16 and 17 year olds to determine the constitutional future of Scotland?

[Hibbyradge]

The Independence question is cleverly worded. We expected that so I have no complaints.

But, allowing 16 and 17 year olds a vote? That's about as cynical as it gets.

I joined the SNP when I was at my most romantic, when the chip(s) on my shoulder were developing rapidly.

I had as little experience of the world and England was the bogey man, easy to dislike. I was aged 16.

I left the SNP when I was 21.

I have no doubt that the percentage of teenagers who support independence, is far greater than any other age group.

I'm not necessarily opposed to independence, but I need more than just a romantic notion for me to vote for it nowadays. Some economical guarantees would be more impressive.

I live quite well and happily in the country as it is now and I have done so for 50 odd years.

I really don't think the SNP should be allowed to railroad our country into independence this way.

[Mixu62]

Well if you can work at that age, and be taxed on your earnings for that work, then surely you can vote? Otherwise, it's the US independence war-cry of taxation without representation. IMO.

[Hibbyradge]

Well if you can work at that age, and be taxed on your earnings for that work, then surely you can vote? Otherwise, it's the US independence war-cry of taxation without representation. IMO.

I'd be happy with that if it was the case for all our elections, but it's not.

What about the 16 and 17 year olds who are still at school and not paying any taxes?

[stoneyburn hibs]

The Independence question is cleverly worded. We expected that so I have no complaints.

But, allowing 16 and 17 year olds a vote? That's about as cynical as it gets.

I joined the SNP when I was at my most romantic, when the chip(s) on my shoulder were developing rapidly.

I had as little experience of the world and England was the bogey man, easy to dislike. I was aged 16.

I left the SNP when I was 21.

I have no doubt that the percentage of teenagers who support independence, is far greater than any other age group.

I'm not necessarily opposed to independence, but I need more than just a romantic notion for me to vote for it nowadays. Some economical guarantees would be more impressive.

I live quite well and happily in the country as it is now and I have done so for 50 odd years.

I really don't think the SNP should be allowed to railroad our country into independence this way.

16/17 year olds can legally do a lot of other things, yes some will be a lot more savvy than others , is it not right that they get a vote on the future of their own country ?

As for railroading our country into independence by letting them have a vote, they can choose to vote no.

[Sir David Gray]

The Independence question is cleverly worded. We expected that so I have no complaints.

But, allowing 16 and 17 year olds a vote? That's about as cynical as it gets.

I joined the SNP when I was at my most romantic, when the chip(s) on my shoulder were developing rapidly.

I had as little experience of the world and England was the bogey man, easy to dislike. I was aged 16.

I left the SNP when I was 21.

I have no doubt that the percentage of teenagers who support independence, is far greater than any other age group.

I'm not necessarily opposed to independence, but I need more than just a romantic notion for me to vote for it nowadays. Some economical guarantees would be more impressive.

I live quite well and happily in the country as it is now and I have done so for 50 odd years.

I really don't think the SNP should be allowed to railroad our country into independence this way.

Totally agree.

The only thing that makes me think twice about this issue is the fact that, at 16 and 17, you could be out working and contributing to the economy and yet you have absolutely no say in who runs it.

However, the first time I was eligible to vote, at the 2007 Scottish elections, I voted for my SNP candidate for no reason other than the fact that she was only one who wrote to me asking for my support as I was a first time voter. I was a few months shy of my 19th birthday and had no idea about party policies or where I stood on a lot of issues. I only voted because I feel that it's an important part of living in a democratic country and every time there is a vote held, I will always use mine.

It's only as I've got a wee bit older that I've got to understand a bit more about some of the issues facing the country and formed my opinions on them.

There's no doubt whatsoever that Alex Salmond wants this change to happen as he is trying to play on the fact that this age group is well known for generally being the most radical and they're easily swayed by big promises. It's therefore his biggest chance of swinging the referendum in his favour.

[Hainan Hibs]

Railroad us :faf:

Can't remember the exact figures but if they opened it up to 16/17 year olds we would be able to add around a whopping 2 or 3% at most to either side.

Labour and Lib Dems have both supported the notion at some point http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/4066-unionist-parties-hypocrisy-over-1617-year-old-referendum-vote-exposed .

I agree with Mixu62. If you can work and pay taxes then I believe you should have a voice in elections/referendums.

[Jonnyboy]

I'd be happy with that if it was the case for all our elections, but it's not.

What about the 16 and 17 year olds who are still at school and not paying any taxes?

What about the 18 and overs who are students or out of work and don't pay taxes? :wink:

As it happens I have long felt that the voting age should be reduced to 16. As others have said they could be working, getting married, joining the forces etc and so in my book that means they should get a say in who governs. I accept that some 16/17 year olds might be immature but I know a fair few 18+ folk about whom the same could be said :greengrin

It's just a pity that this important issue will be used as a political football thanks to the SNP bringing it into the limelight at this time

[Mixu62]

I'd be happy with that if it was the case for all our elections, but it's not.

What about the 16 and 17 year olds who are still at school and not paying any taxes?

There are plenty people aged 18+ not working or paying taxes, do we prevent them voting? There are also plenty of 16/17 year olds who are a lot more savvy than....well, me for instance!! :greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

What about the 18 and overs who are students or out of work and don't pay taxes? :wink:

As it happens I have long felt that the voting age should be reduced to 16. As others have said they could be working, getting married, joining the forces etc and so in my book that means they should get a say in who governs. I accept that some 16/17 year olds might be immature but I know a fair few 18+ folk about whom the same could be said :greengrin

It's just a pity that this important issue will be used as a political football thanks to the SNP bringing it into the limelight at this time

I agree with the sentence in bold.

18 is the current age we get to vote in this country.

The SNP think they stand a greater chance of a yes vote if they include 16 and 17 years olds - not just because at that age, they're at their most naive and impressionable, but because the SNP will get the plaudits for "taking them seriously" in the first place.

It's utterly cynical.

In fact, it's the kind of cheap trick I'd expect of a jambo. :wink:

[Jonnyboy]

I agree with the sentence in bold.

18 is the current age we get to vote in this country.

The SNP think they stand a greater chance of a yes vote if they include 16 and 17 years olds - not just because they're at that age, they're at their most naive and impressionable, but because the SNP will get the plaudits for "taking them seriously" in the first place.

It's utterly cynical.

In fact, it's the kind of cheap trick I'd expect of a jambo. :wink:

:greengrin

[Lucius Apuleius]

As an aside, not only would I give the vote to 16/17 year olds I would make it obligatory in law that you have to vote.

[Hibrandenburg]

Why should you Mr Radge, be able to decide if our youth will live in an independent Scotland or not without them having a say. Let's face facts, they'll have to live with the outcome a lot longer than you will.

[Speedy]

I have no problem with it.

I understand the argument that many won't be in a position to fully understand what they are voting for but I'd estimate there are far more over the age of 18 who know just as little.

The other things worth considering are that they will isn't have to live with the decision longer so should have a say and the vast numbers of 16/17 year olds won't actually use their vote anyway so it will make little difference.

[steakbake]

I don't think the question is 'cleverly worded'. It's fairly straight forward, I thought. A straight closed Yes No question.

I was sure we were told that we could expect to be tricked with a "do you not think that oppressed Scotland should not leave a suffocating union and that braveheart should be repeated each night on SBC at 7pm. Not. Or mibbes" kind of question. It's such a simple question even a 16 or 17 year old will understand it.

Point 2: for such a decision, it seems appropriate to allow people of school leaving/working age and the some 2.7% of the total electorate that represents to make a choice. Who knows, it may even help future participation in future elections.

[easty]

Theres plenty more numpties out there over the age of 16/17 who get the vote.

For example, the amount of people I knew when I was living down south who, at the last general election, said they were voting for the Tories simply because they "wanted Gordon Brown out" was obscene. They knew nothing of any kind of policy.

I agree with Lucius, at 16 you shouldn't just have the option to vote, it should be mandatory.

[HiBremian]

http://virtuallinguist.typepad.com/the_virtual_linguist/2010/05/reading_age_of_the_sun.html

Given that the reading age of The Sun is about 13, I reckon you could disqualify most of the voting population on the grounds of "immaturity". Accept it, a lot of voters are just helpful idiots whether they're 18 or 88. But that's democracy, and I'm sure 16 and 17 year olds have as much to contribute as other voters.

[allmodcons]

The Independence question is cleverly worded. We expected that so I have no complaints.

But, allowing 16 and 17 year olds a vote? That's about as cynical as it gets.

I joined the SNP when I was at my most romantic, when the chip(s) on my shoulder were developing rapidly.

I had as little experience of the world and England was the bogey man, easy to dislike. I was aged 16.

I left the SNP when I was 21.

I have no doubt that the percentage of teenagers who support independence, is far greater than any other age group.

I'm not necessarily opposed to independence, but I need more than just a romantic notion for me to vote for it nowadays. Some economical guarantees would be more impressive.

I live quite well and happily in the country as it is now and I have done so for 50 odd years.

I really don't think the SNP should be allowed to railroad our country into independence this way.


Tell me this, why should you or I get to vote on the future of our country and someone who's 17 (and pays their taxes) not?

FWIW, like you I joined the SNP aged 16 and am still a member. Nothing to do with romantic notions then and nothing to do with romantic notions now.

[Dashing Bob S]

I'm all for it. The world has been run by old white rich men to its stunning detriment for years. We could do with an injection of naive enthusiasm to counter some of the ancient cynicism that abounds in our society.

[Hibbyradge]

Tell me this, why should you or I get to vote on the future of our country and someone who's 17 (and pays their taxes) not?




I'm all for it. The world has been run by old white rich men to its stunning detriment for years. We could do with an injection of naive enthusiasm to counter some of the ancient cynicism that abounds in our society.

If 16 was the age for voting in general elections etc, then I wouldn't have any complaints and I wouldn't oppose a change in the law to allow it.

However, this isn't about standing up for teenage tax payers' rights. It's a cynical ploy to ensure a higher percentage of Yes votes. If Salmond thought that teenagers were more inclined to vote No, they wouldn't be getting a vote.

Please don't patronise me and suggest otherwise.





FWIW, like you I joined the SNP aged 16 and am still a member. Nothing to do with romantic notions then and nothing to do with romantic notions now.

What are your reasons for still being a member? I'm genuinely interested to find out.

If someone could explain the tangible benefits of independence, I might be persuaded to vote for it.

However, currently it just seems that folk want to be separate from England for separation's sake. For many, it's the romantic notion of "a nation again". For many others, it's pure xenophobia.

I know what I'm talking about because when I was 16, I joined the SNP because of the sentiments "it's oor oil* and *f** the English". (At least there was some economic sense in there!)

35 years later and I don't actually have any complaints about my life in Scotland as part of the UK, so why should I want it to change?

I've got a framed copy of part of the declaration of Arbroath somewhere.

For so long as 100 of us remain alive, We will never in any degree be subject to the rule of the English. For it is not for glory, riches or honour that we fight. But for liberty alone, which no good man loses, but with his life.

If that's not a load of romantic drivel, I don't know what is, but I used to lap it up.

[RyeSloan]

Strange though isn't it the timing of this....why bring it forward with such enthusiasm now?

I think there is probably very good reasons this has not been seriously considered before in that is anyone really comfortable that someone who could still be in 4th year at high school is really ready to vote?

Sure there is a cross over between the approach taken to 16 / 17 years olds, there always has been..they can get married (no written consent required in Scotland as compare to England I believe) but can't watch scary movies. They can join the armed forces at 16.5 but can't go on operations until they are 18. Legal smoking age has been raised to 18 and the SNP has already tried but failed to allow local governments to raise the alcohol age to 21. You can't drive until you are 17 and there is some pressure for this to be raised to 18 due to the number of young drivers involved in accidents.

So in general the trend seems to be moving things upwards in terms of age limit not downwards as governments on both sides of the border seem to have the general mind set that 16 / 17 year olds can't be trusted to make the right decisions or need protecting....why then when it comes to this matter is that being reversed along with the argument that they are now all of a sudden mature enough to make what could one of the biggest decisons of a generation?

I don't have any real beef with 16 / 17 year olds voting per se and cannae really abide our 'nanny state' culture but this absolutely stinks of gerrymandering and Salmond knows an extra 2 or 3% to the Yes vote would be very welocme and maybe even required.

[Hibbyradge]

Strange though isn't it the timing of this....why bring it forward with such enthusiasm now?

I think there is probably very good reasons this has not been seriously considered before in that is anyone really comfortable that someone who could still be in 4th year at high school is really ready to vote?

Sure there is a cross over between the approach taken to 16 / 17 years olds, there always has been..they can get married (no written consent required in Scotland as compare to England I believe) but can't watch scary movies. They can join the armed forces at 16.5 but can't go on operations until they are 18. Legal smoking age has been raised to 18 and the SNP has already tried but failed to allow local governments to raise the alcohol age to 21. You can't drive until you are 17 and there is some pressure for this to be raised to 18 due to the number of young drivers involved in accidents.

So in general the trend seems to be moving things upwards in terms of age limit not downwards as governments on both sides of the border seem to have the general mind set that 16 / 17 year olds can't be trusted to make the right decisions or need protecting....why then when it comes to this matter is that being reversed along with the argument that they are now all of a sudden mature enough to make what could one of the biggest decisons of a generation?

I don't have any real beef with 16 / 17 year olds voting per se and cannae really abide our 'nanny state' culture but this absolutely stinks of gerrymandering and Salmond knows an extra 2 or 3% to the Yes vote would be very welocme and maybe even required.

Well put.

[Hainan Hibs]

This reminds me of this Foulkes belter


Lord George Foulkes : “The SNP are on a very dangerous tack. What they are doing is trying to build up a situation in Scotland where the services are manifestly better than south of the border in a number of areas.”

Interviewer Colin Mackay:”Is that a bad thing?”

Lord George Foulkes: “No, but they are doing it deliberately.”!!

[Hainan Hibs]

I've got a framed copy of part of the declaration of Arbroath somewhere.

For so long as 100 of us remain alive, We will never in any degree be subject to the rule of the English. For it is not for glory, riches or honour that we fight. But for liberty alone, which no good man loses, but with his life.

If that's not a load of romantic drivel, I don't know what is, but I used to lap it up.

This might also be romantic drivel, but a hope I have is independence may help to remove the Scottish cringe that causes people to describe documents such as the Declaration of Abroath as romantic drivel.

[bighairyfaeleith]

All the unionists that are currently saying that 16/17 years olds shouldn't get the vote have pretty much helped to make the minds up for the current 16/17 year olds who will be able to vote by 2014.

I have no problem with 16 year olds getting a vote, most will have just came through school and probably have a far more up to date knowledge on many of this issues we face than most who post on here (me included).

I was no more intelligent at 18 than I was 16. If they can work they can vote.

[Speedy]

All the unionists that are currently saying that 16/17 years olds shouldn't get the vote have pretty much helped to make the minds up for the current 16/17 year olds who will be able to vote by 2014.
I have no problem with 16 year olds getting a vote, most will have just came through school and probably have a far more up to date knowledge on many of this issues we face than most who post on here (me included).
I was no more intelligent at 18 than I was 16. If they can work they can vote.

:greengrin

You might be right, and perhaps a bigger focus would be placed on "Modern Studies" over the next couple of years.

[Sunny Leith]

I have no problem with it.

I understand the argument that many won't be in a position to fully understand what they are voting for but I'd estimate there are far more over the age of 18 who know just as little.

The other things worth considering are that they will isn't have to live with the decision longer so should have a say and the vast numbers of 16/17 year olds won't actually use their vote anyway so it will make little difference.

Get up early this morning Deano?

[JeMeSouviens]

Strange though isn't it the timing of this....why bring it forward with such enthusiasm now?


To be fair, the SNP have pretty consistently advocated lowering the voting age. Presumably from when the first poll broken down by age group appeared. :wink: but certainly since at least 2007:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7065046.stm

It's just that since up until recently nobody thought they had a chance of ever holding a vote, the policy was ignored.

Incidentally, an attempt was made to do exactly the same thing before the AV referendum at Westminster. Among those voting in favour:

Jim Murphy
Douglas Alexander
Margaret Curran
Anas Sarwar
Ed Miliband

This is all standard party political fare. We all know *every* political party in the UK would change voting procedures, electoral boundaries, referendum questions and timing of elections/votes at the drop of a hat if it gave them a better chance of winning. This is Catholic Pope and arboreally defecating bears territory.

[allmodcons]

[QUOTE=Hibbyradge;3088200]


What are your reasons for still being a member? I'm genuinely interested to find out.

If someone could explain the tangible benefits of independence, I might be persuaded to vote for it.


The main reason is simple. I think Scotland on it's own could make a better fist of running our country than successive UK Governments
have. I joined the SNP during the Thatcher era. Nothing to do with anti Englishness, more anti her right wing agenda. The Labour Party
was all powerful in Scotland at the time yet absolutely powerless to do anything about the Thatcherite policies being foisted on Scotland.

I took the view that the SNP was the best vehicle to advance Scottish interest and, to this day, my politics haven't changed. If anything
Labour under Blair simply reinforced my view.

Despite being a very wealthy nation (the UK that is) with a huge amount of resources we have a scenario where the national debt has just
topped the trillion pound mark!! It's clear that the present system has failed and we're now all having to pay for it in the form of Osbourne's
austerity measures. I've watched the 'glory' of the Falklands and seen a Labour Government lead us into an illegal war hand in hand with a
neo-conservative US administration. I look to countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark as good examples of small countries playing their
part in the world community and genuinely believe that an Independent Scotland could and, should be, in a similar position both socially
and economically.

This is the reply I posted on another thread earlier this week. It may be a little rich of me to ask that you buy the book and read it but, if
nothing else, read the quote. Those most vehemently opposed to a new order (i.e. - the break up of Britain) are those with a vested interest,
they're doing well the way things are and do not want anything to upset the status quo. Personally, I think the Scots have a different social
agenda to 'middle England' and for this reason continue to vote for, and be a member of, the SNP.

Follow the link and read the book. It gives a better account of the 'tangible' benefits of Independence than I ever could.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2011/04...nderson-scott/ (http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2011/04/08/book-review-a-nation-again-why-independence-will-be-good-for-scotland-and-england-too-edited-by-paul-henderson-scott/)

“It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly.”

[Future17]

Would lowering the voting age benefit the "yes" vote in an Independence referrendum? Yes, most probably.

Are the SNP in favour of lowering the voting age for this reason? Yes, in part.

Should the voting age be lowered to match when citizens of the country can work, pay tax, get married, have kids, join the army (and all that potentially entails) etc? Yes.

Does the fact that some of us may have different views/priorities/level of understanding at 16 than we do at 18 change that? No.


Surely it's the case that people's understanding of politics, life, the universe and everything changes from 16 to 18, from 18 to 25, from 25 to 35 and so on. I don't think ageism of the type which denies the vote to 16 and 17 year olds can be justified when people of the age contribute more to the country than many over the age of 18.

I can understand people's cynicism of the timing, but the reality is that the issue of votes for 16 and 17 year olds will always be raised at the time of elections and referrendums and is likely to be supported by those its benefits and opposed by those it doesn't. That's the nature of politics.

[Dashing Bob S]

This might also be romantic drivel, but a hope I have is independence may help to remove the Scottish cringe that causes people to describe documents such as the Declaration of Abroath as romantic drivel.

I think it is romantic drivel and it embarasses me greatly. Yet I'm also completely sold on the idea of Scottish independence, which I think would be a lot stronger if people left all that Bannockburn-Culloden stuff at home. The tendancy of some nationalists and unionists to see debate in those hysterical cataclysmic terms is erroneous and utterly tedious.

[greenlex]

Most 16/17 year olds I know struggle to make it out their beds in the morning. The chances of them trotting off down the polling station are zilch.

[Hainan Hibs]

I think it is romantic drivel and it embarasses me greatly. Yet I'm also completely sold on the idea of Scottish independence, which I think would be a lot stronger if people left all that Bannockburn-Culloden stuff at home. The tendancy of some nationalists and unionists to see debate in those hysterical cataclysmic terms is erroneous and utterly tedious.

Cringe.

[HiBremian]

Most 16/17 year olds I know struggle to make it out their beds in the morning. The chances of them trotting off down the polling station are zilch.

They just need to ask the local Tory Party apparatchiks for a lift, like all the 80 year old blue rinse brigade get..

[Hibrandenburg]

I think it is romantic drivel and it embarasses me greatly. Yet I'm also completely sold on the idea of Scottish independence, which I think would be a lot stronger if people left all that Bannockburn-Culloden stuff at home. The tendancy of some nationalists and unionists to see debate in those hysterical cataclysmic terms is erroneous and utterly tedious.

I see it a little differently. The declaration of Arbroath was a political masterstroke in it's time. Think that most things that took place 700 years ago would be more than cringe worthy in todays world.

[lucky]

I'm totally in favour of 16/17 year olds getting the vote but it should be now not in 1000 days time and for the referendum only. Democracy should not be allowed to manipulated for either side in this debate. Yes when we are younger we make some wrong decisions but they must allowed to choose

[Speedy]

Get up early this morning Deano?

Aye, I was on my phone. I keep getting words popping in all over the place because the predictive text puts in the wrong words and I make an arse of editing it.

What brings you back to hibs.net anyway...it's been a while?

[steakbake]

Cringe.

The rest of it is a fair point although I agree: how realistic is it to feel embarrassed by a historical document which was written in very different times. Don't see the point in getting upset about it or putting it in a frame on the wall. This is 2012. 1314, 1707 and all that is long, long ago. The debate shouldn't be about what cannot be changed but should be about how we see the future.

[Dashing Bob S]

Cringe.

Not expressed myself well. Not cringing at the DOA itself or the circumstances that gave birth to it but the timewarp of the debate many pro and anti independence people get stuck in. I'm not that interested in 1320, I would have thought there are sound reasons any people on this planet have for running their own affairs.

[ancienthibby]

I think it is romantic drivel and it embarasses me greatly. Yet I'm also completely sold on the idea of Scottish independence, which I think would be a lot stronger if people left all that Bannockburn-Culloden stuff at home. The tendancy of some nationalists and unionists to see debate in those hysterical cataclysmic terms is erroneous and utterly tedious.

How on earth can it be romantic, when the Age of Romanticism did not arrive for a few hundred years??

I have had a framed copy of the Declaration of Arbroath hanging in my living room for more than 30 years and I consider it to be hugely inspiring!

If every current Scottish elector appreciated that we had such valiant patriots fighting for the cause of Scottish independence some 800 years ago, the referendum result would be 95/5 in favour!:aok:

The only folks who think in hysterical cataclysmic terms are the unionists (just listen to today's FMQ's).

And that's before the Osborne Prince of Darkess has even opened his bag of dirty tricks.:agree::agree:

[Eyrie]

I'm against it for one simple reason - it is gerrymandering. The referendum has to be held on the existing rules as any change will be for narrow partisan reasons. If the SNP felt so strongly about this then they should have lowered the voting age for the Scottish Parliament to 16 during their minority administration.

Incidentally, if a 16 year Pole/German/Italian living in Scotland should have the right to vote in the referendum, what about the 30 year old Scot currently working in London, Lisbon or LA who would be able to vote in Scotland during a general election?

[steakbake]

Eyrie, fair points but it's not a general election. It's a referendum. Did expats get votes for the devolution referendum? I don't remember an indignant clamour for enfranchisement then for non-domiciled Scots.

As with the most common answer to the 16/17 yo question, "we have to draw the line somewhere". Voter wise, I'd suggest it's the people living and registered in Scotland at the time of the vote. If folk want some form of legal Scottish nationality identity which might entitle them to a vote when outside of Scotland, then they'll be hoping for folks who do actually live here to vote yes.

[bighairyfaeleith]

if you live here, pay taxes here then you should get a say. It aint perfect but it's the best way as every other way is more imperfect.

some folk like the 1320 romantic braveheart stuff, not for me but fair play. it neither negates nor adds to the debate in my opinion.

[da-robster]

I'm not entirely sure why increasing the number of people who can make this very important decision is a bad thing, even if it is politically motivated.

[Sumner]

if you live here, pay taxes here then you should get a say. It aint perfect but it's the best way as every other way is more imperfect..

Does that mean the moochers, never-workers, dole-moles, and 16 & 17 year olds who don't pay tax will be excluded then? Answers on a postcard... (10 words or less)

[HiBremian]

I'm against it for one simple reason - it is gerrymandering. The referendum has to be held on the existing rules as any change will be for narrow partisan reasons. If the SNP felt so strongly about this then they should have lowered the voting age for the Scottish Parliament to 16 during their minority administration.

Incidentally, if a 16 year Pole/German/Italian living in Scotland should have the right to vote in the referendum, what about the 30 year old Scot currently working in London, Lisbon or LA who would be able to vote in Scotland during a general election?

As a slightly older than 30 year old Scot living in Bremen I hereby offer my vote to a 16 year old Pole living in Tollcross (as long as s/he's a hibby :) )..

[steakbake]

As a slightly older than 30 year old Scot living in Bremen I hereby offer my vote to a 16 year old Pole living in Tollcross (as long as s/he's a hibby :) )..

or a Zibby.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Does that mean the moochers, never-workers, dole-moles, and 16 & 17 year olds who don't pay tax will be excluded then? Answers on a postcard... (10 words or less)

given the amount of good people out of work right now. NO

Sorry failed your ten words test:wink:

[clerriehibs]

The Independence question is cleverly worded. We expected that so I have no complaints.

But, allowing 16 and 17 year olds a vote? That's about as cynical as it gets.

I joined the SNP when I was at my most romantic, when the chip(s) on my shoulder were developing rapidly.

I had as little experience of the world and England was the bogey man, easy to dislike. I was aged 16.

I left the SNP when I was 21.

I have no doubt that the percentage of teenagers who support independence, is far greater than any other age group.

I'm not necessarily opposed to independence, but I need more than just a romantic notion for me to vote for it nowadays. Some economical guarantees would be more impressive.

I live quite well and happily in the country as it is now and I have done so for 50 odd years.

I really don't think the SNP should be allowed to railroad our country into independence this way.

Have to disagree.

Much more cynical is sending kids off to war, where they can be killed for their country, before they're allowed to vote.

Cynical is taxing someone's earnings, before they're allowed to vote.

Cynical is allowing youngsters to get married and legally have kids before they're allowed to vote.

Cynical is treating someone as an adult in a court of law, before they're allowed to vote.

Cynical is treating someone as an adult in all ways, other than allowing them to vote.

Cynical is accepting all of the above, but moaning yer tits off because allowing more adults to vote alters the likelihood of the referendum result they want.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Have to disagree.

Much more cynical is sending kids off to war, where they can be killed for their country, before they're allowed to vote.

Cynical is taxing someone's earnings, before they're allowed to vote.

Cynical is allowing youngsters to get married and legally have kids before they're allowed to vote.

Cynical is treating someone as an adult in a court of law, before they're allowed to vote.

Cynical is treating someone as an adult in all ways, other than allowing them to vote.

Cynical is accepting all of the above, but moaning yer tits off because allowing more adults to vote alters the likelihood of the referendum result they want.

cracking post:thumbsup:

If I was more intelligent I would have posted this!!

[Future17]

I have had a framed copy of the Declaration of Arbroath hanging in my living room for more than 30 years and I consider it to be hugely inspiring!

If every current Scottish elector appreciated that we had such valiant patriots fighting for the cause of Scottish independence some 800 years ago, the referendum result would be 95/5 in favour!:aok:

I would suggest that 95% of Scotland's people consider that what happened 800 years ago makes very, very, very little difference to whether we should be independent now.


I'm against it for one simple reason - it is gerrymandering. The referendum has to be held on the existing rules as any change will be for narrow partisan reasons. If the SNP felt so strongly about this then they should have lowered the voting age for the Scottish Parliament to 16 during their minority administration.

So when would you change it? Opinion polls are always likely to show that one party/viewpoint will benefit more than others. What would stop there being accusations of "gerrymandering" at whatever time the change took place?


Have to disagree.

Much more cynical is sending kids off to war, where they can be killed for their country, before they're allowed to vote.

Cynical is taxing someone's earnings, before they're allowed to vote.

Cynical is allowing youngsters to get married and legally have kids before they're allowed to vote.

Cynical is treating someone as an adult in a court of law, before they're allowed to vote.

Cynical is treating someone as an adult in all ways, other than allowing them to vote.

Cynical is accepting all of the above, but moaning yer tits off because allowing more adults to vote alters the likelihood of the referendum result they want.

:top marks

[HKhibby]

I think it is romantic drivel and it embarasses me greatly. Yet I'm also completely sold on the idea of Scottish independence, which I think would be a lot stronger if people left all that Bannockburn-Culloden stuff at home. The tendancy of some nationalists and unionists to see debate in those hysterical cataclysmic terms is erroneous and utterly tedious.

Scotland will not leave the UK not now, not next year, not the year after that etc.., after all where would it go?...deeper into the EU?....the Euro?, an organisation which is going to fall apart, in its present form!....then adopt the Euro?...an artificial currency that will eventually fall apart!..not if, so then what when all of the above falls apart?.....its all down to money...thats why Scotland will not leave the rest of the UK!...and if it did eventually, only if...not in our lifetime

[lucky]

Have to disagree.

Much more cynical is sending kids off to war, where they can be killed for their country, before they're allowed to vote.

Cynical is taxing someone's earnings, before they're allowed to vote.

Cynical is allowing youngsters to get married and legally have kids before they're allowed to vote.

Cynical is treating someone as an adult in a court of law, before they're allowed to vote.

Cynical is treating someone as an adult in all ways, other than allowing them to vote.

Cynical is accepting all of the above, but moaning yer tits off because allowing more adults to vote alters the likelihood of the referendum result they want.

I agree with the above why make 16/17 year olds wait another 1000 days and only allow them to vote in a referendum? Cynical...yes

[Hibbyradge]

I read the quote and he's describing a standard change process, tbh.

You've described some of the things that previous UK governments have done that you didn't like, but I still don't know what the benefits independence wound bring.

We don't know what a Scottish prime minister would do in those circumstances anyway so that's not a strong argument, imo.


[QUOTE=Hibbyradge;3088200]


What are your reasons for still being a member? I'm genuinely interested to find out.

If someone could explain the tangible benefits of independence, I might be persuaded to vote for it.


The main reason is simple. I think Scotland on it's own could make a better fist of running our country than successive UK Governments
have. I joined the SNP during the Thatcher era. Nothing to do with anti Englishness, more anti her right wing agenda. The Labour Party
was all powerful in Scotland at the time yet absolutely powerless to do anything about the Thatcherite policies being foisted on Scotland.

I took the view that the SNP was the best vehicle to advance Scottish interest and, to this day, my politics haven't changed. If anything
Labour under Blair simply reinforced my view.

Despite being a very wealthy nation (the UK that is) with a huge amount of resources we have a scenario where the national debt has just
topped the trillion pound mark!! It's clear that the present system has failed and we're now all having to pay for it in the form of Osbourne's
austerity measures. I've watched the 'glory' of the Falklands and seen a Labour Government lead us into an illegal war hand in hand with a
neo-conservative US administration. I look to countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark as good examples of small countries playing their
part in the world community and genuinely believe that an Independent Scotland could and, should be, in a similar position both socially
and economically.

This is the reply I posted on another thread earlier this week. It may be a little rich of me to ask that you buy the book and read it but, if
nothing else, read the quote. Those most vehemently opposed to a new order (i.e. - the break up of Britain) are those with a vested interest,
they're doing well the way things are and do not want anything to upset the status quo. Personally, I think the Scots have a different social
agenda to 'middle England' and for this reason continue to vote for, and be a member of, the SNP.

Follow the link and read the book. It gives a better account of the 'tangible' benefits of Independence than I ever could.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2011/04...nderson-scott/ (http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2011/04/08/book-review-a-nation-again-why-independence-will-be-good-for-scotland-and-england-too-edited-by-paul-henderson-scott/)

“It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly.”

[Hibbyradge]

Have to disagree.

Much more cynical is sending kids off to war, where they can be killed for their country, before they're allowed to vote.

Cynical is taxing someone's earnings, before they're allowed to vote.

Cynical is allowing youngsters to get married and legally have kids before they're allowed to vote.

Cynical is treating someone as an adult in a court of law, before they're allowed to vote.

Cynical is treating someone as an adult in all ways, other than allowing them to vote.

Cynical is accepting all of the above, but moaning yer tits off because allowing more adults to vote alters the likelihood of the referendum result they want.

Sorry, but that's naive and frankly, it's mostly nonsense.

Because some other things are also cynical, it doesn't mean that Alex Salmond's manoeuvre isn't.

I agree with the idea that the voting age should reduce, but Salmond is only introducing it in order to improve the chances of his proposal being accepted.

If he didn't think there was a benefit in it for him, he wouldn't introduce it. That's cynical. The fact that folk expect and tolerate it, speaks volumes about our politicians and society.

However, just so know...

16/17 year olds are not treated as adults in all ways apart from being allowed to vote.

16 and 17 year olds have different rights at work and more protection than adults. There are work types they are not allowed to do.

16/17 year olds can join the army, but they can't be deployed in battle.

16/17 year olds can't buy a lager shandy in Wetherspoons.

16/17 year olds aren't thought to have the mental stability to see films like Rambo and Emmanuelle.

Oh and for the record, joining in "the great debate" about our country's future isn't "moaning your tits off".

That's the sort of description a child would give it.

[One Day Soon]

Sorry, but that's naive and frankly, it's mostly nonsense.

Because some other things are also cynical, it doesn't mean that Alex Salmond's manoeuvre isn't.

I agree with the idea that the voting age should reduce, but Salmond is only introducing it in order to improve the chances of his proposal being accepted.

If he didn't think there was a benefit in it for him, he wouldn't introduce it. That's cynical. The fact that folk expect and tolerate it, speaks volumes about our politicians and society.

However, just so know...

16/17 year olds are not treated as adults in all ways apart from being allowed to vote.

16 and 17 year olds have different rights at work and more protection than adults. There are work types they are not allowed to do.

16/17 year olds can join the army, but they can't be deployed in battle.

16/17 year olds can't buy a lager shandy in Wetherspoons.

16/17 year olds aren't thought to have the mental stability to see films like Rambo and Emmanuelle.

Oh and for the record, joining in "the great debate" about our country's future isn't "moaning your tits off".

That's the sort of description a child would give it.


Outstanding post.

[speedy_gonzales]

Outstanding post.
Seconded!

[bighairyfaeleith]

Sorry, but that's naive and frankly, it's mostly nonsense.

Because some other things are also cynical, it doesn't mean that Alex Salmond's manoeuvre isn't.

I agree with the idea that the voting age should reduce, but Salmond is only introducing it in order to improve the chances of his proposal being accepted.

If he didn't think there was a benefit in it for him, he wouldn't introduce it. That's cynical. The fact that folk expect and tolerate it, speaks volumes about our politicians and society.

However, just so know...

16/17 year olds are not treated as adults in all ways apart from being allowed to vote.

16 and 17 year olds have different rights at work and more protection than adults. There are work types they are not allowed to do.

16/17 year olds can join the army, but they can't be deployed in battle.

16/17 year olds can't buy a lager shandy in Wetherspoons.

16/17 year olds aren't thought to have the mental stability to see films like Rambo and Emmanuelle.

Oh and for the record, joining in "the great debate" about our country's future isn't "moaning your tits off".

That's the sort of description a child would give it.

So you want the voting age lowered, but just not yet or are you actually happy for it to happen for the referendum?

Sorry if I am being cynical, or perhaps your being cynical, I don't really know. What I do know is if it's the right thing then who gives a **** how or when it happens as long as it happens. This is why it would be good to be independent because if the majority in Scotland thought 16 year olds should get the vote then it would happen. We wouldn't need to hope that England agreed.

Pretty sure some of this thread could quite easily be described as "moaning your tits off" however:wink:

[One Day Soon]

So you want the voting age lowered, but just not yet or are you actually happy for it to happen for the referendum?

Sorry if I am being cynical, or perhaps your being cynical, I don't really know. What I do know is if it's the right thing then who gives a **** how or when it happens as long as it happens. This is why it would be good to be independent because if the majority in Scotland thought 16 year olds should get the vote then it would happen. We wouldn't need to hope that England agreed.

Pretty sure some of this thread could quite easily be described as "moaning your tits off" however:wink:

Explain please?

[Purple & Green]

16/17 year olds can join the army, but they can't be deployed in battle.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/one-in-six-recruits-to-army-is-aged-16-2290403.html

Well they shouldn't be, but it seems they are. You've got to hope it wouldn't happen in an independent Scotland.

[Purple & Green]

16/17 year olds can't buy a lager shandy in Wetherspoons.


In Scotland they can, they just need to order food with it and they don't need an adult present either.

I don't know if a bag of crisps counts as a meal tho' :)

[bighairyfaeleith]

Explain please?

Explain what?

[Hibbyradge]

In Scotland they can, they just need to order food with it and they don't need an adult present either.

I don't know if a bag of crisps counts as a meal tho' :)

Fair enough, despite the fact that I've worked behind many bars in my life, I didn't know that.

I would reckon they'd have a hard time getting served in most Edinburgh pubs, but I stand corrected.

So, I'll

16/17 years olds are only thought to have the mental and physical where with all to cope with shandy.

Children can't buy any stronger alcohol in pubs in Scotland or anywhere else. This includes 16/17 year olds.

Doesn't really help, does it. :wink:

[Hibbyradge]

So you want the voting age lowered, but just not yet or are you actually happy for it to happen for the referendum?

Sorry if I am being cynical, or perhaps your being cynical, I don't really know. What I do know is if it's the right thing then who gives a **** how or when it happens as long as it happens. This is why it would be good to be independent because if the majority in Scotland thought 16 year olds should get the vote then it would happen. We wouldn't need to hope that England agreed.

Pretty sure some of this thread could quite easily be described as "moaning your tits off" however:wink:

I don't particularly crave for a legal change in the voting age, but I would probably support it if I had a vote on the issue.

I'm opposed to the SNP cynically using children by allowing them a vote in the referendum, without properly changing the law to allow them to vote in every election.

The SNP are picking and choosing when young people can vote to suit their agenda. You must see that?

The SNP won't campaign seriously for a change in the law to allow young people to vote on everything because it's too dangerous to them and "the man".

The SNP are cynically using young people for their own purposes.

They will then be discarded.

Just wait and watch because that's what will happen.

And if that's not a cynical manoeuvre, I don't know what is.

By the way, childishly describing other people's arguments as "moaning their tits off" because you don't like them, doesn't strengthen the case for 16/17 year old being responsible enough to be allowed the vote.

But you might not see that. :wink:

[bighairyfaeleith]

I don't particularly crave for a legal change in the voting age, but I would probably support it if I had a vote on the issue.

I'm opposed to the SNP cynically using children by allowing them a vote in the referendum, without properly changing the law to allow them to vote in every election.

The SNP are picking and choosing when young people can vote to suit their agenda. You must see that?

The SNP won't campaign seriously for a change in the law to allow young people to vote on everything because it's too dangerous to them and "the man".

The SNP are cynically using young people for their own purposes.

They will then be discarded.

Just wait and watch because that's what will happen.

And if that's not a cynical manoeuvre, I don't know what is.

By the way, childishly describing other people's arguments as "moaning their tits off" because you don't like them, doesn't strengthen the case for 16/17 year old being responsible enough to be allowed the vote.

But you might not see that. :wink:

nothing to do with not liking anyone, but a fair amount of posts on hibs.net are people moaning there tits off, it's a forum it happens. No point getting all upset about someone describing it for what it is.

Nothing said on here strengthens the case for anything political, it's a football forum, I see that.

[Eyrie]

So when would you change it? Opinion polls are always likely to show that one party/viewpoint will benefit more than others. What would stop there being accusations of "gerrymandering" at whatever time the change took place?
I remain to be convinced by the arguments for lowering the voting age, and I was delivering leaflets for my then party at 15.

Hibbyradge has pretty much covered everything else.



I don't particularly crave for a legal change in the voting age, but I would probably support it if I had a vote on the issue.

I'm opposed to the SNP cynically using children by allowing them a vote in the referendum, without properly changing the law to allow them to vote in every election.

The SNP are picking and choosing when young people can vote to suit their agenda. You must see that?

The SNP won't campaign seriously for a change in the law to allow young people to vote on everything because it's too dangerous to them and "the man".

The SNP are cynically using young people for their own purposes.

They will then be discarded.

Just wait and watch because that's what will happen.

And if that's not a cynical manoeuvre, I don't know what is.

[Speedy]

In Scotland they can, they just need to order food with it and they don't need an adult present either.

I don't know if a bag of crisps counts as a meal tho' :)

I'm not convinced this is true.

Maybe in the past but I think the new laws may have changed that.

[Hibbyradge]

I'm not convinced this is true.

Maybe in the past but I think the new laws may have changed that.

It is technically lawful for a child of 16 or 17 to buy shandy, but I doubt there are many pubs which would serve them.

That wasn't really the point, though. :wink:

[Future17]

Sorry, but that's naive and frankly, it's mostly nonsense.

I normally respect your opinion Hr, but I think it's you who's talking "nonsense" here:


16 and 17 year olds have different rights at work and more protection than adults. There are work types they are not allowed to do.

That's pretty much irrelevant to the argument here isn't it? The issue, as raised above, is taxation without representation. If 16 and 17 year olds did not pay tax then you could argue that they shouldn't be allowed to vote - but they do pay tax. Or is your argument that, because 16/17 year olds have different rights at work and more protection than adults, they therefore should not be allowed to vote? In which case, I don't see why not?


16/17 year olds can join the army, but they can't be deployed in battle.

Again, this isn't really the point is it? We're not talking about how old you have to be before you can be killed for your country, we're talking about the decision-making which could potentially lead to that.

While you can't (or at least shouldn't) be deployed on active service until the age of 18, many people who are sent into warzones at that age are there on the basis of enlistment papers signed when they were 16 or 17. There are very few discharges given to those who change their mind between signing and reaching 18. It's more likely they would be jailed having gone AWOL. If 16 and 17 year olds are mature enough to make the decision which could lead them to their deaths for their country, should they not be allowed to vote to decide how that country is run?


16/17 year olds can't buy a lager shandy in Wetherspoons.

I think Purple & Green has already covered this. :greengrin


16/17 year olds aren't thought to have the mental stability to see films like Rambo and Emmanuelle.

Again, this is close to being irrelevant. We're talking about young people's decision-making - not the decisions which are made for them. Leaving school, getting married, joining the army etc. are all choices which 16 and 17 year olds are permitted to make for themselves. That doesn't apply to 18 rated films - the choice is made for them.


I remain to be convinced by the arguments for lowering the voting age, and I was delivering leaflets for my then party at 15.

Apologies, I thought you said you were against lowering the voting age "for one simple reason". I'm assuming once the Independence referrendum has passed you will have no opinion on the subject either way.:wink:

[Eyrie]

Apologies, I thought you said you were against lowering the voting age "for one simple reason". I'm assuming once the Independence referrendum has passed you will have no opinion on the subject either way.:wink:
I'm open to persuasion that they should be allowed to vote, but I'm against it only being allowed in the referendum and at no other time.

[Hibbyradge]

I normally respect your opinion Hr, but I think it's you who's talking "nonsense" here:



It's possible to disagree with someone's opinion, but still respect it.

In any case, I was replying to Clerrie Hibs post. Did you read it? It was full of inaccuracies and it inferred that folk with a different opinion on this thread were "moaning their tits off".

That means, in my book, that it was nonsense.







That's pretty much irrelevant to the argument here isn't it? The issue, as raised above, is taxation without representation. If 16 and 17 year olds did not pay tax then you could argue that they shouldn't be allowed to vote - but they do pay tax. Or is your argument that, because 16/17 year olds have different rights at work and more protection than adults, they therefore should not be allowed to vote? In which case, I don't see why not?



Again, I was replying to Clerrie's post.

His (her's?) point was that 16/17 year olds were treated as adults in every way except that they didn't have the vote. Indeed, he/she said as much.

I pointed out just a few of the ways in which 16/17 are treated like children.





Again, this isn't really the point is it? We're not talking about how old you have to be before you can be killed for your country, we're talking about the decision-making which could potentially lead to that.



Again, I was directly refuting Clerrie's point, not the issue you raise. And I was right.




While you can't (or at least shouldn't) be deployed on active service until the age of 18, many people who are sent into warzones at that age are there on the basis of enlistment papers signed when they were 16 or 17. There are very few discharges given to those who change their mind between signing and reaching 18. It's more likely they would be jailed having gone AWOL. If 16 and 17 year olds are mature enough to make the decision which could lead them to their deaths for their country, should they not be allowed to vote to decide how that country is run?




As I have pointed out, I have a lot of sympathy for the voting age to be lowered.

I object, however, to 16/17 year olds being included in a referendum purely because it suits the ruling party to do so.

Pass a law to include them in every vote but don't use them then discard them.




I think Purple & Green has already covered this. :greengrin



And I have dealt with his response.




Again, this is close to being irrelevant. We're talking about young people's decision-making - not the decisions which are made for them. Leaving school, getting married, joining the army etc. are all choices which 16 and 17 year olds are permitted to make for themselves. That doesn't apply to 18 rated films - the choice is made for them.


See above. Contrary to Clerrie's assertions, there are lots of situations that 16/17 year olds are not treated like adults.

[Eyrie]

Just read a claim that only nine countries in the world allow 16/17 year olds to vote. Two are North Korea and Cuba, no idea who the other seven are.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Who has said they will be discarded after the referendum, any facts on this or just more scaremongering?

[R'Albin]

Haven't read the rest of this thread because I can't be arsed ;). But as someone who will be 16 in a few months time I have no clue whether I want independance or not. Obviously there will be people my age who know a lot more about it than me but in my group of mates I doubt any of them if they were voting would actually think much about what they are voting for and would probably vote for independance because that seems like the 'cooler' thing to vote for..the majority of 16 year olds aren't going to take into account the economy, what effect it would have on us etc. To me it seems like a pathetic attempt to get more people to vote for independance.

Obviously I know nothing about the whole thing but that is my take on it..

[One Day Soon]

Haven't read the rest of this thread because I can't be arsed ;). But as someone who will be 16 in a few months time I have no clue whether I want independance or not. Obviously there will be people my age who know a lot more about it than me but in my group of mates I doubt any of them if they were voting would actually think much about what they are voting for and would probably vote for independance because that seems like the 'cooler' thing to vote for..the majority of 16 year olds aren't going to take into account the economy, what effect it would have on us etc. To me it seems like a pathetic attempt to get more people to vote for independance.

Obviously I know nothing about the whole thing but that is my take on it..


This. Absolutely.

For someone who knows nothing about the whole thing you have managed to succinctly nail Alex Salmond's strategy and motivation for extending the vote to 16 and 17 year olds in one. Game, set and match.

And this is just one of the ways in which this enterprise in 'democratic' enterprise is in fact being subjected to the grubbiest of political manipulation.

It's negative and manipulative. Strange that a party so keen to criticise negative campaigning in the last election should be stooping to this so early on.

[Hibbyradge]

Who has said they will be discarded after the referendum, any facts on this or just more scaremongering?

Scaremongering? How could it be scaremongering? 16/17 year olds have no voting rights now so pointing out that this won't change is hardly scaremongering.

What's to be scared of?

Anyway, given that there are no plans to allow 16/17 year olds to vote in General elections or local elections (even the SNP aren't suggesting that), it's a pretty easy conclusion to come to.

They will be used for the referendum and then the status quo will prevail. Used then discarded. :agree:

Or have you read something to suggest otherwise?

[Hibbyradge]

...would probably vote for independance because that seems like the 'cooler' thing to vote for..the majority of 16 year olds aren't going to take into account the economy, what effect it would have on us etc.

To me it seems like a pathetic attempt to get more people to vote for independance.


Bingo!

You are spot on. :agree:

[One Day Soon]

Explain what?

You said this:
"Sorry if I am being cynical, or perhaps your being cynical, I don't really know. What I do know is if it's the right thing then who gives a **** how or when it happens as long as it happens. This is why it would be good to be independent because if the majority in Scotland thought 16 year olds should get the vote then it would happen. We wouldn't need to hope that England agreed."

In what way do we have to hope that England agrees? We have a UK parliament with representatives from all four of the countries within the UK who choose to pool their sovereignty within that parliament. If there is a majority against extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds that majority extends across parties and across countries. It is not a matter of the English stopping us from doing something. Please explain why you think it is.

[Beefster]

Lowering the voting age for this referendum, proposing a loaded question for the referendum, trying to manage dates so that they coincide with Burns' birthday/Bannockburn etc, implying anyone who doesn't agree with them is 'anti-Scottish', changing policy on the hoof to suit the circumstances of the moment (is it the Euro/is it the Pound?) - there are evidently no political depths to which the SNP won't stoop to try and gain an advantage. Showing themselves up for the utter bunch of charlatans that they evidently are.

[Beefster]

In what way do we have to hope that England agrees? We have a UK parliament with representatives from all four of the countries within the UK who choose to pool their sovereignty within that parliament. If there is a majority against extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds that majority extends across parties and across countries. It is not a matter of the English stopping us from doing something. Please explain why you think it is.

You're wasting your time. The Nat strategy is to pretend that Wales and Northern Ireland don't actually exist (they'll definitely never mention 'the UK') and claim that the English are stopping us do loads of things that we really, really want to. It's in the SNP's interest to paint Scotland as a occupied region of Big, Bad England.

They definitely won't mention the fact that us Scots have far more of a say over English policy in the devolved areas than the English have in ours. They'll just keep pretending that our voice isn't heard, ever.

[greenlex]

I'm open to persuasion that they should be allowed to vote, but I'm against it only being allowed in the referendum and at no other time.
Personally I would raise the age to 21.

[HiBremian]

Haven't read the rest of this thread because I can't be arsed ;). But as someone who will be 16 in a few months time I have no clue whether I want independance or not. Obviously there will be people my age who know a lot more about it than me but in my group of mates I doubt any of them if they were voting would actually think much about what they are voting for and would probably vote for independance because that seems like the 'cooler' thing to vote for..the majority of 16 year olds aren't going to take into account the economy, what effect it would have on us etc. To me it seems like a pathetic attempt to get more people to vote for independance.

Obviously I know nothing about the whole thing but that is my take on it..

Good of you to admit you don't have a clue about independence, and that you hang around with mates who might vote for something because it's "cool". But doesn't that kind of take the shine of the quality of your opinion? When I was 16, I hung around with a group of mates too (9 of us to be exact). But we were the "rebel intellectuals" in our school who explored politics all the time.

Age has much less to do with how people approach politics than culture, education, character, class, wealth and a whole host of other factors, all of which affect people of all ages. The only way you're going to make a more informed judgement on this one is, I'm afraid, to "be arsed" and find out, for example, who screwed the economy in 2008 and why.

But you know the biggest problem? Actually thinking for yourself about politics is not deemed "cool" by so many people. Whether people are for or against votes for 16 and 17 year olds, I'd much rather the debate was based on informed opinion rather than a reluctance to engage politically. So in this instance, it helps to ask what the SNP policy is on 16 and 17 year olds voting. Lo and behold, they support the Votes at 16 campaign:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Votes_at_16

Alll this stuff about Wee Eck only wanting their votes for the referendum and nothing else seems to be a fantasy. This is how any campaign for a change in policy works. The miners opposed the closure of Cortonwood Colliey in 1984 not as a one-off but because they opposed the closure of pits on purely economic grounds. It was the test case that led to the Miners' Strike. Other Votes for 16 supporters, including Ed Milliband no less, wanted 16 and 17 year olds to vote in the AV referendum. This is how change happens.

[Hibbyradge]

Good of you to admit you don't have a clue about independence, and that you hang around with mates who might vote for something because it's "cool". But doesn't that kind of take the shine of the quality of your opinion? When I was 16, I hung around with a group of mates too (9 of us to be exact). But we were the "rebel intellectuals" in our school who explored politics all the time.

Age has much less to do with how people approach politics than culture, education, character, class, wealth and a whole host of other factors, all of which affect people of all ages. The only way you're going to make a more informed judgement on this one is, I'm afraid, to "be arsed" and find out, for example, who screwed the economy in 2008 and why.

But you know the biggest problem? Actually thinking for yourself about politics is not deemed "cool" by so many people. Whether people are for or against votes for 16 and 17 year olds, I'd much rather the debate was based on informed opinion rather than a reluctance to engage politically. So in this instance, it helps to ask what the SNP policy is on 16 and 17 year olds voting. Lo and behold, they support the Votes at 16 campaign:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Votes_at_16

Alll this stuff about Wee Eck only wanting their votes for the referendum and nothing else seems to be a fantasy. This is how any campaign for a change in policy works. The miners opposed the closure of Cortonwood Colliey in 1984 not as a one-off but because they opposed the closure of pits on purely economic grounds. It was the test case that led to the Miners' Strike. Other Votes for 16 supporters, including Ed Milliband no less, wanted 16 and 17 year olds to vote in the AV referendum. This is how change happens.

You never taught at St Augustine's did you?

That read's like the patronising, supercillious way some teachers used to speak when I was at school.

Rather than acknowledge that R'Albin's remarks accurately reflect the views of many young people, you choose to critisise and belittle him, calling yourself an intellectual in the process.

No wonder so many young folk feel disengaged with adults, never mind politics.



Oh, and The Labour Party also support votes for 16/17 year olds, it was in the 2010 manifesto, but the law should be changed first.

[One Day Soon]

Good of you to admit you don't have a clue about independence, and that you hang around with mates who might vote for something because it's "cool". But doesn't that kind of take the shine of the quality of your opinion? When I was 16, I hung around with a group of mates too (9 of us to be exact). But we were the "rebel intellectuals" in our school who explored politics all the time.

Age has much less to do with how people approach politics than culture, education, character, class, wealth and a whole host of other factors, all of which affect people of all ages. The only way you're going to make a more informed judgement on this one is, I'm afraid, to "be arsed" and find out, for example, who screwed the economy in 2008 and why.

But you know the biggest problem? Actually thinking for yourself about politics is not deemed "cool" by so many people. Whether people are for or against votes for 16 and 17 year olds, I'd much rather the debate was based on informed opinion rather than a reluctance to engage politically. So in this instance, it helps to ask what the SNP policy is on 16 and 17 year olds voting. Lo and behold, they support the Votes at 16 campaign:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Votes_at_16

Alll this stuff about Wee Eck only wanting their votes for the referendum and nothing else seems to be a fantasy. This is how any campaign for a change in policy works. The miners opposed the closure of Cortonwood Colliey in 1984 not as a one-off but because they opposed the closure of pits on purely economic grounds. It was the test case that led to the Miners' Strike. Other Votes for 16 supporters, including Ed Milliband no less, wanted 16 and 17 year olds to vote in the AV referendum. This is how change happens.


I'm afraid your just wrong. Salmond's been running Scotland for 5 years now and this is the first attempt he's made to do anything about giving 16 and 17 year olds the vote. He had four years as First Minister from 2007 to 2011 and during that time did nothing to try to give 16 and 17 year olds the vote for the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections.

Nothing. Squat. Zero.

He's adopted negative, manipulative self-interested party politics.

[Speedy]

Just read a claim that only nine countries in the world allow 16/17 year olds to vote. Two are North Korea and Cuba, no idea who the other seven are.

If those two do it then it must be wrong...?

[HiBremian]

You never taught at St Augustine's did you?

That read's like the patronising, supercillious way some teachers used to speak when I was at school.

Rather than acknowledge that R'Albin's remarks accurately reflect the views of many young people, you choose to critisise and belittle him, calling yourself an intellectual in the process.

No wonder so many young folk feel disengaged with adults, never mind politics.



Oh, and The Labour Party also support votes for 16/17 year olds, it was in the 2010 manifesto, but the law should be changed first.

Just a minute, HR, I'm the one pointing out that this kind of stereotyping of young people is a load of sh*te. Just because someone - whatever their age - claims some young people would vote for what's "cool", it's no reason to argue that ALL young people would. OK, no more "when I were a lad" crap, but what about all the 16 and 17 year olds that ARE active in all sorts of social, community and political campaigns?

[HiBremian]

I'm afraid your just wrong. Salmond's been running Scotland for 5 years now and this is the first attempt he's made to do anything about giving 16 and 17 year olds the vote. He had four years as First Minister from 2007 to 2011 and during that time did nothing to try to give 16 and 17 year olds the vote for the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections.

Nothing. Squat. Zero.

He's adopted negative, manipulative self-interested party politics.

Er...http://www.votesat16.org/news/votes-at-16-call-by-scottish-government/

[Saorsa]

Just read a claim that only nine countries in the world allow 16/17 year olds to vote. Two are North Korea and Cuba, no idea who the other seven are.And what shining examples of democracy they are, in both they'll be told tae vote and who they are voting for. Nae need tae worry about them making a choice.

They vote at 16 in Austria and Brazil and closer tae hame they vote at 16 in the Isle of Man.

[HiBremian]

And what shining examples of democracy they are, in both they'll be told tae vote and who they are voting for. Nae need tae worry about them making a choice.

They vote at 16 in Austria and Brazil and closer tae hame they vote at 16 in the Isle of Man.

"Currently you can vote at 16 if you:

Live on the Isle of Man, Jersey or Guernsey
Live in Austria
Live in Nicaragua, Brazil or Ecuador
Live in Germany and are voting in Länder or state elections
Live in Hungary and meet certain criteria, for example if you are married before reaching the age of 18 you have full adult legal rights and can therefore vote
Live in Slovenia and are employed
Live in Norway and are part of the 20 selected municipalities that the government has given 16-year-olds the right to vote in the September 2011 local elections, as part of a greater effort to get young people interested in politics."

[Eyrie]

DD, AHF - thanks. The quote that I read highlighted two undesirables, so I was interested to find out if there were any comparable countries where it did happen.

Worldwide therefore it's very unusual, although not unheard of, for 16 year olds to be able to vote. It does happen in parts of the UK and on a discriminatory basis in Hungary and Slovenia. Mind you, there was a time when giving women the vote was unusual.

R'Albin's post would chime with what many of us remember from being teenagers. Most are simply not interested in politics (more important things at that age!) which presents a problem when extending the franchise.

[R'Albin]

Good of you to admit you don't have a clue about independence, and that you hang around with mates who might vote for something because it's "cool". But doesn't that kind of take the shine of the quality of your opinion?

If I was making a case for whether I was for independance or against it, then it would possibly take the shine off my opinion. But I was giving reasons for whether or not 16/17 year olds should vote, so I don't see why the should effect the quality of my opinion?



When I was 16, I hung around with a group of mates too (9 of us to be exact). But we were the "rebel intellectuals" in our school who explored politics all the time.

I said in my post that there are obviously going to be kids that know a lot more about it than myself but the majority of people that I know probably don't know enough about it all to make an informed decision.


Age has much less to do with how people approach politics than culture, education, character, class, wealth and a whole host of other factors, all of which affect people of all ages. The only way you're going to make a more informed judgement on this one is, I'm afraid, to "be arsed" and find out, for example, who screwed the economy in 2008 and why.

But you know the biggest problem? Actually thinking for yourself about politics is not deemed "cool" by so many people. Whether people are for or against votes for 16 and 17 year olds, I'd much rather the debate was based on informed opinion rather than a reluctance to engage politically. So in this instance, it helps to ask what the SNP policy is on 16 and 17 year olds voting. Lo and behold, they support the Votes at 16 campaign:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Votes_at_16




I wasn't saying that it had nothing to do with wealth, culture, personality etc. Of course it does. But I would say that most people on average don't get properly interested in politics until they are older.

If I'm going to vote on independance I will have a look at the pros and cons of it. I'm not personally just gonna vote for something and not check what effect it will have on me long term, but there will be a lot of teenagers that just vote for Scottish independance because for some reason that seems to be the "in" thing.

Once again at no point did I say politics aren't "cool", but I reckon a lot of 16/17 year olds don't know a lot about it really. Not enough to help make a massive decision like this one.

[Speedy]

If I was making a case for whether I was for independance or against it, then it would possibly take the shine off my opinion. But I was giving reasons for whether or not 16/17 year olds should vote, so I don't see why the should effect the quality of my opinion?



I said in my post that there are obviously going to be kids that know a lot more about it than myself but the majority of people that I know probably don't know enough about it all to make an informed decision.



I wasn't saying that it had nothing to do with wealth, culture, personality etc. Of course it does. But I would say that most people on average don't get properly interested in politics until they are older.

If I'm going to vote on independance I will have a look at the pros and cons of it. I'm not personally just gonna vote for something and not check what effect it will have on me long term, but there will be a lot of teenagers that just vote for Scottish independance because for some reason that seems to be the "in" thing.

Once again at no point did I say politics aren't "cool", but I reckon a lot of 16/17 year olds don't know a lot about it really. Not enough to help make a massive decision like this one.

The majority of the country don't know about it to make an informed decision.

I'd agree that it is less likely that a 16 year will be interested in and informed on politics and economics but I know many people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s that either aren't interested or have absolutely no logic or common sense behind their opinion(imo, of course) so where do you draw the line?

I personally, wasn't interested in politics at 17, still wasn't interested at 20 and to be honest I'm not really that interested at 23. I have a couple of reasons for that; Firstly politicians spend far too much time moaning about what their opposition are doing and not talking about how their improve things. Secondly, my vote will almost never matter so why bother? (And I don't believe in the "if everyone thought that way" argument, my vote is independent of everyone else so my single vote is meaningless.)

Will it do any harm to allow 16/17 year olds to vote? I don't think so.

[One Day Soon]

Er...http://www.votesat16.org/news/votes-at-16-call-by-scottish-government/

I see. So its considered such an important issue that in 4 years of being in charge Salmond has......

...had a press release issued.........once.......from Bruce Crawford.

[R'Albin]

The majority of the country don't know about it to make an informed decision.

I'd agree that it is less likely that a 16 year will be interested in and informed on politics and economics but I know many people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s that either aren't interested or have absolutely no logic or common sense behind their opinion(imo, of course) so where do you draw the line?

I personally, wasn't interested in politics at 17, still wasn't interested at 20 and to be honest I'm not really that interested at 23. I have a couple of reasons for that; Firstly politicians spend far too much time moaning about what their opposition are doing and not talking about how their improve things. Secondly, my vote will almost never matter so why bother? (And I don't believe in the "if everyone thought that way" argument, my vote is independent of everyone else so my single vote is meaningless.)

Will it do any harm to allow 16/17 year olds to vote? I don't think so.

I don't know where you would draw the line to be honest. There's obviously going to be adults who don't know a thing about politics who vote but I don't see any reason to bring the voting age down other than to get votes for what he wants.

I always say the same to my Mum when she votes on X factor as well, because not everyone thinks that way!

[steakbake]

Right, bored of this. What else is happening?

[One Day Soon]

Right, bored of this. What else is happening?


You're not allowed to be bored of it, there's three years of it still to go.

I think by the time we get to this ridiculously elongated referendum Mr Salmond and friends may end up paying a very high price for making the mistake of thinking that their constitutional obsession is shared by everyone else in Scotland.

[Future17]

You're not allowed to be bored of it, there's three years of it still to go.

I think by the time we get to this ridiculously elongated referendum Mr Salmond and friends may end up paying a very high price for making the mistake of thinking that their constitutional obsession is shared by everyone else in Scotland.

As a supporter of independence (in principle) I fear you may be right.

[greenlex]

You're not allowed to be bored of it, there's three years of it still to go.

I think by the time we get to this ridiculously elongated referendum Mr Salmond and friends may end up paying a very high price for making the mistake of thinking that their constitutional obsession is shared by everyone else in Scotland.
Naw if Cameron keeps putting the ball in his own net it's a stick on.

[steakbake]

You're not allowed to be bored of it, there's three years of it still to go.

I think by the time we get to this ridiculously elongated referendum Mr Salmond and friends may end up paying a very high price for making the mistake of thinking that their constitutional obsession is shared by everyone else in Scotland.

Think I might just go live in the wilderness.

[clerriehibs]

Sorry, but that's naive and frankly, it's mostly nonsense.

Because some other things are also cynical, it doesn't mean that Alex Salmond's manoeuvre isn't.

I agree with the idea that the voting age should reduce, but Salmond is only introducing it in order to improve the chances of his proposal being accepted.

If he didn't think there was a benefit in it for him, he wouldn't introduce it. That's cynical. The fact that folk expect and tolerate it, speaks volumes about our politicians and society.

However, just so know...

16/17 year olds are not treated as adults in all ways apart from being allowed to vote.

16 and 17 year olds have different rights at work and more protection than adults. There are work types they are not allowed to do.

16/17 year olds can join the army, but they can't be deployed in battle.

16/17 year olds can't buy a lager shandy in Wetherspoons.

16/17 year olds aren't thought to have the mental stability to see films like Rambo and Emmanuelle.

Oh and for the record, joining in "the great debate" about our country's future isn't "moaning your tits off".

That's the sort of description a child would give it.

It's a bit bizarre to complain about inaccuracies when you so glibly post your own. Why not have a look at ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/478077.stm

[Hibbyradge]

It's a bit bizarre to complain about inaccuracies when you so glibly post your own. Why not have a look at ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/478077.stm

No need to moan your tits off. :wink:

Maybe I should have children aged 16 and 17 can't join the army go to battle said without mummy and daddy's permission.

However, my point is that, contrary to your assertions, there are many differences between the way we treat 16/17 year olds in this country compared to adults.

Anyway, your article is 13 years old. It'll be able to vote soon! :greengrin

This one is more recent and you'll be delighted to see the UK is still being criticised.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1383998.stm

However, to give some perspective to it...

"The UK army recruits from the age of 16, but says those school leavers are 17 by the time they have completed their training and reached the frontline."

"The UK fully supports any initiative that prevents forced use of children in armed combat".

"When you take into account the length of training, it is likely that they would be almost 18 anyway [before taking part in frontline operations]."

[HiBremian]

If I was making a case for whether I was for independance or against it, then it would possibly take the shine off my opinion. But I was giving reasons for whether or not 16/17 year olds should vote, so I don't see why the should effect the quality of my opinion?



I said in my post that there are obviously going to be kids that know a lot more about it than myself but the majority of people that I know probably don't know enough about it all to make an informed decision.



I wasn't saying that it had nothing to do with wealth, culture, personality etc. Of course it does. But I would say that most people on average don't get properly interested in politics until they are older.

If I'm going to vote on independance I will have a look at the pros and cons of it. I'm not personally just gonna vote for something and not check what effect it will have on me long term, but there will be a lot of teenagers that just vote for Scottish independance because for some reason that seems to be the "in" thing.

Once again at no point did I say politics aren't "cool", but I reckon a lot of 16/17 year olds don't know a lot about it really. Not enough to help make a massive decision like this one.

Good shout on all points, R'Albin. Forgot to mention that I've got a major thing against politicians of ALL parties because of the way they manipulate ordinary people on the one hand, and toady up to their power-mates on the other. I'm sure the reason Salmond wants 16 and 17 year old's votes is because the polls say they would help his cause. The wording of the "independence question" is another example. But politicians are all at it all the time, and it still wouldn't stop me voting for independence if I had the vote );

[Hibbyradge]

Generous comments, sir,

I get called a unionist because I inconveniently ask how independence would benefit my family and I.

I'm no unionist, but I am not going to vote for this most significant change unless I know how it will affect me.

A third of our workforce is in service industries, creating zero wealth. Will we all be worse off, if independent? Will we be better off?

Someone on another thread sarcastically mocked me for asking how I would be affected. "Aye, it's all about you" or something.

That type of bullying response only serves to make me more inclined to vote no, but if the SNP seriously want to win, they need to work hard to convince undecided people like me to vote yes.

The fact that I can't get a straight answer to such an important question makes me very wary.





Good shout on all points, R'Albin. Forgot to mention that I've got a major thing against politicians of ALL parties because of the way they manipulate ordinary people on the one hand, and toady up to their power-mates on the other. I'm sure the reason Salmond wants 16 and 17 year old's votes is because the polls say they would help his cause. The wording of the "independence question" is another example. But politicians are all at it all the time, and it still wouldn't stop me voting for independence if I had the vote );

[Lucius Apuleius]

Generous comments, sir,

I get called a unionist because I inconveniently ask how independence would benefit my family and I.

I'm no unionist, but I am not going to vote for this most significant change unless I know how it will affect me.

A third of our workforce is in service industries, creating zero wealth. Will we all be worse off, if independent? Will we be better off?

Someone on another thread sarcastically mocked me for asking how I would be affected. "Aye, it's all about you" or something.

That type of bullying response only serves to make me more inclined to vote no, but if the SNP seriously want to win, they need to work hard to convince undecided people like me to vote yes.

The fact that I can't get a straight answer to such an important question makes me very wary.


Generous comments, sir,

I get called a unionist because I inconveniently ask how independence would benefit my family and I.

I'm no unionist, but I am not going to vote for thismost significant change unless I know how it will affect me.

A third of our workforce is in service industries, creating zero wealth. Will we all be worse off, if independent? Will we be better off?

Someone on another thread sarcastically mocked me for asking low I would be affected. "Aye, it's all about you" or something.

That type of bullying response only serves to make me more inclined to vote no, but if the SNP want to win, they need to work hard to convince undecided people like me to vote yes.

The fact that I can't get a straight answer to such an important question makes me very wary.

Aw s*** now he has TQM syndrome!!!

:greengrin

[Beefster]

A third of our workforce is in service industries, creating zero wealth.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by service industry (I always thought it meant businesses that don't produce anything, but could still make profits). However, some academic on the radio last week said that over half of the Scottish population was reliant on the state for their income, whether via wages or benefits. He seemed to reckon that that wouldn't be sustainable in an independent Scotland.

[bighairyfaeleith]

You're not allowed to be bored of it, there's three years of it still to go.

I think by the time we get to this ridiculously elongated referendum Mr Salmond and friends may end up paying a very high price for making the mistake of thinking that their constitutional obsession is shared by everyone else in Scotland.

Well perhaps not when you consider it was cameron that decided to kick off the discussion so far in advance.

[Hibbyradge]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by service industry (I always thought it meant businesses that don't produce anything, but could still make profits). However, some academic on the radio last week said that over half of the Scottish population was reliant on the state for their income, whether via wages or benefits. He seemed to reckon that that wouldn't be sustainable in an independent Scotland.

Sorry, my fault. I should have said "Public Sector" rather than service industry.

However, as usual, he figures are confusing.

The Herald says it's a third. (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/one-third-of-scots-work-in-public-sector-1.1003448)

Wiki says "...the public sector, which accounts for 23.4% of employment in Scotland".

The Scottish Government site has the figure at 24%. You may prefer to believe the Daily Mail which has the national figure as 53%. :rolleyes:

Add in the unemployed and those on disability benefits, income support, JSA and state retirement pension, the figure will be at 50%

This is the Guardian's take on it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/nov/16/public-sector-employment-statistics-map-by-authority#zoomed-picture

[Hibbyradge]

Aw s*** now he has TQM syndrome!!!

:greengrin

:hilarious

Aw S***, indeed.

I canny allow myself to develop TQM traits. That would be a fate worse then death. :wink: :greengrin

I've posted that little insult safe in the knowledge that TQM won't read it because the title of this thread offers no Petrie bashing potential! :greengrin

Unless you grass me up. :take that

[steakbake]

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/business-opinion/bill-jamieson/john_curtice_snp_may_be_opening_the_door_to_a_new_ generation_of_voter_apathy_1_2084327

An article from Prof Polls himself, John Curtice. Voting intention amongst 16/17 year olds is minimal and support for independence in that group in the only and most recent survey was 26%. Hardly the attempted fix as we would have believed/hoped/been led to believe.

[One Day Soon]

Well perhaps not when you consider it was cameron that decided to kick off the discussion so far in advance.

That doesn't appear to be how the punters are taking it. They don't seem to be under any illusion as to who wants to have this question asked.

I'm all for a full, lengthy, open and informed discussion on this. In fact the more it is in every paper and on every tv channel the better.

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/business-opinion/bill-jamieson/john_curtice_snp_may_be_opening_the_door_to_a_new_ generation_of_voter_apathy_1_2084327

An article from Prof Polls himself, John Curtice. Voting intention amongst 16/17 year olds is minimal and support for independence in that group in the only and most recent survey was 26%. Hardly the attempted fix as we would have believed/hoped/been led to believe.

The professor is wrong, imo.

From the same article.

"In practice we know little about what 16 and 17-year-olds actually think about independence, and nothing at all about the views of those who will be 16 or 17 in autumn 2014 – that is today’s 13 and 14-year-olds".

This is the only relevant fact in his article.

I do not believe for a second that the voting behaviour of 16/17 year olds in an utterly boring, and almost irrelevant Heath Board election, gives the slightest indication of how they will view an emotional and evocative issue such as independence.

Curtis, in another article himself says that "Mori surveys show that 50% (of eligible people) say they will definitely vote in a general election – in a referendum 70% say they would vote."

I don't think the good Professor will find many youngsters discussing whether or not Mrs Theresa Douglas makes a good chairperson of the Lothian Health Board or whether Susan Goldsmith should be replaced by TQM as their finance director.

He will, however, hear people screaming abuse at the TV every time England are playing football and, if he asks them to complete the phrase, "English ___________" is, he's unlikely to hear replies of "mustard" or "dictionary" very often.

The voting intentions of 16/17 year olds is easy enough to predict and it will give the SNP an advantage.

[steakbake]

Hmm, I wonder why Curtice wasted his time pursuing an academic career when all he needed to do all along is predict on the basis of the ever reliable academic method of the anecdotal straw-man argument?

Someone should tell him before he wastes the rest of his working life thinking he knows about something.

[One Day Soon]

Hmm, I wonder why Curtice wasted his time pursuing an academic career when all he needed to do all along is predict on the basis of the ever reliable academic method of the anecdotal straw-man argument?

Someone should tell him before he wastes the rest of his working life thinking he knows about something.

I think he'd make a great mad science boffin in one of the these 'Mars Attacks' type films.

[steakbake]

I think he'd make a great mad science boffin in one of the these 'Mars Attacks' type films.

I reckon his eyes are actually part of his glasses. When he takes them off, they're not real eyes. Just painted on the glass.

Apparently 5% of people think that, but it's not been properly weighted and there are suspect methodologies!

[Hibbyradge]

Hmm, I wonder why Curtice wasted his time pursuing an academic career when all he needed to do all along is predict on the basis of the ever reliable academic method of the anecdotal straw-man argument?

Someone should tell him before he wastes the rest of his working life thinking he knows about something.

I hope you're not suggesting, that because he is a professor, he can't be wrong? Or that because, I'm not a professor, I can't be right?

Interestingly, on the subject of the referendum ballot question itself, Curtis thinks the question won't have a profound effect on the outcome. I think it's designed to maximise the Yes vote.

Another entirely neutral professor, Professor Robert Cialdini of Arizona State University, (author of Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion) who unlike John Curtis, is an expert in these things, believes the question to be "loaded and biased".

Just goes to show. Lifelong academic careers are worth two thirds of bugger all when someone disagrees with your anecdotal opinion.

[steakbake]

I hope you're not suggesting, that because he is a professor, he can't be wrong? Or that because, I'm not a professor, I can't be right?

Interestingly, on the subject of the referendum ballot question itself, Curtis thinks the question won't have a profound effect on the outcome. I think it's designed to maximise the Yes vote.

Another entirely neutral professor, Professor Robert Cialdini of Arizona State University, (author of Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion) who unlike John Curtis, is an expert in these things, believes the question to be "loaded and biased".

Just goes to show. Lifelong academic careers are worth two thirds of bugger all when someone disagrees with your anecdotal opinion.

No, I just imagine we can all pick out our favourite academics to prove an argument and they'll all disagree. However, I'd suggest he probably has more basis and research in his argument than what you presented, which was your own opinion and just guesswork.

[Eyrie]

Another entirely neutral professor, Professor Robert Cialdini of Arizona State University, (author of Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion) who unlike John Curtis, is an expert in these things, believes the question to be "loaded and biased".

Questions asking "Do you agree ..." are intended to generate a positive response, compared to a neutrally worded question.

So for this referendum the question should be "Which of the following options do you prefer?" with two possible answers "An independent Scotland" and "Scotland to continue as part of the UK".

Although I fail to understand how proposals to keep us in the pound or join the euro constitute independence.

[One Day Soon]

Salmond and the SNP are awash with cash. They will undoubtedly have focus-grouped to death various versions of the question to ask until they found the one that generated the most positive response.

In fact it would make quite an interesting series of FOI requests to check how the specific wording was arrived at, whether it was suggested by Ministers or whether civil servants came up with it all on their own (fat chance).

[Hibbyradge]

No, I just imagine we can all pick out our favourite academics to prove an argument and they'll all disagree. However, I'd suggest he probably has more basis and research in his argument than what you presented, which was your own opinion and just guesswork.

He said that because 16/17 year olds didn't vote in two health board elections, and he provided some stats to prove it, they won't vote in a referendum on independence. That is the sum total of his learned opinion.

He also said that he has no idea as to how current 13 and 14 year old will vote in 2014. He has no idea whether or not youngsters, who will be getting reminded and encouraged to vote for 2 and a half years will turn up in higher numbers.

I don't need statistics and data to know that Scottish independence will attract more voters than a health board election or even a general election. In fact, he said so himself in another article which I quoted, so I've used valid secondary research to present my hypothesis too.

His conclusion is every bit as much guesswork as mine.

[allmodcons]

Salmond and the SNP are awash with cash. They will undoubtedly have focus-grouped to death various versions of the question to ask until they found the one that generated the most positive response.

In fact it would make quite an interesting series of FOI requests to check how the specific wording was arrived at, whether it was suggested by Ministers or whether civil servants came up with it all on their own (fat chance).

Aye ODS I see you're at it again, how ironic to see a Labour apparatchik complaining about the use of focus groups!
With regard to the 'wording' take off the blinkers and have a wee read of this common sense article.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/independence-part-1-how-scotland-has-changed.16607482

[allmodcons]

Questions asking "Do you agree ..." are intended to generate a positive response, compared to a neutrally worded question.

So for this referendum the question should be "Which of the following options do you prefer?" with two possible answers "An independent Scotland" and "Scotland to continue as part of the UK".

Although I fail to understand how proposals to keep us in the pound or join the euro constitute independence.

It appears you need to have read of this too.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/independence-part-1-how-scotland-has-changed.16607482

Are you seriously suggesting that none of the countries in the euro zone are Independent Nation States?

[Eyrie]

Are you seriously suggesting that none of the countries in the euro zone are Independent Nation States?
Are you seriously suggesting that countries in the euro zone have full economic sovereignty?

[One Day Soon]

Aye ODS I see you're at it again, how ironic to see a Labour apparatchik complaining about the use of focus groups!
With regard to the 'wording' take off the blinkers and have a wee read of this common sense article.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/independence-part-1-how-scotland-has-changed.16607482

Like I said, they will have focus grouped it to death. Are you going to deny that?

The only people - and that includes the Tories - who can outspin how Labour did it are the SNP. They are awash with cash. They are an almost perfect spin machine.

[allmodcons]

Are you seriously suggesting that countries in the euro zone have full economic sovereignty?

No I'm not, you're misrepresenting what I said, which was that they are Independent Nation States.

I don't for a minute dispute that Monetary Union places some constraints on a country's economic policy, however, as an Independent Nation State any member state can decide to withdraw from the EU in accordance with it's own constitutional requirements.

[allmodcons]

Like I said, they will have focus grouped it to death. Are you going to deny that?

The only people - and that includes the Tories - who can outspin how Labour did it are the SNP. They are awash with cash. They are an almost perfect spin machine.

It's intriguing how those opposed to the SNP keep harping on about the amount of cash the party has. For years they've had to fight elections (with little or no cash) against 2 parties propped up by huge donations from millionaires and unions with vested interests. Now that the SNP has been left £1M in a will and received a £1M donation from a lottery winner all of sudden cash for political parties is a bad thing!

FWIW no party could outspin New Labour under Blair & Mandelson. You can moan and groan on about the SNP all you like but when it comes to spin New Labour are the masters, so good in fact they managed to spin us (hand in hand with Bush) all the way into an illegal war in Iraq. Even you ODS, as a loyal Labour Supporter, must feel your stomach turning as you remember how your wonderful left wing (sic) Labour Government ended up in bed with a neo-con Bush led US war machine.

[marinello59]

It's intriguing how those opposed to the SNP keep harping on about the amount of cash the party has. For years they've had to fight elections (with little or no cash) against 2 parties propped up by huge donations from millionaires and unions with vested interests. Now that the SNP has been left £1M in a will and received a £1M donation from a lottery winner all of sudden cash for political parties is a bad thing!

FWIW no party could outspin New Labour under Blair & Mandelson. You can moan and groan on about the SNP all you like but when it comes to spin New Labour are the masters, so good in fact they managed to spin us (hand in hand with Bush) all the way into an illegal war in Iraq. Even you ODS, as a loyal Labour Supporter, must feel your stomach turning as you remember how your wonderful left wing (sic) Labour Government ended up in bed with a neo-con Bush led US war machine.

All polical paries are repugnant in some way as far as I am concerned. Just because it could be argued that the Labour spin machine was more efficient than others it doesn't make the rest of them squeaky clean.
I'll moan and groan about them all including the SNP despite the fact I favour independence. Let's hope that the debate rises above the usual petty mud chucking.

[clerriehibs]

I don't think the good Professor will find many youngsters discussing whether or not Mrs Theresa Douglas makes a good chairperson of the Lothian Health Board or whether Susan Goldsmith should be replaced by TQM as their finance director.

He will, however, hear people screaming abuse at the TV every time England are playing football and, if he asks them to complete the phrase, "English ___________" is, he's unlikely to hear replies of "mustard" or "dictionary" very often.

The voting intentions of 16/17 year olds is easy enough to predict and it will give the SNP an advantage.


1st paragraph - possibly true but, in my opinion, you'll almost certainly find a similar proportion of educated, interested and politicised 16/17 year olds as you will find in over-18s.

2nd paragraph - possibly true as well. But where will he hear it? Not in the pub. In his own home? Maybe ... but in most cases, nothing like as badly as in the pub, which is what I'm guessing you were alluding to.
Given the majority of voting age adults who form their political opinion from newspapers do so after their daily dose of the Sun with its twisted view of the world, I can't see why those under-18 year olds are being any less well-informed. Everyone's opinion is formed by their environment (maybe some nature in there as well, who knows), and there's a heck of a lot more going on around anyone than just the p!sh they see in the Sun or the nationalist tendencies on show when watching the occasional football game.

3rd paragraph - you just made that up, because you don't know, or maybe you just missed the "imho" off? :agree:

[Beefster]

John Swinney when defending wanting to give non-Scots currently resident in Scotland (e.g. Mrs Beefster) a vote in the referendum and not allowing Scots living elsewhere a vote (I've no problem with this incidentally):

"The approach that we've taken is to essentially mirror the franchise that elected the Scottish Parliament in May of last year, the franchise that led to the referendum in 1997 which established the Scottish Parliament, which is essentially the local government and Scottish Parliament franchise."

Did that franchise include 16 and 17 year olds?

[Since90+2]

Interesting piece on BBC Website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17080260

[Jonnyboy]

John Swinney when defending wanting to give non-Scots currently resident in Scotland (e.g. Mrs Beefster) a vote in the referendum and not allowing Scots living elsewhere a vote (I've no problem with this incidentally):

"The approach that we've taken is to essentially mirror the franchise that elected the Scottish Parliament in May of last year, the franchise that led to the referendum in 1997 which established the Scottish Parliament, which is essentially the local government and Scottish Parliament franchise."

Did that franchise include 16 and 17 year olds?

No it didn't Beefster. To be fair I reckon Swinney (who has a puss you'd just love to smack :greengrin) was speaking specifically about residence.