Comments on: A referendum is a perfect place to start widening the franchise

By: Doug Daniel

Doug Daniel — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:27:10 +0000

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.

By: Ross Greer

Ross Greer — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:20:27 +0000

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.

By: The Goldilocks referendum « Better Nation

The Goldilocks referendum « Better Nation — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 08:47:07 +0000

[...] Holyrood 2011 « A referendum is a perfect place to start widening the franchise [...]

By: One question, two question, three question, four | Edinburgh Eye

One question, two question, three question, four | Edinburgh Eye — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 08:16:07 +0000

[...] all Sturgeon and Moore had to seriously argue about was whether 16/17 year olds could get to vote. Makes you wonder why it took so long? (Well, fairly obviously: it was Moore’s responsibility [...]

By: theshooglypeg

theshooglypeg — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:37:09 +0000

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.

By: Iain Menzies

Iain Menzies — Sat, 13 Oct 2012 23:36:20 +0000

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.

By: Doug Daniel

Doug Daniel — Sat, 13 Oct 2012 17:24:03 +0000

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.

By: Thomas M. Widmann

Thomas M. Widmann — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:46:48 +0000

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?

By: Iain Menzies

Iain Menzies — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:52:45 +0000

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….

By: Thomas M. Widmann

Thomas M. Widmann — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:26:36 +0000

I guess we won’t know unless YouGov or some other pollster conducts a survey on the perception of childhood in Scotland and England.