Latest news with #EdinburghAgreement
Spectator
4 days ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Why shouldn't 16 year olds get the vote?
On 18 September 2014, Scotland went to the polls to decide its future in the United Kingdom. While the outcome was decisive – 55 per cent of voters couldn't bring themselves to back independence – the turnout for the poll, at 85 per cent, was one of the highest recorded in Britain. The significance of the 'one-off' vote (plus anxieties on either side of the debate about the outcome coming down to the wire) saw full-throated campaign efforts deliver a swathe of voters to polling stations. A number of these were under 18-years-old, including me – with my birthday falling just six days before the poll. It was the 2012 Edinburgh Agreement that allowed the Scottish parliament to choose who could vote in an independence referendum. Using temporary powers under the Scotland Act, the Scottish government extended the say to 16- and 17-year olds – and subsequently over 100,000 under-18s registered to vote. The argument put forward by the SNP was similar to that of Labour's Angela Rayner on Thursday: the decision is good for democracy and gets young people excited about politics. And the same criticisms were levelled at the Scottish government as the UK one: that the move was more about party politics than progress. History has demonstrated how expanding the vote is hardly the most effective form of gerrymandering: while the SNP expected younger voters to be more open to the idea of independence, Scottish Referendum Study analysis showed that 54 per cent of 16-19-year-olds voted 'no'. The BBC described the union-backing bloc at the time as an 'unusual alliance' of 'average earners, Protestants and women'. Labour should take heed: currently polling suggests that while younger voters would tend to lean left, there is a significant proportion of young people – generally men – attracted by the straight-talking, anti-establishment rhetoric of Reform. As More in Common pollster Luke Tryl pointed out on Friday's Coffee House Shots, the voting reform doesn't make it much more obvious who would win the next general election at this point. What it does signal is yet more bad news for the Conservatives, who poll in the single figures among young people. But there is a case to be made for extending the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds, particularly at a point when trust in politicians is at an all-time low and people across the country are increasingly disillusioned by and disengaging from national politics. Research by academics from both Edinburgh and Sheffield University after the 2014 poll found that not only do 16- and 17-year-olds tend to vote more frequently than their slightly older peers who got the vote at 18, they maintain these voting habits for longer – usurping the turnout dip that was once common among the early adult age group. 'If you give people the right to vote earlier in life, they appear more likely to make voting a habit,' the researchers noted. Polling company FocalData conducted research in conjunction with work done by former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown on the state of social cohesion in Britain. The findings are stark: nine in ten people said they had less than five close friends, while 16 per cent admitted they had no friends at all. Looking at Gen Z more specifically, YouGov noted in February this year that only 15 per cent of young people feel they live in a united country. Communities – and generations – look increasingly fragmented in the UK and a kind of local-level protectionism is being bred, as economic pressures tied into the cost of living crisis and housing shortage remain a feature of public life. People are growing less interested in each other and more disillusioned by the state of the country. Of course the simple fact of giving young people a vote wouldn't sort all this out – but the triple shot of getting people interested in political policies from an early age, increasing turnout and, crucially, maintaining that increase in engagement ensures more people are actively invested in the country's future. That cannot be a bad thing. Why is this important? Recent elections have seen more and more people turn off from mainstream politics – indeed, Sir Keir Starmer's Labour party won its supermajority on a very thin share of the vote, with only 38 per cent of Brits backing them. They've only had a year in power but already their legitimacy has been challenged as a result – as much internally as externally. Awareness of the vote share (and indeed low turnout) has created an atmosphere of awkwardness. As one Labour grandee remarked to me recently: 'There is a bashfulness about our success.' It sums up the degree to which this realisation has undermined the confidence of the party leadership, with MPs acknowledging the government hasn't exploited its supermajority to its fullest potential. And now that backbenchers are growing increasingly vocal – and disruptive – it seems unlikely Labour ever will. Parties would do well to better consider how to speak to a cohort of people that will shortly make up the bulk of the country's workforce, especially if various reforms – that are hard sells in the short term but beneficial down the line – are to be pulled off. Starmer's biggest U-turns during his first year in office show a government allowing non-workers to dictate policy: from the winter fuel payment cut reversal to the rowback on disability benefits. Long overdue conversations about issues like the pension triple lock tend to be avoided thanks to fears about losing the silver vote. While allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to head to the ballot box isn't going to radically dent the impact of the pensioner class, it provides an additional opportunity for parties to consider how to get young people on side – and stick with them over the course of their voting careers. There are numerous counterpoints: for example, if 16- and 17-year-olds can't, in England, do things like get married or drink alcohol, they shouldn't be allowed to vote. (You could argue it seems strange to shower a person with a whole host of new liberties at any one age.) And there is a certain sneeriness from older generations about the intellectual capacity of teens now – perhaps a rattled awareness that they too were the future once. But this ignores a number of responsibilities that already rest with young people: it is at this age that you are expected to figure out what you want to do with your life – what to study at university, or which apprenticeships or jobs to apply for. And it's often at this age that students are at their most curious. I remember the buzz around school when the independence election approached – friends who had never so much as talked about the news before were discussing things like the future of Trident (we were only a few miles down the road from Faslane), our reliance on oil and gas and even questions of cultural identity. It didn't split people down partisan lines; it persuaded us not only to voice our opinions but appreciate that they carried weight. And, vitally, it encouraged more people to get involved. The government's latest move doesn't quite deserve the criticism that has been thrown its way.
The National
5 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Sovereignty of the Scottish people is a chimera that we must make real
And I entirely subscribe to Jim Murphy's notion (Letters, Jul 15) that 'until this movement stops confusing theory with force, and starts acting like a people denied their nation – not petitioners in someone else's parliament – we will never be taken seriously, at home or abroad'. The only difficulty I have is, what does a people denied their nation actually look like? If we're to believe the views of Professors Crawford and Boyle as set out in Annex A, Opinion: Referendum on the Independence of Scotland International Law Aspects: 'Scotland certainly was extinguished as a matter of international law, by merger either into an enlarged and renamed England or into an entirely new state.' Follow that with the views of Ciaran Martin, Professor at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford but in a previous incarnation as Constitution Director (2011-2014) within the Cabinet Office and at the centre of the Edinburgh Agreement negotiations: 'Ultimately there are no constraints on what Westminster can do to block a lawful path to Scottish independence if it's so minded. There are, in effect, only two things that matter. One: The law is in [[Westminster]], Two: The votes are in Scotland. So if these two forces clash, one has to give way to the other'. READ MORE: Will John Swinney surprise us with a courageous election manifesto? So the choice would appear to be between social disruption (not easy to control in the highly likely instance that the UK deployed agents provocateurs) and the alternative that we make real the chimera that is the sovereignty of the Scottish people. That it exists is well established with the Claim of Right of 1689 and subsequent iterations in the Scottish Constitutional Convention 1989, Holyrood and [[Westminster]] debates. The only problem is, we can't find the switch to flick or handle to pull to bring it to life as the lawyers tell us it's not justiciable. What would make the chimera real is the incorporation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) into Scots law. Jim Murphy is anxious that 'constitutional change in states founded on parliamentary sovereignty cannot be achieved through legal argument alone. It requires political authority that transcends existing legal limits – exercised by the people themselves, not their parliamentary proxies – through actions that alter the facts on the ground'. READ MORE: Legal rights without enforcement are merely political ornaments This is precisely the power of Article 25(b) of the ICCPR, which would allow for a 'home grown' referendum of Scotland's citizens and the emancipation of direct democracy in our country. It's good to talk. If it so happens to follow on from a majority of independence-minded MSPs being elected to the new Holyrood Parliament in May, so much the better for undisputed validation of the sovereign will of our nation by 'actions that alter the facts on the ground'. All the more reason, then, to support PE2135: Implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in Scottish legislation' at the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in our 'pretendy parliament'. Iain Bruce Nairn REGARDING the government admitting that the previous government released details of Afghan supporters and that this was done by a "defence" civil servant. Firstly, none of the newspapers reporting this mention if he/she has been dismissed, and secondly, would you be happy with your defence in such hands? Paul Gillon Baintown, Leven
The National
04-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
Why do the Unionists' work for them with dismissal of ‘de facto' plan?
A recent example came up in the column by Seamus Logan MP of June 25 (Using an election as plebiscite referendum is just not going to fly), the nub of which is to disparage the notion of independence through a plebiscitary election. He wrote: 'I'm always puzzled how so many who argue that we absolutely must take this route can argue with 100% certainty that any UK Government will say no to another referendum on independence, yet can still believe the same UK Government would just roll over and say yes to actual independence in the face of a positive election result.' The tactic has been employed ever since the 2014 indyref. Sturgeon said much the same in a tired, off-guard moment on TV a few years ago, and cultish devotion to the 'ye cannae' line is still prevalent. Where it comes from, I have no idea, but it is suicidal nonsense, which has gripped the movement and is doing the Unionists' work with a ferocity they themselves lack. At root, two and only two things must occur for Scottish independence, namely a democratic vote for it to happen, and the implementation of that vote. There are only two ways of holding the vote. One is an official referendum. By law, Holyrood cannot arrange that without special consent from London, which Labour, Tory and Reform UK all completely refuse. Such refusal bars them from complaining about use of the only alternative method, a plebiscitary election. In fact, there is no indication that they would so complain, so at least on that point they are more level-headed than the Loganites. A UK General Election is the most solemn, legally sacrosanct, direct expression of the public will, and may be turned into a plebiscite on independence in Scotland simply by the appropriate brief manifesto seeking a head-count majority vote for Scotland to leave the Union, and promising implementation. Such a majority, of any size, would swamp the Scottish seats with the supreme representatives of the Scottish people, mandated to take Scotland out. They could give effect to the vote, restoring Scottish statehood by declaration. No superior manifestation of the will of the people of Scotland exists, and it is perfectly legal and constitutional. When it comes down to it, after such a vote and with the Scottish members resolved to carry it through, London would not be crazy enough to attempt to prohibit it, and would come to the table for an agreed split. They would have no case and no power to do otherwise. London claims neither the legal justification nor the practical ability to frustrate the will of Scotland to go. That very proper acknowledgement underpinned the Edinburgh Agreement which preceded the 2014 indyref, and which would not have been possible if London had not conceded Scotland's right. Anyone who maintains that London would throw over the entire legal and constitutional position, and display itself to the world as the open oppressor of Scotland, has lost the plot. So it is not a matter of giving London the place, or London taking it, to rule on Scottish independence. The decision is Scotland's alone, and it is high time that Mr Logan and those who share his catastrophic misgivings saw the simple truth of that fact, and acted on it. Alan Crocket Motherwell
The National
28-05-2025
- Politics
- The National
Shouldn't all of our efforts be focused on de facto referendum route?
The petition is in the hands of Justice for All International, a non-government group recognized by the UN, which accepts the description of the circumstances of Scotland set out by LS. That description purports to expose English colonisation of Scotland right through the Union, in every branch, and indeed in almost every nook and cranny of its history and current affairs. Though sceptical, I leave aside the likelihood of the petition being granted, and the expectation of LS. I accept the goodwill of that organisation and its honest desire for Scottish independence. READ MORE: Tory MSP fumes as expert says Scotland 'not a partner in a union' In its constitution and other publications, LS accuses 'the English Crown' of 'the denial of any domestic legal and political route for Scottish self-determination'. That accusation is a fundamental element of the organisation's raison d'etre. But it is false. Scotland has in its own hands a route to self-determination, comprising the means of a) holding the vote and b) implementing a majority Yes result. It is true that London forbids Scotland from holding a referendum on independence. The Supreme Court has definitively held that a reservation under Holyrood's founding act prevents Holyrood from legislating to organise an independence referendum. It would be possible for London to grant permission, as it did in 2014, but that is at the discretion of the UK Government, and all major UK parties have said they will not grant it. Does that constitute the denial complained of by LS? Well it would, if there was no other route available. But it is open to any party standing throughout Scotland to issue a manifesto in any UK General Election seeking votes for Scotland to leave the Union, and undertaking to implement that if it receives the majority of Scottish votes. Any such majority would fill virtually every Scottish seat with an indy MP so mandated by the democratic choice of the people of Scotland. Those MPs are the people's supreme representatives, and there are none higher. READ MORE: Top roles on BBC Scottish dramas 'more often based in London' As for implementation, if London still declined to negotiate Scotland's independence, UK law and constitution do not prohibit the Scottish MPs from restoring Scotland's sovereign independence by declaration, withdrawing from Westminster and taking its place as the supreme legislative body of the country, which would also be in line with the democratic imperative following the majority Yes vote. London would have no case against it, given the absence of any prohibition in UK law or constitution, or in international law; its acceptance in the Edinburgh Agreement that Scotland could leave if its people wished and its repeated (though rare) statements to that effect; the legislative right of Northern Ireland to leave the UK by majority vote; and its refusal of a Holyrood-mandated referendum. All London would have would be its own whim, and it is not going to turn itself, before all the world, into a hoodlum with a cosh over Scotland. That being so, it would perhaps be better for LS to apply its efforts in trying to get the SNP to put itself in order and do the business, or to have a replacement political group do so. Alan Crocket Motherwell
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Why Alberta's push for independence pales in comparison to Scotland's in 2014
One day after the Liberal Party secured their fourth consecutive federal election victory, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith tabled legislation to change the signature threshold needed to put citizen-proposed constitutional questions on the ballot. She lowered it from the current 600,000 signatures to 177,000. Since the pro-independence Alberta Prosperity Project already claims to have 240,000 pledges in support of an Albertan sovereignty referendum, the change clears a path to a separation referendum. In 2014, Scottish voters went to the polls on a similar question to the one proposed by the Alberta Prosperity Project, but asking voters whether they wanted to regain their independence from Britain. Although the Scottish 'Yes' campaign was defeated, it garnered 45 per cent of the vote, far exceeding what most thought was possible at the start of the campaign. The 2014 Scottish referendum injected a huge amount of enthusiasm into the Scottish separatist parties, with the largest, the Scottish National Party (SNP) — which led the fight for the Yes side — soaring from 20,000 members in 2013 to more than 100,000 months after the referendum. While the Yes campaign did not achieve its goals and the Scottish historical context is very different from Alberta's, there are still important lessons about how people can be won over to the cause of independence. Albertan separatists don't seem to be heading down the same path. Smith has suggested that if the necessary signatures were collected, that she would aim to hold a referendum in 2026. But the Alberta Prosperity Project's Jeffrey Rath suggested the group would push Smith to allow a referendum before the end of 2025, giving the referendum a maximum of seven months of official campaigning. The broad ground rules of the Scottish referendum were established in the Edinburgh Agreement in October 2012. On March 2013, the SNP-led Scottish government announced the date of the independence referendum — Sept. 18, 2014. The long campaign period allowed a wide variety of grassroots campaign groups to organize in favour of independence. While Alberta separatism is less likely to be buoyed by artist collectives and Green Party activists like Scottish independence was, a longer independence campaign would allow a variety of members of Albertan society to make the case for independence. Dennis Modry, a co-leader of the Alberta Prosperity Project, recently told CBC News that the initial signature threshold of 600,000 was not all bad, as it would 'get (us) closer to the referendum plurality as well.' That remark suggested Modry sees value having more time to campaign before a referendum is held. In this regard, he and Rath seem to be sounding different notes. Hints that the Alberta Prosperity Project is already divided raises broader questions of leadership. In 2014, the Scottish Yes side had a clear and undisputed leader — First Minister Alex Salmond, head of the SNP. The late Salmond led the SNP to back-to-back electoral victories in Scotland, including the only outright majority ever won in the history of the Scottish parliament in 2011. Salmond was able to speak in favour of independence in debates and to answer, with democratic legitimacy, specific questions about what the initial policy of an independent Scotland would be. The SNP government published a report, Scotland's Future, that systematically sought to assuage skeptics. Its 'frequently asked questions' (FAQ) section answered 650 potential questions about independence. The Alberta Prosperity Project, on the other hand, only answers 74 questions in its FAQ. Whereas Salmon's rise to the leadership of the Scottish independence movement was done in full public view and according to party rules, the Alberta Prosperity Project's leadership structure is far murkier. The organization claims there 'is no prima facie leader of the APP, but there (is) a management team which is featured on the website Follow that link, however, and no names or management structures are listed. While independence always involves some unknowns, clear leadership can provide answers about where a newly independent nation might find stability. The Yes Scotland campaign promised independence within Europe, meaning Scotland would retain access to the European Union's common market. By contrast, the Alberta Prosperity Project isn't clear on the fundamental question of whether a sovereign Alberta should remain independent or attempt to join the United States as its 51st state. Despite the claim on its website that 'the objective of the Alberta Prosperity Project is for Alberta to become a sovereign nation, not the 51st state of the USA,' the organization backed Rath's recent trip to Washington, D.C. to gauge support for Albertan integration into the U.S. Rath has also said that becoming a U.S. territory is 'probably the best way to go.' The 2014 referendum in Scotland was called a 'festival of democracy', and even anti-independence forces agreed the referendum had been good for democracy. It took time and leadership to put forward a positive case for independence, one that voters could decide upon with confidence. Alberta could learn from Scotland and strengthen its democracy by holding a referendum based on legitimate leadership, reasonable timelines, diverse voices and clear aims. Or it could lurch into a rushed campaign, with divided leaders of dubious legitimacy, arguing for unclear outcomes — and end up, no matter which side wins, weakening its democracy in the process. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organisation bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Piers Eaton, L'Université d'Ottawa/University of Ottawa Read more: Alberta has long accused Ottawa of trying to destroy its oil industry. Here's why that's a dangerous myth Danielle Smith's subservient Florida trip flouts the Team Canada approach to fighting Trump Why Alberta's Danielle Smith is rejecting the Team Canada approach to Trump's tariff threats Piers Eaton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
