Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 



       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Reluctant Hero

16 and 17 year olds to vote in referendum

I am torn on this.  I am as much in favour of Scottish independence as the next person but by changing the law to let 16 and 17 year olds vote in the referendum is giving off the wrong signals.  It is suggesting, despite the reality, that the SNP are getting desperate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8264446.stm
Holebender

SNP policy is to extend the franchise to anyone 16 and over. This just appears to be following through on that policy.

Practically, I can see big problems in having a separate register for those entitled to vote in the referendum as opposed to other nationwide votes so, from that perspective, I think it's a daft idea.
Red Justice

I would support any policy initiative that gives young people a say in our and their future. The added bonus is that young people do not fear change and so their participation in the voting process for the referendum should be welcomed.
Hazel

Holebender wrote:
SNP policy is to extend the franchise to anyone 16 and over. This just appears to be following through on that policy.

Practically, I can see big problems in having a separate register for those entitled to vote in the referendum as opposed to other nationwide votes so, from that perspective, I think it's a daft idea.


This is only a foreigner's thought and so doesn't count but please allow me my say.  

First, if it will allow them to vote only on Independence for Scotland, I agree. Someone is getting desparate for support.  If it is to allow the franchise to 16-year-olds on all topics, I agree again that there are big problems.  e.g., Will you want them to vote on lowering the drinking age?
Shagpile

If you are eligible to pay tax and receive state benefits at 16....... why not?

And as said above, it has been SNP polocy for some time now. It would be dodgy if on the other side of independence they reverted to 18.
Shagpile

Hazel wrote:
Holebender wrote:
SNP policy is to extend the franchise to anyone 16 and over. This just appears to be following through on that policy.

Practically, I can see big problems in having a separate register for those entitled to vote in the referendum as opposed to other nationwide votes so, from that perspective, I think it's a daft idea.


This is only a foreigner's though and so doesn't count but please allow me my say.  

First, if it will allow them to vote only on Independence for Scotland, I agree. Someone is getting desparate for support.  If it is to allow the franchise to 16-year-olds on all topics, I agree again that there are big problems.  e.g., Will you want them to vote on lowering the drinking age?


I dissagree, your opinion IS valid.
Shagpile

Hazel wrote:
Holebender wrote:
SNP policy is to extend the franchise to anyone 16 and over. This just appears to be following through on that policy.

Practically, I can see big problems in having a separate register for those entitled to vote in the referendum as opposed to other nationwide votes so, from that perspective, I think it's a daft idea.


This is only a foreigner's though and so doesn't count but please allow me my say.  

First, if it will allow them to vote only on Independence for Scotland, I agree. Someone is getting desparate for support.  If it is to allow the franchise to 16-year-olds on all topics, I agree again that there are big problems.  e.g., Will you want them to vote on lowering the drinking age?


Should pensioners be excluded from voting on pension increases then? There are also 16-18 year olds whom will vote against surely.
The Lithgae Jambo

Shagpile wrote:
If you are eligible to pay tax and receive state benefits at 16....... why not?



..not forgetting showing a willingness to die for your country by joining the armed forces.
Hazel

The Lithgae Jambo wrote:
Shagpile wrote:
If you are eligible to pay tax and receive state benefits at 16....... why not?



..not forgetting showing a willingness to die for your country by joining the armed forces.


Now you have me wondering.  I do  not know what it is in Scotland but children of all ages here receive state benefits when needed and pay taxes on their own earned income.  That last surprised me also when I learned it but it is apparently true.  Either they or their guardians must pay that tax.

As for serving in the armed forces -- at age 16?  Again, not here but it might be different over yonder.   I surely hope not.

As long as I am talking too much, I'll say this.  I do not know any 16-year-old that I would want to allow to decide whether or not he was free to drink alcohol.
Cruachan

A terrible, cynical manouevre? an inspired piece of politics? or a genuine excercise in spreading the democratic mandate and engaging younger adults in the great political questions of our time? Probably all three.

I like the line that if 16 and 17 year olds can vote for their NHS Board, why not a national referendum. There is a certain unanswerable logic to that.

To have any practical impact the Scottish Government will have to get moving to get them on the voting roll by next Summer.

It is usually accepted that younger people, whilst less likely to vote would be more likely to vote Yes in a Referendum. By my reckoning a young Scot who is 16 next year will have lived 18.75% of his/her life with an SNP Government.
Shagpile

Hazel wrote:
The Lithgae Jambo wrote:
Shagpile wrote:
If you are eligible to pay tax and receive state benefits at 16....... why not?



..not forgetting showing a willingness to die for your country by joining the armed forces.


Now you have me wondering.  I do  not know what it is in Scotland but children of all ages here receive state benefits when needed and pay taxes on their own earned income.  That last surprised me also when I learned it but it is apparently true.  Either they or their guardians must pay that tax.

As for serving in the armed forces -- at age 16?  Again, not here but it might be different over yonder.   I surely hope not.

As long as I am talking too much, I'll say this.  I do not know any 16-year-old that I would want to allow to decide whether or not he was free to drink alcohol.


Kids already drink alcohal...... irresponsibly perhaps like some 20yr olds.

16 yr olds regularly have a beer or two with their parents in their local in Germany, NL, Belgium and I think France.

Britain has been criticized by international organisations for using 'Child Soldiers' in action as fairly recently in Iraq. A convention (you've guessed it) Britain is a signatory to.
Hazel

I do not remember now whether it was in America or in UK but there was a news item recently about the arrest of parents who let their teen-aged children drink at home.  They thought they were being sensible in supervising and teaching responsible drinking.  I thought so also but, if we generalize, that can backfire.

Sometimes it is hard to know where or what ....  Unless they are going to be teetotalers, they have to learn somewhere.  I only think they shouldn't be thrown on their own to make such decisions.
Dave Coull

Holebender wrote:
SNP policy is to extend the franchise to anyone 16 and over. This just appears to be following through on that policy. Practically, I can see big problems in having a separate register for those entitled to vote in the referendum as opposed to other nationwide votes so, from that perspective, I think it's a daft idea.
So, it's a case of carrying out a long-held policy, but there could be difficulties with the WAY this long-held policy is being carried out. I wouldn't want anything to mess up us old folks' chance of being able to vote in a referendum, so, from that point of view, this could be regarded as an un-necessary complication.
Hazel wrote:
Someone is getting desparate for support.
No doubt that is how the unionist media will portray this, but I don't think so.
Shagpile wrote:
There are also 16-18 year olds whom will vote against surely.
Of course there are. There is no certainty about what percentage of young people will vote one way or the other. I can think of at least one I know well who would probably vote against independence. Personally, I welcome a referendum on independence, regardless of whether the franchise is extended to 16 and 17 year olds or not. However, I can see no good reason why they should NOT be able to vote  -  apart from the practical difficulty raised by Holebender.
Hazel wrote:
serving in the armed forces -- at age 16?
I was an ADULT member of the armed forces for 4 years before I became eligible to vote. (Voting age was 21 in those days.) I joined as an "adult" aged 17, but of course there were plenty of "apprentices" and "boy entrants" in the RAF who were younger than me. From the official Royal Air Force website:
Quote:
For all trades in the RAF, you can apply to join from when you are 15 years and 9 months old.
Cymro

Hazel wrote:

First, if it will allow them to vote only on Independence for Scotland, I agree. Someone is getting desparate for support.  If it is to allow the franchise to 16-year-olds on all topics, I agree again that there are big problems.  e.g., Will you want them to vote on lowering the drinking age?


In a word, yes. People are happy enough to slag off young people yet are happy at the same time to keep them at arms length from taking part in society and its workings. On things like the drinking age and even stuff like the age of consent, of course they should have a say and a right to vote on it if they are 16 and 17.

If we're going to argue they shouldn't have a say on things that effect them directly then maybe it should be the Welsh that have a referendum on independence for Scotland and not the Scots?
The Lithgae Jambo

Cymro wrote:
Hazel wrote:

First, if it will allow them to vote only on Independence for Scotland, I agree. Someone is getting desparate for support.  If it is to allow the franchise to 16-year-olds on all topics, I agree again that there are big problems.  e.g., Will you want them to vote on lowering the drinking age?


In a word, yes. People are happy enough to slag off young people yet are happy at the same time to keep them at arms length from taking part in society and its workings. On things like the drinking age and even stuff like the age of consent, of course they should have a say and a right to vote on it if they are 16 and 17.



I suspect that their views might not always coincide with what we think they are.  Young people, thought rebellious, can be quite conservative too.
Alasdair

I like the "no taxation without representation" style arguement.  Anyway, let's face it 16 & 17 year olds have more at stake given that they will have to live with the outcome for longer.
Dave Coull

The Lithgae Jambo wrote:
Young people, thought rebellious, can be quite conservative too.
Don't forget the possibility of being  BOTH  rebellious and conservative. When my son turned 18, and was able to vote for the first time, he voted Conservative. He now admits he was just rebelling against his left-wing parents...........
Cymro

The Lithgae Jambo wrote:
Cymro wrote:
Hazel wrote:

First, if it will allow them to vote only on Independence for Scotland, I agree. Someone is getting desparate for support.  If it is to allow the franchise to 16-year-olds on all topics, I agree again that there are big problems.  e.g., Will you want them to vote on lowering the drinking age?


In a word, yes. People are happy enough to slag off young people yet are happy at the same time to keep them at arms length from taking part in society and its workings. On things like the drinking age and even stuff like the age of consent, of course they should have a say and a right to vote on it if they are 16 and 17.



I suspect that their views might not always coincide with what we think they are.  Young people, thought rebellious, can be quite conservative too.


I agree, like people who are 23, 35, 42, 56, or 75 years old 16-17 year olds are different to eachother too and will have their own opinions on stuff. Shock horror
Hazel

I agree that 16-year-olds can have some very good ideas.  But,  am still waiting to see what kind of franchise this will be.  I am not sure you can tell them they can vote on certain things and not on others.  

Also, once they are enfranchised, they will definitely feel they are adults with all adult rights.  But then, wasn't there a time when 12-year-olds were considered adults?  Maybe it was 13 but quite young by today's ideas.

My mind is working overtime on the possibilities here.
landg

utterly stupid and before you ask they shouldnae be getting married, going to war or having weans at that age either.
Aventinian

Shagpile wrote:
If you are eligible to pay tax and receive state benefits at 16....... why not?


You are eligible to pay tax at any age.

I really see no need whatsoever for lowering the voting age. Of course the current cut-off is largely arbitrary, but it has become a socially ingrained level at which young people are expected to become at least partially independent of their parents - as well as the approximate end of secondary education. I'd probably prefer to bump it back up to 21 than lower it: from my own experience, I matured most rapidly between about 17 and 20.

I really don't believe that even a substantial minority of 16 year olds are mature enough to make decisions of this nature.
Hazel

There is another darker side to consider.  I am only speaking about America now.  I do not know what the law is in Scotland.  Here, once they reach voting age, they are no longer considered juveniles.  So, if (heaven forbid), they should get into trouble with the law, they are no longer under the legal protections of a juvenile.  They are adults who are tried and sentenced as adults.  Do you want that for an immature 16-year-old?
Alasdair

Hazel, I think the overwhelming answer must be ... Yes!

I would expect 16 years olds, if not younger, to have an awareness and apprciation of what is considered 'right' and 'wrong', given the crimes they are likely to be involved in I can't think why the law shouldn't be fully applied.
Hazel

Alasdair, this is the reaction we all have at some of their crimes.  I am not meaning to say they shouldn't be treated as adults.  I am only saying that they, and those who want to legalize their voting rights, should be aware that they are adding this to the quotient.  I am asking if they want to do that.  If the answer is 'yes', so be it but be sure they know.
Aventinian

Hazel wrote:
There is another darker side to consider.  I am only speaking about America now.  I do not know what the law is in Scotland.  Here, once they reach voting age, they are no longer considered juveniles.  So, if (heaven forbid), they should get into trouble with the law, they are no longer under the legal protections of a juvenile.  They are adults who are tried and sentenced as adults.  Do you want that for an immature 16-year-old?


Historically Scotland has a system of minority and majority, with a child's majority coming at - generally for the last good while - 16 years of age. A person can be married at 16, is officially free from his parental influence and so forth. But there are, and always have been, exceptions to this rule: in fact, with 18 year olds now able to stand for Parliament, 'majority' is rather more consistent than ever before, so far as I can see - albeit spread out gradually over two years.

As for the judicial system, we have never had a concept of trial as an adult here. All trials are conducted in the same way; albeit in sentencing, age may be taken into account - as may any number of things which a judge sees as relevant.

For children under 16 (and, in a few limited occasions, up to 18.) criminal matters may be disposed of (but not tried) by Children's Hearings - which are not courts, and aim not to punish but to better cater to the needs and care of the child; most childish indiscretions are dealt with this way. So in essence, we try 16 year olds as adults already.

Whilst I oppose the change in voting age, it would not have to entail any other real changes, and would actually make the division between childhood and adulthood more consistent.
Hazel

This was a timely news story.  It does say children under age 8 may not be criminally charged.  

* Boy, three, questioned by police *
A three-year-old boy is questioned by officers from Strathclyde Police investigating a complaint of vandalism, it emerges.
Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/h...land/glasgow_and_west/8266404.stm

I am sitting here recalling a certain three-year old who did terrific damage at an apartment building where I once lived.
Dave Coull

Aventinian is against independence for Scotland, and against holding a referendum on this. Me, I want a referendum, and I will vote for independence in that referendum.
Aventinian wrote:
I really see no need whatsoever for lowering the voting age.
I'm concerned in case this could be a complication which might deprive old fogies like me of the chance to vote in a referendum. But while I'm concerned about the possibility of this being an un-necessary complication, if this is the SNP's long term party policy, then all they are doing is seeking to implement that policy.
Aventinian wrote:
Of course the current cut-off is largely arbitrary
On that, we agree. Nobody really goes from being a child on the day before their birthday to being a fully mature adult the next day, and in reality of course different individual people mature differently, but the law says there has to be an arbitrary point at which childhood ends and adulthood begins. My seventeen year old step-daughter says she is moving out next month. Her mother and I think (in her particular case, and not stating this as a general rule) she is not ready to be leaving the parental home, and we think it could really mess up her education and her university or job prospects. But legally speaking she is old enough to decide for herself. Just like the law said that at seventeen   I   was old enough to sign a binding contract to serve in the armed forces for five years. My father told me I was making a mistake. He was right. But I made it anyway.
Dave Coull

Aventinian wrote:
For children under 16 (and, in a few limited occasions, up to 18.) criminal matters may be disposed of (but not tried) by Children's Hearings - which are not courts, and aim not to punish but to better cater to the needs and care of the child; most childish indiscretions are dealt with this way.
Some teenagers of 14, 15, or 16 whose family backgrounds are REALLY messed up, and who are getting into all sorts of trouble, and who come "into care", are, as an alternative to being institutionalised, placed for a time in the family homes of "mainstay carers".  These mainstay carers are not just paid for board and lodgings by the social work department, they are paid a "wage" for looking after the youngsters placed with them. For three years, I was employed  by Dundee Social Work department as a  "mainstay carer". I did this in order to finance my way through a course at Dundee University. I had to attend several Children's Hearings concerned with teenagers who had been placed with me. Although, like most other mainstay carers, I did my best for these youngsters, the sad truth is that, by the time they were placed with us, the long term damage had  already been done. In some cases, I could see the likelihood of a youngster "progressing" from appearing before Children's Hearings, to appearing before courts, before too much longer.
Shagpile

Dave Coull wrote:
Although, like most other mainstay carers, I did my best for these youngsters, the sad truth is that, by the time they were placed with us, the long term damage had  already been done. In some cases, I could see the likelihood of a youngster "progressing" from appearing before Children's Hearings, to appearing before courts, before too much longer.


Absolutely spot on. I 'served' on the Childrens' Panel in Fife. And there are some distressing stories I could tell. Thankfully there are more good stories. And IMHO, the system is far better than Juvenile Courts.
Shagpile

Aventinian wrote:
Shagpile wrote:
If you are eligible to pay tax and receive state benefits at 16....... why not?


You are eligible to pay tax at any age.

I really see no need whatsoever for lowering the voting age. Of course the current cut-off is largely arbitrary, but it has become a socially ingrained level at which young people are expected to become at least partially independent of their parents - as well as the approximate end of secondary education. I'd probably prefer to bump it back up to 21 than lower it: from my own experience, I matured most rapidly between about 17 and 20.

I really don't believe that even a substantial minority of 16 year olds are mature enough to make decisions of this nature.


You are of course right about the tax bit. Yet Dave makes an absolute scorcher of a point when at 16 you can enter into binding contracts.

If it's purely down to maturity, well, perhaps women should get to vote at 15. If it's down to experience of life....... who decides? As you say 18 is the age. We ought to move with the times....... I believe kids are smarter now than in my day. Can you immagine Gordon Brown doing a Ted Heath type speach about the value of the falling pound not affecting how much shopping you can buy..... and all that patronising drivel?

What next, IQ tests so we may exclude people like "Landg" from voting?

I honestly believe 16 year olds are ready for it.
Shagpile

Hazel wrote:
I do not remember now whether it was in America or in UK but there was a news item recently about the arrest of parents who let their teen-aged children drink at home.  They thought they were being sensible in supervising and teaching responsible drinking.  I thought so also but, if we generalize, that can backfire.

Sometimes it is hard to know where or what ....  Unless they are going to be teetotalers, they have to learn somewhere.  I only think they shouldn't be thrown on their own to make such decisions.


I'm certainly no expert Hazel, but if parent(s) and child have a close relationship responsible drinking on licenced premises might be a good thing. They would observe first hand the loutish behavior alcohol can create. Of course the practically ignored child with a heavy drinking parent would not have the same experience.......

The perpetuation of alcohol as a taboo only creates interest. Just like sex.

Education is the key I believe, and the younger (no not the beer  Wink ) the better. Alcoholics and drug addicts could be employed more in school education. They know the appeal, the charm, the feel good, the high....... and the risks, dangers and depression.
Aventinian

Dave Coull wrote:
if this is the SNP's long term party policy, then all they are doing is seeking to implement that policy


Agreed.

Quote:
But legally speaking she is old enough to decide for herself. Just like the law said that at seventeen   I   was old enough to sign a binding contract to serve in the armed forces for five years. My father told me I was making a mistake. He was right. But I made it anyway.


Interestingly enough, contractual capacity has some protections for people between the ages of 16 and 18. Whilst a 16 year old has theoretically full capacity, contracts they make can be set aside if there is some provision which very much adversely affects their interests, and their entry into such an agreement is likely to have been a result of their immaturity.
Aventinian

Shagpile wrote:
Education is the key I believe


There's so much that the public want to teach children these days, but time is always limited. I suspect if we yield to demands to teach more history, "citizenship" and so forth in our schools, we'll end up with a next generation going on to further or higher education yet who do not understand geometry, calculus, human geography, poetic meter or any other number of things that aren't considered particularly fashionable or 'useful'.
Rinty

I agree Aventinian.  Education, IMHO, is too focussed on careers and passing exams and has forgotten about learning - and learning how to learn.

We could have generation of young people who are great at writing CVs, doing interviews and 'presenting' themselves and no-one who could point to Perth on a map or count.
Shagpile

Aventinian wrote:
Shagpile wrote:
Education is the key I believe


There's so much that the public want to teach children these days, but time is always limited. I suspect if we yield to demands to teach more history, "citizenship" and so forth in our schools, we'll end up with a next generation going on to further or higher education yet who do not understand geometry, calculus, human geography, poetic meter or any other number of things that aren't considered particularly fashionable or 'useful'.


Rinty wrote:
I agree Aventinian.  Education, IMHO, is too focussed on careers and passing exams and has forgotten about learning - and learning how to learn.

We could have generation of young people who are great at writing CVs, doing interviews and 'presenting' themselves and no-one who could point to Perth on a map or count.


In the Maths class..... the Maths Teacher is the authority in Maths. Likewise the English teacher, Pysics Chemistry or whatever. When it comes to Health Education re: Drug abuse or Alcohol abuse; they're simply Authority. They wont be taken seriously. And in these "Taboo Areas", IMHO, it would be of greater benefit, and greater interest to the kids if reformed/recovering addicts warn of the dangers.

Additionally....... too many "Prudes" object to quality sex education in schools. Just compare the teenage/underage pregnancies of the UK to the Netherlands for example.

Now I've already admitted that I'm no expert...... but the professionals involved in Education are. We (and in particular, Governments) should listen hard to what they tell us. Exams are not getting easier, teaching and teaching meathods are getting better. The Teaching profession should be congratulated on that. The kids should not be punnished by making exams harder, by those in authority who sat and passed the same exams (yet probably would fail them now) and who got THEIR Uni' Education for free!

But they're not. Last week, Westminster announced cuts in Education, Education, Education. Why? Because of the good results the teachers are delivering!

Bannister broke the 4 minute barrier in the mile. Now if you can't run the mile in 4 it's pointless going to the Olympics to compete. Runners got better through Education! Their training and how to train got better. It's a good job Bannister didn't listen to the academics that said the 4 minute mile was impossible. And we've also LEARNED that we don't asphixiate at speeds above 30 mph.

Our government (in Westminster) would increase the lenght of the mile, and award the Bronze to the winner.

Maturity is hastened with good education......

Give 16 yr olds the vote now!

And BTW, if your talking about the kind of Citizenship Brown, Straw and Blair believe in...... you're right.

However, if you're against Quality Health Education, please state why.

Thanks.  Wink
mal

landg wrote:
utterly stupid and before you ask they shouldnae be getting married, going to war or having weans at that age either.


There was no sensible age for your parents having weans.

As you so ably prove every time you pass another pearl of wisdom  Rolling Eyes

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics