Children in Scotland could stand for parliament and take political office, under plans unveiled by Nicola Sturgeon’s government to widen democratic “participation”.
The Scottish Government has published proposals for the minimum age of candidates for Holyrood elections to be cut from 18 to 16, believed to be the lowest election age for a national legislature in the world.
Asylum seekers could also be permitted to stand for the Scottish Parliament under the plans, which aim to deliver a pledge in the SNP-Green coalition deal to “promote active participation in elections by under-represented groups”.
But the controversial move marks a huge departure from democratic norms in the Western world, with the Scottish Government admitting that 18 is the minimum age in any EU member state for European Parliament elections.
**’Potential welfare concerns’**
An international study published in 2018 examining youth participation in national parliaments said the lowest age anywhere in the world to become a candidate was 17.
A Scottish Government consultation admitted there were “potential welfare concerns” with lowering the age to 16, such as exposing children to “intimidation” and “hate speech”, as well as abuse on the campaign trail.
It raised the prospect of youngsters having to live alone in an Edinburgh hotel during the week, away from their families, if their home is beyond commuting distance to the Holyrood parliament.
With the parliament’s working week extending from 2.30pm on Monday until 12.30pm on Friday, the consultation also warned that being elected as an MSP could damage a child’s education, including their ability to sit exams.
A series of concerns were also raised about allowing asylum seekers to stand as an MSP or councillor, a move enthusiastically backed by Ms Sturgeon’s Green coalition partners.
The consultation warned they would be forced to resign their post if their leave to remain in the UK expired, resulting in a costly by-election.
It also said they would have to meet any other condition attached to their work permit or study visa, such as maintaining a job or completing a course. It added that they may “struggle to balance those obligations with those arising from being an elected representative”.
**Lowering age would be ‘controversial’**
Voting rights were extended to 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland for the 2014 independence referendum, and then to Scottish Parliament and local government elections from 2016.
This was seen to benefit the SNP and independence-supporting Greens, with polls showing that younger voters are overwhelmingly in favour of leaving the UK.
But candidates must be 18 or over to stand for election to Holyrood, Westminster or a local authority. Across the European Union member states, the minimum age for election to the Brussels parliament ranges from 18 to 25.
Writing in his introduction to the consultation, George Adam, the SNP’s parliamentary business minister, admitted lowering the age to 16 would be “controversial”.
He said: “A robust electoral system is fundamental to the success of Scotland being an inclusive and vibrant democracy that makes everyone feel included and empowered.
“It is important as many people in our society as possible feel they have an effective and independent means to hold government to account and also feel encouraged to take an active interest in politics and civic life.”
Mark Ruskell, the Scottish Greens’ local democracy spokesman, said: “The starting principle has to be that if you can vote in our elections, you should be able to stand in them.”
But the consultation also raised a series of administrative problems with the plans, including “data protection issues” for candidates aged under 18.
It said that electoral registration officers have expressed concern that “they would have difficulty in ensuring that entries for asylum seekers were accurate and up to date, in particular where an asylum claim has been unsuccessful”.
Children? The same children who are allowed to get married and have babies?
Any time a party does something like this, it’s because they’ve calculated it will gain them votes.
That’s it.
There’s nothing else to it.
Because Sturgeon knows young voters are the only hope her party has.
Is this because the life expectancy in Scotland can be measured in soft eggs?
Where I struggle with this is that the desire to give more franchisement to younger people, also seems to come at at a time where I’m seeing more and more infantilisation of that same group.
I’m constantly reminded on reddit that the brain isn’t fully formed until 24, that 18 year olds are practically children ( I kid you not, there was somebody talking on Reddit the other day about an 18 or 19 year old girl (adult, either way) being *groomed* by an older gentlement)
Yet at the same time I’m meant to believe that a 16 year old has the requisite maturity to run for, and lead an office? To make legislation?
It’s a ludicrous suggestion – I’m not saying no 16 year olds are mature or that something magically changes at the precise moment they turn 18, and I think all western nations struggle with line drawing of what’s acceptable and when as children mature into teenagers and then adults, but I think by the time we’re saying “They can go out and make legislation, make law, and run the country” we’re into an all or nothing scenario.
If you don’t think a 16 year old mature enough to drink, to drive, to sleep with their teacher, to go to war – then I really struggle how you can reconcile them being voted into parliament.
The very fact that safeguarding is a consideration, the fact that we can’t take for granted that a 16 year old should move away for work if needed, is in my view proof alone that they are not suited to this.
I presume anybody supporting this also supports the removal of the position of trust exemption to the age of consent. And if not, why not? Please explain to me, in detail, why you think 16 year olds need protecting from adults who want to sleep with them, but are also mature enough to make primary legislation. Because I can’t see any way to reconile that, and have both things be true. Either we let 50 year old English teachers sleep with their students, and let 16 year olds into parliament, or we accept that they are children who lack maturity and still need protecting and safeguarding.
People not old enough to buy alcohol making laws. Anyone see a flaw?
We should probably set the age for all adult things to 18. 16 year olds aren’t fully vested into society, in addition to voting they probably shouldn’t be engaged in (full) work or marriage either. I don’t buy the argument either that politics is their future, as they’re only two years away from getting the same voting rights as the rest of us. And politics is my future too even if I’m not a teenager anymore.
Can anyone see a single potential benefit from this
“These young people who’s lives we control, may have a say in how their lives are controlled!”
The minimum age for enlisting in the UK armed forces is 16.
So the Torygraph are happy for children to become cannon fodder, but they can’t be politically active.
Wee Jimmy Krankie is that desperate to stay in power that she’ll allow kids to vote for her.
Remember, this would rely on adults of all ages voting for them.
If the electorate of a constituency want to be represented by a 16 year old, isn’t that their democratic right?
Imagine Wee Jimmie Krankie wanting to appeal to kids! 🤣
14 comments
[Archive Link](https://archive.vn/Jzsm4). Article text follows.
—
By Simon Johnson, Scottish Political Editor
Children in Scotland could stand for parliament and take political office, under plans unveiled by Nicola Sturgeon’s government to widen democratic “participation”.
The Scottish Government has published proposals for the minimum age of candidates for Holyrood elections to be cut from 18 to 16, believed to be the lowest election age for a national legislature in the world.
Asylum seekers could also be permitted to stand for the Scottish Parliament under the plans, which aim to deliver a pledge in the SNP-Green coalition deal to “promote active participation in elections by under-represented groups”.
But the controversial move marks a huge departure from democratic norms in the Western world, with the Scottish Government admitting that 18 is the minimum age in any EU member state for European Parliament elections.
**’Potential welfare concerns’**
An international study published in 2018 examining youth participation in national parliaments said the lowest age anywhere in the world to become a candidate was 17.
A Scottish Government consultation admitted there were “potential welfare concerns” with lowering the age to 16, such as exposing children to “intimidation” and “hate speech”, as well as abuse on the campaign trail.
It raised the prospect of youngsters having to live alone in an Edinburgh hotel during the week, away from their families, if their home is beyond commuting distance to the Holyrood parliament.
With the parliament’s working week extending from 2.30pm on Monday until 12.30pm on Friday, the consultation also warned that being elected as an MSP could damage a child’s education, including their ability to sit exams.
A series of concerns were also raised about allowing asylum seekers to stand as an MSP or councillor, a move enthusiastically backed by Ms Sturgeon’s Green coalition partners.
The consultation warned they would be forced to resign their post if their leave to remain in the UK expired, resulting in a costly by-election.
It also said they would have to meet any other condition attached to their work permit or study visa, such as maintaining a job or completing a course. It added that they may “struggle to balance those obligations with those arising from being an elected representative”.
**Lowering age would be ‘controversial’**
Voting rights were extended to 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland for the 2014 independence referendum, and then to Scottish Parliament and local government elections from 2016.
This was seen to benefit the SNP and independence-supporting Greens, with polls showing that younger voters are overwhelmingly in favour of leaving the UK.
But candidates must be 18 or over to stand for election to Holyrood, Westminster or a local authority. Across the European Union member states, the minimum age for election to the Brussels parliament ranges from 18 to 25.
Writing in his introduction to the consultation, George Adam, the SNP’s parliamentary business minister, admitted lowering the age to 16 would be “controversial”.
He said: “A robust electoral system is fundamental to the success of Scotland being an inclusive and vibrant democracy that makes everyone feel included and empowered.
“It is important as many people in our society as possible feel they have an effective and independent means to hold government to account and also feel encouraged to take an active interest in politics and civic life.”
Mark Ruskell, the Scottish Greens’ local democracy spokesman, said: “The starting principle has to be that if you can vote in our elections, you should be able to stand in them.”
But the consultation also raised a series of administrative problems with the plans, including “data protection issues” for candidates aged under 18.
It said that electoral registration officers have expressed concern that “they would have difficulty in ensuring that entries for asylum seekers were accurate and up to date, in particular where an asylum claim has been unsuccessful”.
Children? The same children who are allowed to get married and have babies?
Any time a party does something like this, it’s because they’ve calculated it will gain them votes.
That’s it.
There’s nothing else to it.
Because Sturgeon knows young voters are the only hope her party has.
Is this because the life expectancy in Scotland can be measured in soft eggs?
Where I struggle with this is that the desire to give more franchisement to younger people, also seems to come at at a time where I’m seeing more and more infantilisation of that same group.
I’m constantly reminded on reddit that the brain isn’t fully formed until 24, that 18 year olds are practically children ( I kid you not, there was somebody talking on Reddit the other day about an 18 or 19 year old girl (adult, either way) being *groomed* by an older gentlement)
Yet at the same time I’m meant to believe that a 16 year old has the requisite maturity to run for, and lead an office? To make legislation?
It’s a ludicrous suggestion – I’m not saying no 16 year olds are mature or that something magically changes at the precise moment they turn 18, and I think all western nations struggle with line drawing of what’s acceptable and when as children mature into teenagers and then adults, but I think by the time we’re saying “They can go out and make legislation, make law, and run the country” we’re into an all or nothing scenario.
If you don’t think a 16 year old mature enough to drink, to drive, to sleep with their teacher, to go to war – then I really struggle how you can reconcile them being voted into parliament.
The very fact that safeguarding is a consideration, the fact that we can’t take for granted that a 16 year old should move away for work if needed, is in my view proof alone that they are not suited to this.
I presume anybody supporting this also supports the removal of the position of trust exemption to the age of consent. And if not, why not? Please explain to me, in detail, why you think 16 year olds need protecting from adults who want to sleep with them, but are also mature enough to make primary legislation. Because I can’t see any way to reconile that, and have both things be true. Either we let 50 year old English teachers sleep with their students, and let 16 year olds into parliament, or we accept that they are children who lack maturity and still need protecting and safeguarding.
People not old enough to buy alcohol making laws. Anyone see a flaw?
We should probably set the age for all adult things to 18. 16 year olds aren’t fully vested into society, in addition to voting they probably shouldn’t be engaged in (full) work or marriage either. I don’t buy the argument either that politics is their future, as they’re only two years away from getting the same voting rights as the rest of us. And politics is my future too even if I’m not a teenager anymore.
Can anyone see a single potential benefit from this
“These young people who’s lives we control, may have a say in how their lives are controlled!”
The minimum age for enlisting in the UK armed forces is 16.
So the Torygraph are happy for children to become cannon fodder, but they can’t be politically active.
Wee Jimmy Krankie is that desperate to stay in power that she’ll allow kids to vote for her.
Remember, this would rely on adults of all ages voting for them.
If the electorate of a constituency want to be represented by a 16 year old, isn’t that their democratic right?
Imagine Wee Jimmie Krankie wanting to appeal to kids! 🤣