To ask all Scottish MNrs to work together 2

[siiiiiiiiigh]

Sorry, filled the last thread with this, thought I'd better be part of Team Scottish MN and work together for those of us on the old thread...

Here's Armando's thoughts. I vote him in for everything.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/21/scottish-referendum-massive-voter-turnout-means-politics-changed-for-ever

You couldn't say that the majority to stay in the Union was too small, so Scotland should leave - because you couldn't make Scotland independent if only a minority of the vote had been in favour of it, and the majority wanted to stay in the Union, even if that majority was under the limit set.

But that could also lead to, in theory, a vote of 59% Yes and 41% No. Yes is under 60% but still a clear majority. But we would stay in the Union regardless because we didn't get 60%...?

Numanoid well exactly, see my posts above. That's the thing with referendums over questions as big as this.

If god forbid we had to go through the whole thing again, but the consensus was that it should be a super-majority, or whatever the term is, there would have to be a lot of work done before the vote to make sure that everyone understood and agreed with the terms.

And if you think about it, with the current FPTP at WM, it's how we've lived a long time - the majority of folk usually haven't voted for the govt they get.

I'm not saying that's right btw, just that we're used to it in that context.

I think, when you are asking a country to make such a massive, irrevocable decision, maybe it is right that the bar is set high. I think it may also be better if a country isn't put through all the upheaval and uncertainty of a referendum if there isn't a good chance of getting a serious majority - if the SNP had known they had to achieve 60% to get independence! maybe they wouldn't have gone for a referendum just yet.

And maybe if they had waited, say two or three years, they might have won the referendum, but now, as several of us have said on here, it could be really bad for stability in Scotland to have a referendum for a number of years (personally, I'd say 10 minimum - which is a gut reaction, rather than anything based on any political facts or policies) - so maybe, because they didn't wait for a few more years, now they are going to have to wait even longer for independence.

I'm not brilliant at sums but in 1979 the rule was as well as getting a majority of the votes cast Yes then had to get 40% of the electorate. Here they simply had to get one more vote. In 1979 Yes complained bitterly that the numbers on the electoral roll were overstated.

Here Yes achieved a majority of votes cast and considerably more than 40 % of the electorate. According to wiki the electorate was 4,283,393 . 40% of that is 1,713,356.

Obviously I meant No achieved a majority of votes cast and well over 40 % of the electorate.

Do people think that, having seen how well the 16 and 17 year olds participated in the campaign and the vote, they should be given the vote in General and council elections too? I am certainly inclining towards that view.

Do people think that, having seen how well the 16 and 17 year olds participated in the campaign and the vote, they should be given the vote in General and council elections too? I am certainly inclining towards that view.

Of course! I think it is really important to engage young folk to help combat apathy. Get them voting when they are still in school and can have importance drummed into them, and peer pressure, hopefully they are partway towards creating a voting habit.

I can't think of any reason whatsoever why they shouldn't be allowed to vote...

I'm in two minds. They can't get married without parental consent, they' can't serve on the front line, get credit or a mortgage. Are there not proposals from the SG for guardianship until they're 18? It just strikes me as inconsistent and cynical on the part of the SNP.

On the other hand they do seem to have taken it very seriously by all accounts.

STDG - yes absolutely.

I trained as a teacher and am involved in charities involving young people...en masse they are way more interested in politics IMO than many adults, they're capable of way more rational thinking than people give them credit for and are more than willing to find out about and question issues they don't know about.

It's genuinely refreshing to hear young people debate politics.

A 16 yr old is old enough to become a parent, responsible for a whole tiny person, but they can't vote?...

The only reasonable reason for not letting them that I've ever seen is that they might be influenced by their parents - but I'm pretty sure they didn't? (I don't know where the evidence for that came from though, just that I read it )

They can't get married without parental consent,

Can in Scotland...

Things you can do at 16:
Leave home
Leave school
Own bank account
JSA/income support/ other benefits
Full time job
Join army (parental consent)
Have a family (marriage/babies)

Any yet you can't vote - fecking ridiculous!

They can't get married without parental consent, they' can't serve on the front line, get credit or a mortgage. Are there not proposals from the SG for guardianship until they're 18? It just strikes me as inconsistent and cynical on the part of the SNP

You can get married in Scotland at 16 without parents' consent. I'm not aware of anything in Scots Law which actually prevents a 16/17 year old getting a mortgage although I accept lenders may have their own policies.

There's nothing in Scots law which prevents a particularly wealthy 16 year old instructing me to buy land or houses for them , or if a landlord was happy with it taking on a lease.

Oops, should have done my homework before posting!

I thought (WRT mortgages) that you had to be 18 to sign a contract, but I don't know if that is just an assumption, or true in Eng&Wales but not here or whether it is right.

I've supported votes for 16 & 17 year olds since I was that age myself. So I appreciate that the referendum may have given politicians the impetus to make that change. I do think it was done cynically by the SNP as they chose not to give them the vote for the local government elections.

I don't know how the current youth parliament works, but I would support 12-16 year olds (or younger if they are already involved in the youth parliament) voting in the youth parliament on the same days as adults vote in main elections. I'd want the youth parliament to be properly consulted on any legislation which affects children, and for any proposals they bring to be taken seriously and have the potential to be taken on by the main parliament. In addition I think there should be youth reps on councils.

I think it is too easy for adults to make decisions, or just neglect policy areas which a relevant to children, I think they should have a stronger voice. I'm thinking about things like homophobic bullying in schools, the appalling state of some school toilets etc, but I'm sure they'd have a lot to say on other issues too - climate change and poverty for example.

A 16 year old in Scotland has contractual capacity. I think it's different in England and Wales.
I don't really get the point of appointing a guardian to every child.

"Join army" , yes, but not serve on the front line. Just to clarify.

16 year olds are absolutely wonderful in an energetic, without boundaries kind of way.
However, it's the way of the modern world, they are totally swayed by social media without the life experience and cynicism maturity to challenge what they are being told and shown, they haven't had the responsibilities to, and for, other people. They haven't had bills to pay, experience of cynical old day to day real life that inevitably effect the way we vote. Young people vote based on blue sky thinking, not the actual real world.
Based on this, I don't think they should have the vote. My opinion only.

Agree with Behoove
The problem with younger children is they are easily influenced and maybe not as cynical/critical ... and are more likely to just believe what they are told and to want to please.
I'm speaking from experience. A few years ago older children from primary feeders and secondary children were 'consulted' on a new secondary school. From an adult perspective there were serious concerns which it transpired couldn't be overcome.
However the vast majority of the older secondary children (15-16) supported it, apparently the HT had given a special assembly and recommended they did.
I saw the consultation given to primary children...aged from 9 -12 yo. It was so biased I was . It involved showing lots of pretty pictures (architect drawings) of the finished school...lots of glass and starbuck type cafes etc. The 'problems' - a number of them - were barely mentioned and glossed over - eg this is a problem but we know we can sort it out (turns out they couldn't!). Then they were told if they wanted they could talk to their parents and teachers before filling in their 'vote' but it would be easier for everyone if they did it now. They could discuss it among themselves. They were all filling in the slip straight away. I spoke to the guy who gave the talk and said that wasn't a consultation - you didn't give them options, you didn't point out the down sides..he said it had to be aimed at the age group He pulled two 12 yo boys out and asked them if they supported the plan - they said it was really exciting, it looked great. So I asked them what they would think of maybe waiting a few years, having something that looked just as good but also had xyz and didn't have problems 1,2,3....they said that sounded better...but then looked guilty for not agreeing with the guy giving the talk ...more concerned about giving the right answer than what they thought was best. I was actually shocked at how compliant they were ...

To add a little weight to the other side of the discussion - I observed my 17 year old and his friends during the Independence campaign, and they seemed to be getting information from many different sources - social media, certainly, but also the TV, the newspapers, and from campaign material.

The school allowed them to have a short campaigning session in school, where students who were already properly involved in the campaign got the chance to talk to their fellow pupils.

My impression was that all of them were taking it very seriously - plenty of debates and questions, and, from what I heard, they all had good reasons for making whatever choice they made.

I honestly think they understood the gravity of the decision they were being asked to make.

It depends on the school and the teaching. If they are taught to question and reason and think independently then they certainly can and should vote. There are some fantastic school out there. There are also some crap ones. But I have met some very together teenagers that could argue any politician we've seen out of a job. I think they should be allowed to vote.

Sorry forgot to add most teens I know are better informed of the issues then adults. Many are encouraged to take responsibility for their own learning at a much earlier age. I don't think we should assume they are doing nothing but chewing gum, chasing boys/girls and living on social media. They think deeply about a lot of the stuff we have been debating and are just as entitled to having a view that should be heard at election time.

I don't think they should be allowed to vote at 16-17. Whilst they very well may be deep thinkers, they are being asked to vote on things which (in the main) don't affect them.

living I agree with some of your post. It wasn't my intention to insinuate they are all about chewing gum etc. I know from personal experience there are some wonderful, engaged and informed young people out there (I live with one) but that isn't the majority. But even these don't have the life experiences and responsibilities I mentioned in my previous post.

I don't know if there is a way of involving them in debate and to listen to their views without giving them a vote without sounding patronising.

Which policies don't affect 16 and 17 yr olds?

With the exception of those who are heading to university with access to large amounts of money (who are still affected by education policy) who, let's be honest aren't going to come out of the other side of a degree with much more life experience, they are affected by policy.

Most teenagers are very aware of things like the lack of college places, unemployment and housing costs because it's their immediate future. They're in the middle of planning whether they can afford to go to uni, if they'll need a job (with or without uni) if they are carrying on with education whether they're going to have to live at home and limit where they can study because it costs too much to move away.

They're affected by disabilities and policies to do with that at a similar ratio to adults...financially they're treated as adults for DLA/PIP for starters.

If you take out the two extremes of teenagers who already have adult responsibilities and those protected enough by their parents that they won't need to have real responsibility until they're in their twenties...IME they are completely aware of how policies affect them and their future.

They are voting for their future. It doesn't get more involved than that ime and causes quite a number of teenagers to think very hard about what they want. More can always be added to a school curriculum to compensate if needs be. This happens elsewhere and in some international curriculums.

And some are even out there earning a wage in the workplace one way or another. The majority are far more mature than society gives this age group credit for. It's not like you hit 18 and suddenly you have a gene that turns on and you are a fully functional adult overnight! There's some pretty irresponsible adult activity going on in society too.

behoove apologies wasn't singling you out intentionality.

No problem, I appreciate we all have different opinions on it.

Some 16 and 17 year olds will be well informed and mature, with considerable life experience. Some 18 year olds will be immature, with little life experience. We let 18 year olds vote, I don't see why we shouldn't let 16 and 17 year olds vote.