Scottish independence referendum deal agreed.

Biohazard said:
No it isn't, the effect has been shown to be pretty negligable. It is about empowering and engaging youth into politics. It has cross party support - the principle at least - and now cross Parliament support for the independence referendum.

I've heard just as many heated discussions both for and against in that age bracket, the impression that they are all mini kilted 'freedom fighters' is just not quite matching the reality.
Click to expand...

The reality is that given their vulnerability to being given a single point of view, particularly from those who can easily influence them such as teachers, lecturers and parents it is often their agenda that is represented and not the actual opinion of the person voting. It isn't about engaging and empowering young people, it is about garnering a strategic set of predetermined votes for a particular position. You are naive if you think otherwise.

In any case, I am not bothered whether a 16 year old can vote or not, as long as all the other rights and responsibilities that come with majority are also conveyed at this point in their lives.
 
The UK government doesn't see young people under 25 as adults tbh. You are only an adult under the age of 25 what it best suites the government tbh
 
Castiel said:
The issue is that you are not treated as an Adult at 16/17....there are certain rights and responsibilities that are given at 16/17, but if they want to vote and have the same rights of representation as an\Adult, then they should also assume the same responsibilities as an Adult in all things...not only those deemed suitable....16/17 is a transnational period, not one that convey full rights and majority.

Things like employment, prison, armed forces, marriage (in most of the UK), the abilty to buy restricted goods, see/buy restricted media and the myriad of other things that are either not permitted or limited for 16/17 year olds means that society doesn't see them as mature enough to make such an important decision objectively or with the experience and knowledge required to do so.....It is an exercise in boosting one side of the argument as it is generally seen that the Youth are more rebellious to the status quo and toward the authority...they will generally be more easily persuaded than someone older to the different position regardless of whether it is a better one or not.

But regardless, if 16/17 year olds get the vote, then they should also be treated as adults in every other aspect of their lives and should not be given extra protections that 18 year olds and over do not have.... you cannot have it both ways.
Click to expand...

There aren't many rights and responsibilities that aren't conveyed upon a 16/17 year old. Just because most don't utilise them, doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Why you keep mentioning marriage, I do not know. People in E+W aren't getting the vote on Scottish independence, so the only thing matters is the marriage situation in Scotland and you can get married, without parental consent, at 16 here.
Employment? Minimum wage withstanding (which is a very strange thing in itself), I wasn't aware that there were many differences in the rights/responsibilities of a 16/17 year old to that of an 18 year old (bar some professions).
I think claiming that just because you can't do some things when you are 16/17 automatically means that you are not mature enough to do other things.

Generally seen? From the (limited) reading that I did on the topic when I was at university, I recall that being wrong.

FWIW, since other people are sharing theirs. I'm very much against Scottish independence.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Serious question, what is the GDP of Scotland? Is that data even exists or what is the projected GDP?

My point is, will it have a strong financial backbone and what currency will it use?
Click to expand...

$216 billion. When you calculate it per capita, Scotland is about $2000 worse off when compared to England.

Quite an interesting document showing regional differences:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/1-24022011-AP/EN/1-24022011-AP-EN.PDF

The second part is interesting, and not one that we yet know. I imagine that we'll use the Scottish pound, and it'll be pegged to the British pound. We already have 3 banks up here that print currency, so that part is covered.
 
Last edited:
Biohazard said:
What is so funny about the Youth Parliament and all the work they put in?
Click to expand...

Nothing, what was funny was that you used it to in the context of allowing under 18s to vote in actual representative elections that affect he legislative or constitutional basis of the country. The Youth Parliament is useful in engaging and teaching children about politics and the processes of our democracy etc...it is not a justification for reducing the actual age of majority to 16 or 14 for that matter.


Biohazard said:
Such as who? :confused:

Most of the people I've met who were voted into the SYP take their role and opportunity very seriously indeed.
Click to expand...

Such as the children themselves when they move onto the actual point of being an adult and look back upon their time in the Youth Parliament and compare that to their experiences political since then...there was a range of speakers on the debate on this on the BBC some time back.....

Biohazard said:
That is not their political representation, that is their parents own political representation for their own views... not for their children.
Click to expand...

There, you said it...Children. Parents are legally responsible for their Children and their welfare...this includes making political decisions for their futures....

If you want to reduce the age of majority to 16 then fine I have not problem with that, but if society sees a 16 year old as mature enough to represent themselves politically then they should also be seen a s mature enough to represent themselves in every other way also.....simply lower the age of majority to 16, if you want the right vote, you must also bear the consequences and full responsibilities of being a member of society.
 
Castiel said:
The reality is that given their vulnerability to being given a single point of view, particularly from those who can easily influence them such as teachers, lecturers and parents it is often their agenda that is represented and not the actual opinion of the person voting. It isn't about engaging and empowering young people, it is about garnering a strategic set of predetermined votes for a particular position. You are naive if you think otherwise.

In any case, I am not bothered whether a 16 year old can vote or not, as long as all the other rights and responsibilities that come with majority are also conveyed at this point in their lives.
Click to expand...

It is never this black and white though, such is the problem with abitrary play with such defining marks and characteristics. They have many of the responsibilities in some cases but with no real representation. That is an issue that has been accepted by every major UK political party in the UK.

You can't say with any certainty they are predetermined, and I suspect that if manipulation was at play it wouldn't have been agreed to by both parliaments.

That would fall foul of fairness.
 
Castiel said:
Nothing, what was funny was that you used it to in the context of allowing under 18s to vote in actual representative elections that affect he legislative or constitutional basis of the country. The Youth Parliament is useful in engaging and teaching children about politics and the processes of our democracy etc...it is not a justification for reducing the actual age of majority to 16 or 14 for that matter.
Click to expand...

No, it was clearly used in the context that you said they cannot be voted in as representatives.

I corrected you on your misunderstanding.

"lol" at the YP's all you like, I think you are just belittling them to cover up your mistake.




Castiel said:
Such as the children themselves when they move onto the actual point of being an adult and look back upon their time in the Youth Parliament and compare that to their experiences political since then...there was a range of speakers on the debate on this on the BBC some time back.....
Click to expand...

I'll keep my eyes peeled for that, but I have to say I find it suprising that ex members would be so critical of it as an instution and themselves in a personal capacity.



Castiel said:
There, you said it...Children. Parents are legally responsible for their Children and their welfare...this includes making political decisions for their futures....

If you want to reduce the age of majority to 16 then fine I have not problem with that, but if society sees a 16 year old as mature enough to represent themselves politically then they should also be seen a s mature enough to represent themselves in every other way also.....simply lower the age of majority to 16, if you want the right vote, you must also bear the consequences and full responsibilities of being a member of society.
Click to expand...

You are conflating here.

The parents make choices, perhaps in mind of the children, that is not in lieu of their own rights where they can be established.
 
Last edited:
Conanius said:
I think its personally quite an interesting question, and I'd guess that theres a lot of people in Wales now thinking 'we want independence lolz'

I'd be interested to see real facts, from a trusted unbiased source as to whether Wales and Scotland could even really afford independence from the current set up financially. Aren't they two of the poorest countries in Europe?
Click to expand...

I think you may be confusing Northern Ireland with Scotland. Wales and Northern Ireland are relatively poor and couldn't survive on their own.
 
grumpysculler said:
A newborn baby can pay tax - tax rules don't automatically kick in at some magic age.

I demand that the franchise be extended so that my three kids can vote. They can't write yet, but never mind. I will scribe for them.
Click to expand...

Do they by chance have to pay Income Tax through employment?

I knew the Tories liked them in the workhouses young, but by 'eck...
 
Ahleckz said:
There aren't many rights and responsibilities that aren't conveyed upon a 16/17 year old. Just because most don't utilise them, doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Click to expand...

There are a whole raft of protections and rights that 16/17 year olds have that are not carried over when they reach 18

Ahleckz said:
Why you keep mentioning marriage, I do not know. People in E+W aren't getting the vote on Scottish independence, so the only thing matters is the marriage situation in Scotland and you can get married, without parental consent, at 16 here.
Click to expand...

Not really, because constitutionally it will impact UK elections in the future, it will be constitutionally difficult to withhold the vote from 16/17 year olds when there is a precedent set in practice.


Ahleckz said:
Employment? Minimum wage withstanding (which is a very strange thing in itself), I wasn't aware that there were many differences in the rights/responsibilities of a 16/17 year old to that of an 18 year old (bar some professions).
Click to expand...

There are a raft of protections regarding breaks, working hours, types of work, training and so on that only apply to under 18s.

Ahleckz said:
I think claiming that just because you can't do some things when you are 16/17 automatically means that you are not mature enough to do other things.
Click to expand...

Voting is probably one of the most important responsibilities we have in a democratic society and one not to be given or taken lightly. If society thinks that you cannot be trusted to make a sensible decision regarding something as mundane as buying a pint of lager, having a tattoo or getting a lighter refill then how does society justify giving them the greater responsibility of voting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom