But it should be MPs from ALL Indy parties no just from ONE..And I also think the time has come for Scotland to do to the SNP what we did to Labour, changed our allegiance, and back one of the other INDY Parties who WILL promise to NOT to take up WM seats and to use the Claim of Right, after 6 mandates & almost 8yrs of majority MPs and MSPS & so many changes in circumstance that has been BAD for Scotland, that Sturgeon and HER Party are not ever going to do what is actually required to free us from WM rule.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Had the SNP insisted on a proper ‘National’ franchise for the referendum in 2014 in line with UN requirements, as occurred in New Caledonia and other Self-Determination processes elsewhere which employed ‘secondary criteria’ (e.g. minimum period of residence for non-nationals), Scotland would be independent today.

    Did the SNP elite not appreciate then (or now, even) that Holyrood had been given a local government franchise by the Scotland Act for Holyrood elections and that they used that same local franchise instead of a national franchise for a national referendum? A local government franchise by implication is clearly not a national franchise and should never be used for national referendums or national elections. This quite dramatic failure on the part of the SNP Scottish Government was also identified in my book ‘Doun-Hauden’. It cost us independence and the current SNP plan is to make the very same mistake again in another dubious referendum.

    Liked by 15 people

    1. Why do you think Thee consummate politician , Alex Salmond, made such an error ? I cannot recall any fuss re franchise from anyone in 2012 but I
      wasnt a member of any political party then. Furthermore Alba, (the favoured party supported on this blog ) don’t appear committed to changing the franchise either : perhaps bc it would be admitting AS got it wrong and of course he also ‘annointed’ NS who has been an unmitigated disaster in Mia’s opinion. So where now ?

      Liked by 4 people

      1. I’m afraid the political classes then and now appear to buy into the rather questionable notion that ‘everybody’ living in Scotland is a Scot, which is taking the ‘we’re aw Jock Tamson’s bairns’ meme to extremes. The reality is that you can’t force people from other countries who come here to live, to be Scottish. Perhaps half of No voters do not hold to a Scottish identity and by voting No that group clearly don’t want to have Scottish citizenship or Scottish nationality. i.e. they don’t want to be Scottish. So the question may be, why invite people from other countries and holding to other national identities to cast a vote in order to deny Scots their own national citizenship and right to self-determination, which we may add also jeopardises Scottish national sovereignty? This is as silly as say the Danes inviting Germans who happen to have an address in Denmark to vote on whether Denmark should be a sovereign nation. Which is why Germans don’t get a national vote in Denmark and vice versa.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. I largely agree with Mia, the article a bit lengthy for me to ponder every point – I’m a busy retiree!

    However – I like that word, each time I hear it said I think oh naw, here we go again.

    And so – however we comment on here, express our concerns we are currently in no position to influence the terms of a referendum nor of a plebicite election. That power lies with FM Sturgeon and she needs to be challenged. SNP branches are now disabled and unable to challenge her.Other than Joanna Cherry, who are the braw SNP MPs and MSPs fighters to hold Sturgeon to account?

    Joanna Cherry – particular knowledge of law, sidelined.

    Dr Philippa Whitford – career physician, sent off on some emissary role to Europe. Her husband speaks German so that should help. i’m surprised, dsappointed, that she accepted the “assignment”.

    So we need to find a movement outwith the SNP to challenge the terms of FM Sturgeon’s plan. A group not termed “tainted” by unionists – Gerry Hassan, a National columnist in response to calls for unity of purpose to progress independence described the Alba party of 10,000 members, and Alex Salmond as toxic.To repeat, a National columnist! Has the National dropped him?

    So perhaps Salvo can be that movement. Clear analytical skills in abundance it appears.

    I sorely believe that if Sturgeon is unchallenged, we fail – However you look at it.

    Liked by 12 people

  4. Big thank you to FizzingIda and lilou57 for your ethical position. It gladdens my heart.

    I never had an issue with our new scot Europeans voting in IndyRef14, and while I felt disquiet about our English residents voting, I did not examine the details of the Franchise in any way. But I have now.

    Big difference between the 2 groups, is it is not the Poles, or Rumanians imposing their government upon Scotland, (against Scotland’s voting wishes) and it is not their governments’ stripping Scotland of her natural assets hand over fist, at a rate of knots.

    It is not the eastern Europeans pricing the locals out of the housing market, or dominating the well paid jobs in our Universities by 90% compaired to indigenous Scots.

    So when an English resident, tells me they support Scot Indy, and makes the case that they should not be automatically allowed to vote on the issue…. then I know they are the real deal.

    Sadly, most of the new English residents in Scotland that I’ve met… or as I like to call them Economic Migrants. Have come here, for a house twice as big as the one they left behind and money left over to burn, for a lovely view, for an easy retirement, for an NHS that still functions, after years of voting to destroy their own, and with a depth of ignorance about Scotland’s culture, Scottish and UK politics, and Scotland’s democratic deficit and natural wealth, that they appear inordinately proud of.

    But with a rock solid desire to keep the Scots in their place, 2nd place, and that place firmly within an English dominated Britain.

    They love it up here they say, wanted a different way of life, as they immediately join and dominate the community councils and start to anglosise everything.

    And then they brag about Brexit and boast about ‘taking back control’, and as an aside, bitch and moan about the place where they come from being ‘overrun’ by people with dark skins, who ‘didn’t understand ‘British ways’.

    We look with admiration at those in the Ukraine, fighting for their home and country, prepared to lose everything… But here’s the thing, when it’s your country, that is what you do. When we vote for our independence, for our Claim of Right and our sovereignty, it is with the knowledge in our head and our hearts, that if, or when, push comes to shove that is what may be required.

    Not just the sons and daughters serving in the army, but as with Catalonia, the grannies and the grandfathers.

    Those from another country, come for an easy life, with nothing but a shallow attachment and a huge sense of entitlement… that they should get to influence my countries destiny! When it is at such an obvious cost to England’s self interest…

    I ask – when the going gets tough, will they be by our sides, shoulder to shoulder, fighting for our survival. Or will sunnier climes, and lower taxes, in other countries have called them away.

    Overwhelmingly though, is the fact, it is Scots having to justify and explain, and extrapolate, and argue for, the voting franchise, not the newbys armed only with their ignorace and sense of entitlement.

    So, that stops now. From now on, it’s for the English to justify their sense of entitlement and explain away the conflict of England’s interest if Scotland succeeds.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. Excellent points, Daisy, concerning those who come here for an easy life. Unfortunately I also know a few, mainly working in, or retired from, the cultural sector and who have lived here for 30 0r 40 years who still despise Scotland’s culture and languages (never having bothered to learn about eirther) and who would never vote for Scottish Independence.
      I do have one reservation on Mia’s comments about the right to buy property. I think this should be reserved, at least initially, to those who accept Scottish citizenship, once we are able to offer that. My reason is the inbalalance of wealth, largely caused by inflated property prices in England, which makes it possible for incomers to easily outbid locals in desirable areas, particularly young families and younger people in general who are thus forced to move away either to cities or evne south across the border. This is diluting Scottish culture and languages in many of the areas where once they were managing to hold their own.
      I say ‘initially’ as circumstances and the balance of wealth could change as Scotland prospers after Indepndence.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. “inflated property prices in England, which makes it possible for incomers to easily outbid locals in desirable areas”

        Yours is a very valid point, arayner1936. One possible way of tackling this would be by putting caps on the house prices per area. This would also alleviate the driving up of prices by investors who buy houses and then sell the soon after at a higher price.

        Another way would be to implement some form of restriction system. Holland’s Lower House of parliament passed in 2021 a legislative amendment giving municipalities power to ban foreigners from purchasing buy-to-let properties. This was to alleviate the increase in property prices leaving locals out of the market.

        In Denmark ,for example, restrictions apply to foreign nationals who have not lived in Denmark for at least 5 years. In the case of Austria there are restrictions regarding the type of property and the location where they can buy.

        Switzerland has a different, more practical and targeted restriction system. For what I have read, the restrictions vary depending on the needs of the area. In some areas of Switzerland, foreign people can buy houses but only above certain price threshold – this would be useful to avoid driving out of the market local families seeking their first home. . In other cases, the cap is not on the property price as such, but rather on the proportion of properties in that area that can be owned at a given time by foreign investors. In other areas, there are no limitations (usually touristic areas), while in others the housing market is permanently closed to foreigners.

        In other countries, before a foreign person can buy property, they have to seek consent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The main thing this will do, as far as I can see, is to slow down the process, but could give a more flexible option to evaluate the situation in the area at the time.

        All these restrictions are lifted if the foreign person interested in purchasing property becomes a citizen of the country.

        There are certainly examples out there that Scotland can take as a stepping stone to develop its own bespoke one. The UK is not the only model available. For example Holland’s restrictions may not be suitable for certain areas of Scotland where the shortages of houses come not from buying-to-let, but rather from foreign people having much more money available than the locals and therefore driving the house bids up. Considerations must be made to the preservation of the local culture and language, and this is where a review panel could come in handy.

        It is interesting that quite a few countries protect their land too, and I think this should be done for Scotland as well. For what I have read, it seems that in Bulgaria, for example, people must have been living in the country for 5 years before they are able to purchase land, including agricultural land. In Croatia, foreign people cannot purchase any agricultural or forest land. They cannot purchase protected properties or cultural monuments either. Again, the restrictions go away once the foreign person interested in buying property becomes a citizen of the country where the property is.

        I think something like this would be good for Scotland, to protect its land, its coastline, areas of ecologic and scientific interest, its cultural heritage.

        Scotland has a landscape of outstanding beauty and ecological value, and lots of history. Unfortunately it does not look like much is protected, everything appears to be for sale and to be destroyed, rather than protected. I include here the land sold to Trump for his golf course. Yesterday I read an old article published in 2020 that said

        “NatureScot has confirmed that the dunes around the golf course at the Menie Estate are no longer part of the Foveran Links Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The decision follows the discovery in 2016 that the construction of the course had “partially destroyed” the site’s natural features”

        “There is now no longer a reason to protect the dunes at Menie as they do not include enough of the special, natural features for which they were designated.”

        I think this was sinful and another of Sturgeon’s blunders and massive failures to protect Scotland’s heritage. In my opinion, the right approach here would have been to force the increase of the protection of the area to allow its natural restauration and to foist on the destroyers of the dune (and those who allowed it to happen, being that in the council or government) massive fines that would help restore the damage and send the message that vandalising Scotland’s precious landscape is completely unacceptable. By lifting the status of site of special scientific interest, what they have done is at all practical effects to remove the main excuse to not sell that area as well. Once sold, then more damage will be inflicted on the surroundings and the cycle will start again. This is also pointed out in the article:

        “In September 2020, the Council granted a further application from TIGLS to build a second 18-hole golf course, even though Scottish Natural Heritage had pointed out that it might result in further damage to the dunes. The decision to end the protected status of the dunes means that the TIGLS is under no legal obligation to take special care not to destroy them during future work”

        It appears that the excuse the government gave at the time was the usual Sturgeon’s government signature move: to dump accountability on the council rather than taking the responsibility as the Scottish government to intervene to halt the destruction of an area of significant scientific and ecologic value.

        The article was published in the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment website as a commentary written by Bob Ward in December 2020. Bob Ward is a Fellow of the Geological Society and policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

        In my personal opinion, the sale and development of areas with huge scientific/ecologic/historic significance and value such as those dunes, Culloden or Bannockburn should have never even been contemplated, as it should never be contemplated the allowing of that area to lose its special scientific interest status. But for that you need a real Scottish government moved by the interests of Scotland, not a colonial administration who acts at all times for the profit and interest of foreign powers.

        Liked by 4 people

  5. On a separate note that’s the Britain Unchained group now thoroughly in charge of the Anglo Centric madhouse Tory government. There’s either a putsch afoot with the recent resignations or a capitulation.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Reply to Mia. thanks for the response. Terrible story of the continuing destruction at the Menie estate, for which, I agree, the Scottish government should have enforced the reoaration.
      The desrtruction of our significamt land features and historic hertitage sites continues to be a worry,
      When can we get through to the SG that this is not what we want done in our name?

      Liked by 2 people

  6. Well, them doon sooth are always telling us Scots about once in a generation voting So how about as of right now unless your family has been here for at least a generation you don’t get to vote on anything.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Another great piece from Mia. I will preface my comments with the fact I have a self interest in this matter.

    I noted she consistently placed the voter franchise as those who have lived here for a specified period.

    No mention of those who may have been born here, so can prove their Nationality as Scots, that moved away either as children or for work say but have returned to their homeland. This is where I fit in, as someone who was born in Edinburgh but as a child was brought up in England.

    My family and I moved to Scotland, something we had discussed over many years but for one reason or another the timing wasn’t right, in 2019. My wife is Anglo-Indian and her family have first hand experience of colonial rule having escaped during the partioning. My son was born in England but is proud of his Indian-Scottish heritage.

    Under Mia’s process we wouldn’t qualify, unless the caveat of those born in Scotland and able to prove it could be registered to vote in a referendum.

    No doubt there will be some who will be No and some, like myself, will be Yes. However, should their views be disregarded simply because they had not lived here for the requisite period.

    Whilst this may seem to lean towards a blood & soil viewpoint, it cannot be discounted as our view must count for something. Such a caveat would silence the pro Union supporters as there will No voters in amongst that cohort. We are afterall still Scots.

    It would be appropriate though, in my opinion, to draw a line in the sand at simply having a parent who was born in Scotland. This would be too wide a gate and certainly not in keeping with other examples of cohorts drawn by Mia.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. Like most other states, an Independent Scotland would have to decide on the countries it would allow Dual Citizenship with – all EU member states? only some? other countries?
        That would help solve some of the voting issues


    1. Hi Les,

      Yes, you are right. I have not explored the franchise in deep detail because my simplistic view was only meant to be a starting point for a bigger debate. I think your contribution is great, because it gives us all an opportunity to think and research about all possibilities. There are, as you say, individual situations like your family’s that needs more careful thought.

      I think the very first thing that will need to be established is what Scottish citizenship is. That is the crucial point. Citizenship is what should give you the right to vote in constitutional matters and should be defined in Scotland’s constitution. To me, this rule should be applicable to determine who can vote in a referendum or not independently if Scotland is already an independent country.

      The rules of automatic citizenship are different for different countries. In some countries, like USA, Chile, Argentina, Canada, Mexico or Venezuela, to cite some, the birthplace is direct determinant of citizenship. if you are born in the country you are given automatically the citizenship. In Spain, for example, you do not get automatic citizenship if you are born in Spain. However, if a baby is born in Spain from non Spanish parents, the baby can acquire Spanish citizenship if they live in Spain for a year. Other countries have different rules for this scenario.

      However, in most countries in Europe, automatic citizenship is for ancestry, meaning that to get automatic citizenship at least one of your parents have to be citizens, even if you are born elsewhere. The UK also follows this rule. If this was the option selected for Scotland, not just you, but also your children would automatically get their Scottish citizenship and right to vote at moment of birth through you.

      In some countries, like Spain or France, if you are a Spanish/French citizen, even if you are not living in Spain/France at the time, you are entitled to vote in general elections and referendums (by post). However, the rule used by the UK, is that people who has lived for over 15 years abroad loses their right to vote. But they of course would recover it as soon as they return to live in the UK. In other countries, I think Denmark is an example, besides being a Danish citizen you have to be living in the country at the time to be able to vote with a few exceptions. I must admit I favour the rules of Denmark regarding residence plus citizenship as both being requisites to be able to vote. However, considering the high level of emigration from Scotland over the years, I think it should be a matter of wider discussion, what happens with those Scottish citizens by birth/ancestry who had to leave Scotland temporarily for work reasons.

      With regards to your wife, the countries I have looked at would allow the person to apply for citizenship after being married to a citizen and residing in the country for a certain length of time that is shorter than naturalisation for residence. To give you examples, in France is four years. In the UK and Germany is three years. In Italy is 2 years and in Spain is one year. For USA the process of acquiring citizenship for a spouse is lengthy and complex but it requires 3 years of residence in USA after the marriage before the application for citizenship can be submitted. Your wife would get the vote depending of the rules adopted by Scotland regarding the length of residence in Scotland required after the marriage prior to application for citizenship.

      All countries I have seen have also the possibility of naturalisation by residence. These people are given full rights to vote. Here is where the length of time to be elegible needs to be established and that for me should be not less than 10 years.

      Regarding children of people naturalised, in the countries I have looked at, if they are under 18 the application for naturalisation can be made as the same time as the parents . this is the case in the Uk as well. If they are older than 18 and the parents are just applying for citizenship, then the children would have to submit their application separately. Personally I don’t think this would apply to your children, because they would acquire citizenship through your own by ancestry.

      All the above would be of course applicable for a referendum after Scotland becomes independent. Once Scotland takes full control of its affairs it can establish consulates and embassies around the world and people who lives abroad and were born in Scotland/are of Scottish ancestry from their parents/married to a Scottish citizen, would be able to apply for Scottish citizenship.

      But for as long as Scotland is not independent, it cannot use consulates/embassies for example to study applications and grant citizenship to people living outwith Scotland. In this case, therefore, the requisite of residence besides citizenship becomes important for practical reasons. You live in Scotland and have Scottish ancestry, so you should have automatic right to vote under the franchises of most countries. From the franchises I have seen, if your wife has lived in Scotland after being married to you for a certain length of time (which varies with each country and which would have to be determined for Scotland), then she would also get the right to vote. The length of residence in that case is the crucial point. Because of your own ancestry, under the franchises of most countries in Europe your children would be able to apply for citizenship and the right to vote too,

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Hi Mia

        Thanks for that detailed reply.

        I agree we need to establish the rules around citizenship, ancestral citizenship and offspring born outwith Scotland v the right to vote.

        Its interesting to see the various thinking from around the world and hopefully, once we gain our independence, we can establish a clear, fair and humane process for gaining citizenship within Scotland.

        Keep up the good work. Once again thank you for your superb analysis.

        Liked by 5 people

      2. I agree Les, so good I am going to publish later this week. Thank you also for your constructive participation in what is an important debate.


  8. What strikes me, seeing the audiences on videoed meetings is the absence of Young People. They are the ones that need to be engaged. Being not far off 80, I can’t begin to say how that should be done, so those that know must lead.
    The Salvo launch has shown a lot of promise, but the cognoscienti must focus on building a campaign. The Claim of Right is central and deservedly so, but where is the switch that takes it to viral?

    Liked by 3 people

  9. Unfortunately it is done and dusted. I agree fully with Mia but it will not be changed now. Sturgeon would always concede ground to the Union wishes.
    In my view Sturgeon has planned this outcome. She was cornered but wanted to keep her SNP business Unit healthy and this farce is the solution.
    A lot of noise leading to a defeat. She did everything she could! She actioned her mandate! She explored every route!

    The sheeple will keep voting SNP. The Short Money will continue to flow. The TransCult jobs will grow.

    Sadly anyone over 40 is very unlikely to ever see another Referendum never mind Independence……..unless it is taken out of Sturgeon’s iron grip. If you really want Independence we need a YES body.

    Liked by 4 people

  10. Most of us acknowledge the Trojan-horse aspect of the local authority franchise element in any independence referendum, and we also know that a majority of ethnic Scots voted for independence in 2014. “We wiz robbed!”, disnay even begin tae cover it. With that knowledge in our possession, it seems fair to ask: why are we re-engaging in a democratically flawed exercise that most of us know to be utterly weighted against us and which no amount of campaigning is likely to overcome? It’s surely high time that we completely ignored the snake oil merchants and their hackneyed patter, and actively put our energies 100% behind Salvo, the Alba party and the Claim of Right.

    Liked by 4 people

  11. You will find Willie Adamson’s grave in Dunfermline Cemetery. Unheralded and largely forgotten, Adamson was a tough Fife miner. He led the Labour Party into the 1918 general election as an independent force, resisting blandishments from Lloyd George to fight under the wartime coalition “coupon”.
    His judgment proved to be correct. Labour gained more than two million votes and won 57 seats, establishing them as the largest opposition party in the House of Commons. It was this great move forward which paved the way for Labour to enter government for the first time in the 1920s under Ramsay MacDonald. That, of course, was not an altogether happy experience.

    Full article by Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh

    Liked by 4 people

  12. Sturgeon knows the franchise is rigged and deliberately protects this at all cost, her attack monkeys accuse you of racism if you bring up the colonial settlers getting a vote and effectively a veto on our democracy. Sturgeon has now put a 50% ceiling on a yes vote on a pebiste knowing that no government has ever achieved this .Everyone knows this must be based on seats.
    Sturgeon must go, at every turn she stabs the independence movement in the back.The SNP under her stewardship has become a Quisling colonial administration. We need politicians who will fight for our sovereignty not ones which side with the colonial overlords. Dissolve the Union.ASAP.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: