
Young Scots back UK Government decision to lower voting age
So what do young Scots think about the decision to expand voting rights, and which party could benefit most?
SNP activist Alex Gill said a "stronger youth voice" could convince the UK Government to pursue more progressive policies.
The 22-year-old said: 'This will reshape the electorate and elevate issues that matter most to younger citizens such as action on climate change, access to affordable housing and opportunities for fulfilling work.
'Successive UK governments have shown little appetite for strategic, long-term policymaking, too often chasing short-term optics. With luck, a stronger youth voice will hopefully pressure them to start rectifying that failure.
Read more:
Shane Painter, a Scottish Conservative who was one of the youngest parliamentary candidates in 2024, is also in favour of expanding the franchise.
He said: 'Lowering the voting age to 16 is a good move. It might finally force parties to speak to young people's concerns. In Scotland, 16-year-olds can already vote and they take it incredibly seriously.
Painter had strong words for his own party's positions on young people, noting: 'Conservatives must stop being the party of pensioners, back housebuilding, scrap the triple lock & WFP, and invest in the future and young people if we ever want to be in government again.'
Painter's position is somewhat unique among members of his party.
Former Tory MP candidate Shane Painter. (Image: Aberdeen Conservatives) In the House of Commons on Thursday, Conservative shadow housing, communities and local government minister Paul Holmes told MPs: 'This strategy has finally revealed [Labour's] ambition for allowing a 16-year-old to vote in an election but not stand in it, probably because young people are being abandoned in droves by the Labour Party.
'So, why does this Government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they're voting in?
That position was echoed by Joshua MacLeod, the chair of the Scottish Young Conservatives, who told The Herald: "This is just another rushed headline with no serious thought behind it. It's yet another case of Labour trying to rewrite the constitution to suit their own electoral interests.
"If voting is meant to reflect adult responsibilities, then let's have a proper debate about adulthood. Not just a spontaneous change to mask their political weakness."
Calum Mackinnon, who was unable to vote in the 2019 general election due to his age, says extending the franchise would be a step in the right direction.
He told The Herald on Sunday: 'I was literally weeks away from turning 18. It felt like my almost 'mature enough' voice was going to be missed out on by about 60 days. In 2016, Brexit focussed my mind firmly towards independence, having been more sympathetic towards a No vote in 2014.
'Even as a young S2, I still remember 2014 so clearly and how it changed Scotland forever. Having lived and studied in the EU post-Brexit, I am a fierce advocate – despite its imperfectness, so I would have 100% voted in the 2019 general election.'
Ellie Gomersall, the Scottish Greens activist and former president of the National Union of Students Scotland, also spoke out in support of the change, which she says is long overdue.
Gomersall noted: 'From cracking down on their right to protest, to stripping them of their disability benefits, Westminster governments have consistently failed to represent the needs and interests of young people.
'This change means that young people will be able to have their say in the decisions Westminster takes that have a huge impact on their lives.
However, Gomersall believes the government should go further, and introduce legislation to abolish 'the utterly undemocratic first past the post system' and 'replace the unelected – and overwhelmingly old and male – House of Lords.'
Scottish Greens activist Ellie Gomersall. (Image: Ellie Gomersall) What about concerns raised by some that teenagers aren't mature enough to make informed decisions about who to vote for?
Mackinnon, now 23, concedes that 'nuance' is often lacking at 16.
'It's a tough one,' he says. 'I think that nuance is difficult to obtain at 16/17. That being said, young people are always getting more and more aware and involved in our politics.
'I think, on balance, the young people who vote are probably interested enough to 'do the research' on what they want their politicians to achieve.'
University student Caitlin Kelly, 20, shared similar thoughts.
'At 20 do I think differently than 16?' she queried. 'A bit less naive maybe but I largely vote the same. I think it is important to encourage young people to be part of the future of our country, and that is what voting at 16 does.
'When I was 16, the desire to vote was all the more prevalent except I then had the skills to read and research critically, and so being Scottish I was lucky enough to vote.'
Fred Byrne, a student at the University of Aberdeen, agrees.
'Many 16 year olds have better informed political beliefs than their parents and grandparents,' he told The Herald.
'At 16, British youth can join the army or attend university, so it's only right they have been granted their long overdue right to vote. Young people are the biggest stakeholders in our future and will cast their votes for a just and sustainable world.'
Will 16 and 17-year-olds be persuaded to vote for Keir Starmer's Labour?
Hope Merriweather, who recently graduated from Dundee University with a degree in law, says she isn't sure if the change would boost voter turnout.
'I don't know if it would increase participation,' she told The Herald on Sunday, adding: 'I do think that the 16-year-olds that care should get to participate.
'I have some questions about 16-year-olds' ability to think critically, so I would want some level of education around it to prevent their parents from influencing their opinions too much.
'However, overall I think 16 and 17-year-olds have plenty of capacity to think and vote for themselves, as long as they are given the tools to do so.
'That goes for the entire population, the most important issue with voting right now is a lack of voter knowledge. If we could increase that across the board it would improve participation.'
Will extending the franchise shift the balance of power, potentially giving Labour a bulwark from which to combat the rise of Reform among working class voters?
A leading pollster believes it may.
Luke Tryl, executive director of More in Common told the Mail: 'Given young voters tend to lean to the left, we should expect the Greens and Labour to be the bigger winners of extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, with Reform doing well among young men, and the Tories the big losers.'
Read more:
Meanwhile, Reform's Nigel Farage has hit out at the move, accusing Labour of attempting to 'rig the political system.'
Gill believes that the lowering of the vote age could be a boon for the SNP.
He said: 'The latest polling shows that 75% of Scots aged 16 to 29 back independence, and support is likely even stronger among 16 and 17-year-olds.
"Therefore, expanding the franchise will certainly be a positive development for pro-independence parties.'
Of course, with the next general election not scheduled until 2029, the UK's political parties will have ample time to court young people ahead of what could be one of this nation's most consequential electoral contests.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Eighty years on from Labour's landslide, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza brings Clement Attlee's failure on Israel and Palestine to mind
Here's one for the aficionados: 26 July 2025 marks the 80th anniversary of Labour's landslide victory in the 1945 general election. Trade unionists and Labour MPs are celebrating, claiming the nation still owes a debt of gratitude for the historic achievements of Clement Attlee's government. Yet today, as the world watches the humanitarian crisis in Gaza with horror, it's worth recalling that one of Attlee's biggest failures was his Israel - Palestine policy. (Oh, and while Attlee's health minister Aneurin Bevan boasted he "stuffed their mouths with gold" to overcome doctors' opposition to the NHS, today doctors are on strike over pay again.) The 1945 election took place on 5 July, the same date Sir Keir Starmer entered 10 Downing Street last year. But with British armed forces still serving overseas in 1945, it took until 26 July to declare the result. 9:30 Labour won 393 seats in 1945, compared with 411 last year. But while Sir Keir's Labour only won 34% of the votes, Mr Attlee won nearly 50%. But then, there was no insurgent Reform UK back then. Celebrating the 80th anniversary, Joanne Thomas, who became general secretary of the shopworkers' union Usdaw in April this year, said the Attlee government left a lasting legacy. "Usdaw's predecessor unions were proud to play a role in the 1945 election victory and to see 18 of our members elected," she said. "Not least a hero of our union 'Red Ellen', a fiery trade union organiser who led the Jarrow hunger march and went on to serve as education minister." Wilkinson was indeed red. Attlee biographer Trevor Burridge wrote: "Ellen Wilkinson was made minister of education despite the fact that she had actively campaigned against his leadership." She was MP for Jarrow, not a million miles from the current education secretary and Starmer super-loyalist Bridget Phillipson's Houghton and Sunderland South constituency. But not even her best friends would call her red! Ellen Wilkinson was also the only woman in Attlee's 1945 cabinet. Last year, Sir Keir made history by appointing 11 women to his cabinet. Labour MP Marie Tidball, elected last year, joined the tributes to Attlee. "He transformed Britain for working people and this legacy laid the foundations for Britain today - our NHS, welfare state and homes for heroes. "Those public services meant I could grow up to fulfil my potential. Labour legend." But if Attlee's NHS, welfare state and nationalisation are viewed as successes by Labour trade unionists and MPs, his government's policy on Palestine is widely agreed to have been a failure. In his acclaimed biography of Attlee's foreign secretary, "Ernest Bevin: Labour's Churchill", former Blairite cabinet minister Andrew Adonis wrote: "Why did Bevin get Israel/Palestine so wrong?" Adonis says Bevin's policy on Palestine "led to the precise opposite of its declared intention of stability and the peaceful co-existence of the Jewish and Palestinian communities within one state at peace with its neighbours". He concluded: "Instead, Bevin's legacy was a Jewish state of Israel, much larger than even most of its advocates previously favoured, in periodic war and perpetual tension with both its Palestinians and its Arab neighbours." Where did Bevin go wrong? Adonis wrote: "In the first place, because, during the three key years 1945-48, he did not agree that his central policy objective was 'good relations with the United States'." As Sir Keir Starmer prepares to meet Donald Trump in Scotland, 80 years after the historic Attlee victory, that's clearly not a mistake the current Labour PM has made in his relations with the US president. " I like your prime minister," the president said as he arrived in Scotland, "he's slightly more liberal than I am, but I like him". So, 80 years on from Attlee, lessons have been learned. So far, so good, that is.

The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Why didn't the SNP act when they had power in the UK?
As I have said many times in these pages and to SNP leadership, when we had a majority of SNP MPs at Westminster, and were the third-biggest party there, that if the FM spent less time strutting around like a world leader, distracting from the job at hand, and allowed the SNP group at Westminster to actually do their job, we could have had either independence or another referendum by now. As I said, in my simplistic view: 1. In 1707, it was Scottish parliamentarians who voted to unionise with England, not through a referendum or public opinion which was very much against it at the time. 2. The [[SNP]] in 2011 achieved what was meant to be improbable, due to the way the proportional representation system was set up at [[Holyrood]], and won a majority. Independence polling was in the low 30% at the time and [[Westminster]] thought they would lay to rest once and for all Scottish independence and reset the narrative. READ MORE: 'Not in our name': Hundreds gather in Scottish cities to protest Donald Trump Scots sensing freedom rallied around the cause as the polls rose, only for Westminster to panic and reach out to the vast Union media to spread doom and fear about Scotland's chances to surviving on its own (see point 5). Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon were not prepared for the referendum fight that ensued, failing to deliver on the big questions in debates. Which isn't surprising because the [[SNP]] were probably taken aback when David Cameron said yes to a referendum, the [[SNP]] hadn't done all the preparative homework (ie currency, pensions, trade, the border, etc) to allay the fears of Scots never mind that of Scottish businesses and institutions. Even now, they are not prepared 11 years on and the SNPs hierarchy of 'it's my way or the highway approach to independence' is a flaw in their DNA. Scots' democracy is a consensus-based system, that's how the convention brought about devolution, and it's about time the SNP woke up to this fact. The SNP hierarchy don't even listen to their own rank and file or their activists! Even Swinney's recent independence reset is so bland, it wasn't worth the airtime. The concern of independence voters is who will be their political voice, certainly not the SNP at this time, the reason more than half a million voters failed to vote for them last time not many of these voters jumped the divide to Labour if you look at the voter breakdown. Worrying times indeed for both the SNP and independence voters. The independence voter churn is likely to continue. (Image: PA) 3. [[Westminster]] and the House of Lords (monarchy) demand power and obedience to rule which make the privilege richer and give the middle and lower classes just enough to keep them in line. So, the [[SNP]] need to be strategic and be prepared to gamble all to deliver independence. They had a whole parliamentary term when they were in the ascendancy to do this and failed miserably, partly due to internal squabbling at [[Westminster]] and interference from the FM and the FM's inner circle who acted as though [[Holyrood]] had political precedence and would deliver independence. Oh how wrong this attitude was, and it's been a slippery downward slope ever since. The best they could do was ask 'please sir can I have one more referendum?' and their reply was 'more, you had your day and the people of Scotland voted to remain, now is not the time for another referendum'. 4. At this time, the SNP should have shaken this up by electing a 'majority Scottish leader' at Westminster. Reintroduce the Scottish Grand Committee to review all Westminster's reserved matters like the constitution, eg another independence referendum or to vote on the impact of Westminster land-grab legalisation the 'Internal Market Act'. To vote on these and relay to the speaker of the house and the government the Scottish MP majority outcomes are token and disruptive gestures maybe, but it does echo the Scottish electorate will to the Parliament. More importantly, at this time the UK was out of Europe, a fundamental material change from the referendum debate of 2014 where membership of the European Union was one of [[Westminster]]'s key fear strategies, and from a democratic perspective, the [[SNP]] were the third-largest party at [[Westminster]] (unheard of achievement), the biggest party at [[Holyrood]] and biggest party of elected councillors in Scotland. If I was in charge at that time, I would have given the Westminster government the simple either/or ultimatum; to grant a second referendum or Scotland will unitarily leave the Union based on the elected mandate. The latter throwing the UK into a constitutional crisis, spooking the Bank of England (not UK!) and the financial markets. I am sure this would have led to a lot of activity behind the scenes as when the city of London catches a cold, Westminster sits up and takes note and then there is the probable granting of a second referendum. As I said, gamble big, better than the limp approach to the English Supreme Court approach! 5. Many countries have successfully left British rule and never looked back. As stated at point 1), Scots parliamentarians decided to join England in an Union, so it is not unrealistic to do the same in reverse, irrespective of the language of the treaty. Labour rules the UK with only 33.7% of those voted, so having greater than 50% is not necessary. Also, when a small group of Tory MPs like the 1922 club can oust an elected leader that won them a general election, it just goes to show how democracy works for English privilege and not for the democratic masses, like for Scotland. Also, when a Westminster party comes to power, there is no penalty or forfeit for not following their manifesto, so just because the SNP manifesto didn't explicitly say Scotland would leave the UK, anyone that votes for the SNP knows their DNA is independence, so shock horror if they deliver on it. From an European perspective, precedent was set when the Slovakian party announced the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, resulting in the separation in 1992 and the resultant independent sovereign states of Slovakia and Czech Republic where future EU ascension wasn't an issue, so why would Scotland's independence be a roadblock to independence or EU ascension, certainly not now after Brexit? A Wilson Stirlingshire THE Government has recently announced changes to the Contracts for Difference scheme, with a view to speeding up the development of renewable energy projects across the country. One of the new changes to the scheme is to extend the length of contracts for onshore and offshore windfarm project development. This provides an incentive for developers bidding for new contracts, as it gives them more time to recoup their costs. The new cycle for applications to the scheme opens on August 7, 2025. This incentivising highlights the point that Pat Kane made in his article on July 12, titled 'Scotland is heading back into a cycle of 'extraction without consent'', that after oil comes wind power. He also made reference to Lesley Riddoch's equally excellent article of June 19, about the multiple windfarm applications which are currently being made across the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Kane reflected back to a time when the play, The Cheviot, The Stag And The Black, Black Oil, by John McGrath dramatised the issues surrounding oil extraction in Scotland's waters, and went on to ask rhetorically, 'What kind of single dramatic 'representation' could take purchase?' in relation to the issues surrounding renewable energy generation in Scotland today. He lays down the gauntlet when he suggests that: 'Creatives worth their salt should rise to the challenge'. In the comments section at the end of his article, I did point out that in terms of dramatising the issues surrounding renewable energy being generated in Scotland, much of the problem creatives like myself face is getting our work heard. It's not that we are not offering a commentary, or perspective, on these issues, but without the following which the celebrity cult seems to generate in today's publishing world, it is hard to get your work noticed. Oblivious as to whether or not I am one of those who are 'worth their salt', I had just started the process of uploading, finalising and then releasing my latest humorous novel, An t-Eilean Dorcha (The Dark Island) at the time of his article. This was finally released in paperback on July 21 on Amazon. The novel focuses on a renewable energy project which is proposed for a small island, and the community has to evaluate its impact and consider how best to respond. My hope is that as well as providing the reader with some light entertainment and an escape from their day-to-day life, it will also, give voice to the very real concerns people have expressed about renewable energy resource generation in the Highlands and Islands. Gordon Ian MacLeod via email MUCH angst has been expressed recently about the high cost of electricity in Scotland. Hardly surprising in the UK's cradle of green, affordable generation. Disgruntled consumers may hold meetings, march, post banners and write letters – all protesting against high charges. The privatised electricity companies will ignore them, assuming that people will pay up for this essential necessity; and most probably will. In 1915, at the height of the First World War, greedy landlords in Glasgow increased rents beyond what was reasonable. Already poor people were incensed, but didn't know what to do about it. That is until local woman Mary Barbour stepped in and created an army which united in a rent strike. They surmised that if they hit the landlords in their pockets they would soon begin to squeal – and indeed it was not long before they did back down, realising that some rent was better than none. All the passive actions I mention above will not disturb the power companies one iota, so I suggest that folk in the Highlands and Islands emulate Mary Barbour's army, and refuse to pay their electricity bills en masse until they are charged the same per kilowatt that Londoners pay, backdated to 2020. Yes, the companies will hold out for as long as possible, they will take a few people to court, and as with any strike there will be folk who capitulate. But with solidarity, mutual support and determination, I believe the people will prevail. Richard Walthew Duns THE article in the digital edition reporting on the sale of an estate near Fort Augustus indicates that there will be a lot of interest from overseas. If this parcel of Scottish land is sold to an overseas buyer then there should be a hefty tax burden on the buyer and they should only be allowed to purchase it if everything is transparent so that the people of Scotland know who owns the land that should belong to the people of Scotland. Audrey Maceachen via email YOUR article on the electric super highway mentions a subsea cable from Fife into England. Meanwhile, Scotland is faced with giant pylons ruining the land? Our 'green' electricity, for which we are charged extortionate rates, being fed into another country. Has Mr Swinney and the [[SNP]] anything to say in this? Or is this robbery getting the silence that Grangemouth got. Jim Butchart via email

Rhyl Journal
2 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
Security operation under way on first full day of Trump's visit to Scotland
The President is expected to take to the greens on the golf course at the Trump Turnberry resort, which he bought back in 2014. Ahead of that, a large number of police and military personnel have been spotted searching the grounds at the venue in South Ayrshire. Various road closures have been put in place, with limited access for both locals and members of the media. Mr Trump is staying at Turnberry for the start of a five-day private visit to Scotland which will see him have talks with both UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Scottish First Minister John Swinney. A meeting has also been scheduled for him to talk about trade with European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday. With no talks apparently scheduled for Saturday, the President – a well-known golf enthusiast – appears to be free to play the famous Turnberry course. However, protests have been planned, with opponents of Mr Trump expected to gather in both Edinburgh and Aberdeen later on Saturday, with the Stop Trump coalition planning what it has described as being a 'festival of resistance'. As well as visiting Trump Turnberry, Mr Trump will head to Aberdeenshire later in his visit and is expected to open a second course at his golf resort in Balmedie. As he landed in Ayrshire on Friday, the President took questions from journalists, telling Europe to 'get your act together' on immigration, which he said was 'killing' the continent. He also praised Sir Keir, who he described as a 'good man', but added that the UK Prime Minister is 'slightly more liberal than I am'. Saturday will be the first real test of Police Scotland during the visit as it looks to control the demonstrations in Aberdeen and Edinburgh, as well as any which spring up near to the president's course. The force has asked for support from others around the UK to bolster officer numbers, with both organisations representing senior officers and the rank-and-file claiming there is likely to be an impact on policing across the country for the duration of the visit. Before the visit started, Mr Swinney appealed to Scots to protest 'peacefully and within the law'.