It seems likely that the First Minister will get his way and that 16 and 17-year-olds will also have their say in the referendum, subject to the practical concerns about registration set out here by Tom Peterkin and Duncan Hothersall. Those will have to be overcome and younger potential voters will have to be registered somehow or other.
This approach is hardly a Salmond conspiracy, either, given the most recent polling showing opposition to independence ahead by a factor of more than two to one.
It’s also not quite the first time under-18s have voted, as anoraks amongst you will recall. They’ve had their say not just during the health board pilots in Fife and D&G, but they can also vote for members of the Crofting Commission. Gripping stuff.
I’ve long supported extending the franchise to include those young people motivated enough to go and vote, not just because I don’t think age correlates directly with engagement or common sense, but also because “votes at 18” assumes there’s an election when you turn eighteen. With a four year term for a given institution, the average age of your first vote for it is 20. Now we’ve moved (unfortunately) to longer terms both for Westminster and Holyrood, the average age you’ll get a vote for the first time is 20 and a half. Even allowing 16-year-olds the vote for Holyrood would still give an average first voting age of 18 and a half.
So this would be good news all round, especially if is indeed part of a deal which sees a single clear Yes/No question on the ballot. It’s also the perfect place to start: if it’s frustrating for an engaged young person to miss out on a regular election, how much more frustrating would it be to miss out on what will hopefully be a one-off opportunity to help set Scotland’s course? It’ll also make the case for other elections – if young people can help make a decision this momentous, why not let them vote for their councillors and MSPs too?
#1 by Thomas M. Widmann on October 12, 2012 - 2:03 pm
What often seems to be forgotten when discussing the voting age is that the age of majority is 16 in Scotland, but 18 in England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority).
This means that it’s logical to allow votes at 16 in Scotland, whereas it must seem as strange to the English as wanting votes at 14 in Scotland.
After Scotland becomes independent, this is not a problem, of course, but it is going to be an issue so long as the UK remains in place, because you can’t have different voting ages for Westminster elections north and south of the border.
PS: Akismet seems to have decided I’m a spammer, so I’m suddenly unable to leave comments on WP blogs using my usual details. 🙁
#2 by Commenter on October 12, 2012 - 4:33 pm
This means that it’s logical to allow votes at 16 in Scotland, whereas it must seem as strange to the English as wanting votes at 14 in Scotland.
This posits some deep cultural (as opposed to legal) difference in how England and Scotland think about childhood which I doubt exists.
#3 by Thomas M. Widmann on October 12, 2012 - 5:26 pm
I guess we won’t know unless YouGov or some other pollster conducts a survey on the perception of childhood in Scotland and England.
#4 by Iain Menzies on October 12, 2012 - 5:52 pm
You would have a point if the age of majority was an issue. but its not. Why not? because i would put good money on it being teh case that the majority of scots (tho perhaps not 16/17 year olds) view 18 as being the point at which you become an adult. Not least since thats when you can go to the pub….
#5 by Thomas M. Widmann on October 12, 2012 - 10:46 pm
So are you saying that if we get votes at 16, we should also allow people to buy alcohol at 16 in an independent Scotland? 🙂
#6 by Doug Daniel on October 12, 2012 - 2:24 pm
“It’ll also make the case for other elections – if young people can help make a decision this momentous, why not let them vote for their councillors and MSPs too?”
Exactly, and this is what I find so bizarre about the protestations from people who say they are in favour of lowering the voting age, but say they are against doing so “in a one-off referendum” (not that it stopped a whole slew of Labour and Lib Dem MPs signing up to a Labour motion calling for exactly that in the AV referendum…)
This is hardly a new thing. Folk have been trying for years to get the voting age reduced, but nothing has worked. Now here’s a chance to put the notion into action and force the issue back onto the agenda properly, but people come out with various weak excuses for failing to back it.
I want 16 year olds to have the vote in an independent Scotland. What better way of getting them to use it than letting them be part of making the big decision in the first place?
#7 by Doug Daniel on October 13, 2012 - 6:24 pm
The smoking and drinking age argument is a complete red herring, and I have no idea why it keeps coming up. No one ever got addicted to voting (more’s the pity…) and there are no potential knock on effects to public health by preventing folk from voting until they’re older.
I would say if the age of majority says we’re adults at 16, then we should obviously be voting at 16. I’ve yet to see a reasonable argument against 16 year olds voting – there’s no reason why the ages for driving, drinking and smoking should be more relevant than the age for getting married, age of consent or age to join the army.
#8 by Iain Menzies on October 14, 2012 - 12:36 am
There are relevant in that there is no single age at which a child becomes an adult. If anything the red herring is the joining age for the Army. You may be able to put the uniform on before you are 18, but you cant be sent to fight before you are 18.
#9 by Doug Daniel on October 15, 2012 - 11:27 am
Well actually, there is – the age of majority is the age at which you are legally considered an adult. That, to me, is the clincher – all adults should be allowed to vote (except certain extenuating circumstances, perhaps).
Unless we have scientific proof that our brains suddenly make us more capable of voting at 18 rather than 16, then there is simply no good reason to prevent adults from voting for two years.
#10 by theshooglypeg on October 14, 2012 - 7:37 pm
For me the clincher has always been taxation. You become liable to pay tax at 16, so you should be able to vote at 16. If we don’t want people to vote till they’re 18, then you shouldn’t have to pay tax till then. The suffragettes had it right: no taxation without representation.
Pingback: One question, two question, three question, four | Edinburgh Eye
Pingback: The Goldilocks referendum « Better Nation
#11 by Ross Greer on October 15, 2012 - 10:20 am
Iain, that point really is invalid as you make the decision to join at age 16/17 and sign up for more than 2 years. It is the 16 or 17 year old who is making the decision to one day go and fight, not their 18 year old self.
Regardless of the result of the referendum this will have set a precedent that is hard to ignore. How can you allow a young person to take part in the most important decision we’ll ever take but they say they’re not mature enough to vote for their councillor? I’d speculate that votes@16 will be a given in an independent Scotland but even if we vote No this has given us the opportunity to advance this case in a way that would have otherwise been totally impossible.