Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Cameron to let children vote on Scottish independence

16-year-olds in the UK can’t purchase cigarettes or alcohol; they can’t drive; they can’t leave home or get married without parental consent*; they can’t give blood; they can join the army, but can’t go on active service. They can’t obtain a street trading licence; they can’t go abroad to act or perform music professionally; they can’t get a credit card; they can’t apply for a mortgage, or own houses or land. They can’t be called for jury service; can’t change their name; and can’t act as an executor of a person's will. They can’t place bets, purchase fireworks or become a local councillor. In Jersey and Guernsey – discriminatory horror of horrors – they can’t even legally have gay sex.

But HM Government is contemplating giving 126,000 Scottish 16 and 17-year-olds a vote on the irreversible break-up of the United Kingdom in Alex Salmond’s 2014 referendum on Scottish independence.

If you can trust Scottish children with discernment and good judgment on something as seismic as a nation’s political independence, why not trust 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds across the UK to vote on more trivial matters like matters like taxation, welfare, health or education? Surely extending the franchise in Scotland alone is racist against the English, Welsh and Northern Irish? Or is this provision to apply only in referenda? If so, can we be sure that when we come to vote on the EU that all 16 and 17-year-olds are included, since (against all the odds and countering years of propaganda) the vast majority of them appear to be turning against Le Grand Projet?

Or is this enfranchisement applicable to the independence referendum only; a constitutional one-off? If so, is that not rather overt gerrymandering? Why should the constituency that elected the current First Minister not be the same as that which votes in his referendum? Surely the age group that determines his success or failure ought to be the same as that which gave him his mandate?

Apparently, a reduction in the voting age is the Prime Minister’s quid pro quo for Alex Salmond’s agreement to ditch the second ‘Devo-Max’ question on the ballot paper: ie, the referendum is to pose only a straightforward in/out question.

The Prime Minister has no right to barter with the Constitution in this fashion: it is too important a settlement to use for short-term political expediency. Those who are insisting that no precedent will be set by lowering the voting age in this referendum clearly have no understanding of the word ‘precedent: the groups that campaign for lowering the voting age permanently are in no doubt at all that a clear precedent would indeed be set.

It's barking. Absolutely barking.

If 16-year-olds are to be trusted with what they want to do to the body politic of the Union, at least give them the power to decide what they might do to their own bodies first.

*Except in Scotland


Blogger graham wood said...

Indeed Cranmer. One cannot escape the logic:
"If you can trust Scottish children with discernment and good judgment on something as seismic as a nation’s political independence...."

So, Cameron will trust Scottish children to bring a mature political judgment to the independence issue, but he cannot bring himself to trust a British electorate of adults to bring that same political judgment to the question of our membership of the EU, and our own national destiny.
How strange.

22 August 2012 at 10:51  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

While I support Scottish independence (married to a guid Scots lass) I am and have always been against reducing the voting age to 16. As a matter of fact, I think it was a great mistake reducing it to 18. 21 is soon enough.

22 August 2012 at 10:58  
Blogger MrTinkles said...

Having taught 16 and 17 year olds for more than 25 years, I can warn Mr Cameron that they shouldn't be allowed to vote on what to have for dinner.

Some of my most depressing moments in teaching were overseeing the "school council"...I still shudder at the memory.

Yes, yes I know there's always someone who can wheel out a couple of incredibly impressive examples of young people who clearly have a knowledge of life beyond the latest fashion, pop star or premiership footballers...but they are few and far between (and usually end up frightening us all at the party conferences)

The only saving grace (no pun intended) in this is that they will probably be too apathetic to bother voting.

And before someone points it out, yes, I am well aware that your average 30 something isn't much more engaged...but it won't help by adding even more ignorance to the mix

22 August 2012 at 11:22  
Blogger Naomi King said...

David Cameron has gone completely mad !

22 August 2012 at 12:24  
Blogger Effie Deans said...

I am against giving 16-17 year olds a vote in the Scottish referendum, but I doubt that it will affect the outcome one way or the other. The Scottish electorate at the moment is around 4 million adding 125,000 to that electorate is about 3%. But not all of these children will even bother to vote and so even if, for example, 60% of this age group were to vote yes, it would be unlikely to affect the outcome. Polls at the moment suggest support for independence is only 26%. In principle, it is wrong to gerrymander in this way, but I'm not much worried by the 16-17 year olds. The only thing that worries me is a 2nd question on devo-max.

22 August 2012 at 12:27  
Blogger Si Hollett said...

Can't 16 year olds get married without parental consent in Scotland, hence Gretna Green's wedding trade?

22 August 2012 at 12:36  
Blogger Jon said...

Mr Tinkles, isn't that rather a sad indictment of your profession, rather than the quality of today's youth?

After all, either children have always been apathetic politically, or the current generation has been "inspired" to be so by some environmental factor?

There are issues which the young are uniquely well placed to vote on - for instance, education reforms and environmental issues, as well as whether to commit their future taxation to paying off someone else's bills!

I appreciate that we have to draw the line somewhere, but I don't understand why 18 (or indeed 21) are the ones we accept. Don't they strike you as arbitrary?

Is it instructive to ask how old was the Virgin Mary when she became pregnant? If you believe our host's religious view, her choice was far more earth shattering than the choice young Scots will face.

Either Mary was a very mature young woman (in which case, your line is confirmed as being arbitrary and manifestly unfair in her case - so why not others, or today's youth), or human's progression to maturity has slowed over the last 2000 years, or we're making a rather ugly allegation re. God's actions with regard to a woman who was too young to have a legitimate view on anything (and so presumably, to consent)?

And whilst we're there what other "tests" could be imposed before being allowed to vote? An IQ test? An income test?

Where do we stop?

22 August 2012 at 12:39  
Blogger IanCad said...


Cameron is imperiling our representative form of government. The UK is falling apart, and, as you allude, our Constitution is hellbent to the scrapyard
We are headed for direct democracy and that will eventually lead to tyranny.
Is there not a middle ground; somewhere between today's over extended franchise, and the Forty Shilling Freeholder?

YG. I'm sure your flock is mainly like me. Little people who desire to live under liberty and justice. We look ahead and perceive gloom. Plenty of talk but no action. We all love our country and wish for continued prosperity. It is my firm belief that it is only in the hands of a traditional, libertarian leaning, Conservative government that the delights of civilization can continued to be enjoyed.
Cameron has to go. Not quietly, but with the voice of all true Conservatives cheering his exit.

The very astute Italian journalist Luigi Barzini observed that one of the crowning characteristics of the British, was that they, "Nearly always left things until it was almost too late --."

We're getting very there.

22 August 2012 at 13:21  
Blogger Caedmon's Cat said...

The maturity of this new electorate for the Scottish referendum is directly proportional to that of Cameron and his governmental cronies. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they make mad first.

22 August 2012 at 13:23  
Blogger MFH said...

one frets too much for one whose citzenship is in heaven

22 August 2012 at 14:42  
Blogger Elwin Daniels said...

The voting age should rise to 25 and be limited to income tax payers with no criminal convictions who have also not begotten bairns out of wedlock for the State to feed.

But the real issue about the Scottish independence vote is-what proportion of the £trillion plus UK national debt will the Scots take with them when they go? Arguably it should reflect their extra £2,500 per person per year government spending plus some reparations for Gordon Brown. Or perhaps they can just take the whole Royal bank of SCOTLAND debt.

Don't tell me Alec Weasel in hoping to walk away Scot free?

22 August 2012 at 15:33  
Blogger Elwin Daniels said...

Actually this might be a rare example of canniness on Cameron's part.

The 16 year olds might be dumb enough in their touching optimism and sense of socialist entitlement to fall for Alec Weasel's blandishments and vote for independence. I was a socialist dreamer at that age. An independent Scotland would solve the West Lothian question and, especially if Wales could be persuaded to follow, lead to permanent Conservative majorities in Westminster.

Cameron may be being clever here, if its really true. And rebuilding and guarding Hadrian's wall will be a great job creation scheme too.

22 August 2012 at 15:38  
Blogger Green Christian said...

To be fair, the only reason Scottish 16 year olds don't have the vote in Scottish-only elections is because that power is reserved to Westminster. If Scotland votes for independence and the SNP are the first post-independence government, then it's almost certain that the Scottish franchise will be extended to include those aged 16.

And if somebody's old enough to have sex, get married (and in Scotland they don't need parental consent), and to join the armed forces, they're probably old enough to be able to vote. And the 16 year olds who are most likely actually use their vote will likely be giving it more thought than the average Brit does (think how many people always vote for the same party, regardless of the candidate or the policies).

The ages at which we are allowed to start doing various different things are entirely arbitrary. Cranmer, you're smart enough to know this, so why

22 August 2012 at 16:17  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Sixteen to eighteen year olds, aren't they going through the rebellious stage and too busy with their social lives to give a flying fig about anything political. Are there really that many to make a difference?
No doubt Alec Weasel is hoping so and that they'll all vote for independence to rebel, or because word gets round in their groups that everyone's doing it. Seems like a desperate, conniving and irresponsible measure to me to inflict this on children.

22 August 2012 at 17:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Of course, apart from toddlers and the recent dead, the only Scots who are NOT going to get the vote are the expats living in England, who more than likely would wish to keep the union. What do you think of that !

22 August 2012 at 17:38  
Blogger Old Blue Eyes said...

O of I.G.
Surely they'll all want to go home come their day of freedom from the oppressor. Being an Englishman I certainly hope so.

22 August 2012 at 18:10  
Blogger Old Blue Eyes said...

Regarding Dave Cameronn - the man is without shame, without principle and without a shred of common sense. In other words a pale imitation of Tony Blair.

22 August 2012 at 18:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Those blue eyes, the Scots this man has known were first class types. All were shrewd with bags of common sense, the antipathy of liberalism. One suspects that the socialism the nation is associated with will morph into the national socialism small or oppressed nations have displayed in the past. In many ways, it’s almost guaranteed if Scots living standards fall behind England as the Barnett formula is scrapped, and they whine about their lost oil. We can look forward to some hard line Scot politicians in the future.

Damn envious you know, we could do with some of those hardliners in England !

22 August 2012 at 18:37  
Blogger ZZMike said...

Who better to decide the future of a country than the enlightened youth who will live in it?

One wonders what sort of media campaign might be launched towards this voting bloc.

22 August 2012 at 20:07  
Blogger rableather said...

A person in Scotland CAN, repeat CAN marry at 16 without parental sanction. Hence the dash to Gretna Green. Personally I am not in favour of 16 and 17 year olds getting married or voting but the whole "children in the UK" thing is yes another reason why we need independence.

22 August 2012 at 21:10  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Agreed Rableather, and the same argument can be used of the young being sodomised. But the queer supporting liberals, (...and yes, if any of you out there are liberals, you are by definition ‘queer supporting’...) have the whip hand, but their time will come to an end...

22 August 2012 at 21:20  
Blogger Old Blue Eyes said...

Inspector General.
Sod em.

22 August 2012 at 22:28  
Blogger Naomi King said...

I just wonder if Mr Cameron thinks that the younger voters are more likely to support Alex Salmon's homosexual "marriage" commitment, which is likely to be a key factor in the Independence debate. This is the politics of desperation ! Maybe Cameron thinks where Scotland lead he can follow. Just like last time.

22 August 2012 at 22:31  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

My mum was 16 when she had to marry my dad, who was a traitor and unionist creep.Not that all unionists are traitors and creeps, but all traitors and creeps are unionist.

My mum should have have a vote.

22 August 2012 at 22:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

That would be rather misguided of King Salmon, Mrs King. Recalling life in the fourth form, we would have teared apart anyone who was obviously queer and playing to the crowd. One senses today that that would not happen as such, but the sentiment would still be there, one would hope...

22 August 2012 at 22:56  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


I'm really not so sure their time will come to an end". If anything, it's more likely it's our time that is running out. At least that was the view of Cardinal George.

Once the moral authority of the Christian faith is removed from society where is it likely to head?

Individualism, canonised by the Protestant Reformation, makes every man a master unto himself. Liberalism and mass democracy were inevitable outcomes as the shackles of Divine Authority were cast off.

Without the restraining influence of the Church on the State, each playing its legitimate part, secularisation follows. Mass democracy and representative government places man's "human rights" center-stage. Our fallen natures are given licence and libertarianism inevitably slides into libertinism. Sex and Drugs and Rock'n Roll becomes the anthem.

Man has freedom now - just as he did before the Covenants with our Jewish Fathers. There's a sense of a 'full circle' about all of this.

As the great man once said:

"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

Still, one thing is for sure, God knows what's going on and He is in full control. Those with Christian convictions must maintain confidence and hope, fight the good fight and continue to openly speak of the Truth to others.

What will be, then must be.

22 August 2012 at 23:03  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Now that's off my chest, onto Scotland's referendum.

I agree 16 year olds should not be franchised in Scotland just because they can have sex there, marry and leave home. (In my opinion, they're way too young for these 'rights' at this age).

However, as a political bargain it doesn't seem too bad to me. Politics being the Art of the Possible I think this move, whilst unwise in setting a precedent for the sexual lobby (i.e homosexual lobby), it is better for the Union of Great Britain. Without the confusion of the devo-max question the choice is clear.

Trust me, the Scots are against Independence but for some strange reason, hold Salmond in very high regard. They would have gone for devo-max and kept the issue going. This way the SNP will loose outright.

22 August 2012 at 23:06  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

John Knox's lovechild

You do make me laugh! Excellent points as well.

22 August 2012 at 23:10  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

On one level, it is of course hilarious that, just as Mitt Romney can only prevent his impending electoral defeat from turning into an utter humiliation by giving the Randian fringe Paul Ryan to turn out and vote for, so Alex Salmond can only prevent his impending referendum defeat from turning into an utter humiliation by dragooning children, if no one else, into voting his way.

But even a superbly well-educated 16-year-old is still a 16-year-old. Lowering the voting age even further would pose a very serious threat to democracy, since no one seriously imagines that the opinion of a 16-year-old matters as much as that of his Head Teacher, or his doctor, or his mother. So why, it would be asked unanswerably, should each of them have only as many votes as he had? Thus would the process start.

Harold Wilson probably thought that he might gain some advantage from lowering the voting age. But in fact the Sixties Swingers hated him, and they handed the 1970 Election to Ted Heath. They did so to no one’s surprise more than Heath’s and his party’s, and they did so because, after Selsdon and all that, the Swingers had thought that he was going to entrench economically their own moral, social and cultural irresponsibility and viciousness.

As it turned out, they had to wait another nine years. But they did it in the end. By voting Conservative.

22 August 2012 at 23:25  
Blogger Che Yeoh said...

It's hard to argue against voting at 16 in Scotland, when you can marry at 16 and join the armed forces at 16. Surely if you can give your life for your country at that age, you can take part in the politics that shapes it. But that apart, politics in Scotland is more complicated than you would think.A lot of people who vote SNP are not nationalists. Conversely, a lot of those who vote for unionist parties in Scotland are nationalists (including Tories). The SNP has both a left and right wing and the commonest second vote for a Tory in Scotland, is the SNP. In a way, this isn't surprising. One of the tenets of Conservatism is small government and Scots Tories' relationship with Westminster, is a bit like Westminster Tories' relationship with the EU. For those with a left wing bent, the SNP has ensured the continuation of the NHS, while its English counterpart is getting broken up. So the SNP is pulling votes from left and right. If independence comes, then it's anyone's guess how future politics would be shaped. Probably many will join the Labour party; others the Tories and the SNP will maybe continue as a left-of-centre party with some conservative leanings. But we'll see. A lot can happen in two years and if the Libs and Cons fall out in Westminster, it might be a sufficient distraction to encourage Scots to take interest in Westminster again. At this point, they do feel that it is a far away country of which they know very little..

23 August 2012 at 00:05  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Politicians generally treat us all like 5 years olds, so they may as well make the voting age concomitant.

23 August 2012 at 00:15  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Dodo @ 23.03 "Still, one thing is for sure, God knows what's going on and He is in full control. Those with Christian convictions must maintain confidence and hope, fight the good fight and continue to openly speak of the Truth to others."

Absolutely we can have total faith in the LORD that he is sovereign over all. Jesus is our All in All. Amen

23 August 2012 at 07:25  
Blogger Naomi King said...

An interesting thing in Conservative Home yesterday an article by Lord Ashcroft saying (essentially) that the Conservatives would rather offend the Christians than offend the Homosexuals and the Conservative leadership have at last realised that they are literally between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea. Whatever way they turn they are going to offend and do damage. It just shows what great judgement Mr Cameron had when he unleashed this homosexual hare.

Interesting that the party is frightened enough about the homosexual backlash that they are willing to sacrifice they own at this temple of the depraved. Do we spot a politics of fear ?

For the full article see :-

23 August 2012 at 07:36  
Blogger Naomi King said...

A couple of very encouraging articles yesterday in the Daily Mail. Mr Cameron's weddedness to the homosexual cause is now seriously hitting the Conservative Party bank balance, membership has collapsed with ordinary, good, honest folk refusing to renew subscriptions and local parties not paying their levies to Central Office because, as the chairman of a Conservative Association in a safe seat in the Home Counties put it, was that ‘there is no guarantee that the money we send them won’t be used to campaign for the right of homosexuals to get married to each other’.

Also it appears the big donors have stopped giving too !

I am reminded of Psalm 2

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Oh that Mr Cameron would be wise and be instructed, to Serve his LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. For his LORD is laughing and has him in derision. Blessed only are all they that put their trust in God.

The two articles are at :-

23 August 2012 at 07:56  
Blogger The Sinner's Prayer said...

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. I wonder whether enfranchising all of the UK's 16 year olds might give them a greater sense of civil responsibility. They may then let their frustrations out with a ballot paper rather than by throwing a brick through the window of JD Sports. These are our 16 year olds! Perhaps we could encourage them and educate them to be politically sensitive not just pour condescension on them (as Your Grace has done here) further exasperating their sense of worthlessness.

23 August 2012 at 09:09  
Blogger The Sinner's Prayer said...

On the other hand, I absolutely agree with Your Grace. Most 16 year olds, given the chance, will almost certainly vote like twonks.

23 August 2012 at 09:25  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Sinner's Prayer:

If voting actually conferred any type of civic responsibility, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

Actually, in fairness, this will be a rare occasion where voting will mean something: it will probably be close, it will have a real consequence for the long-term futures of the electorate, and - critically - it will be possible for people to seriously confound at least one of their political masters.

For the most part, the only thing that voting achieves normally is the name on the government paycheck - and even that is probably going to go if politicians give themselves state funding.

23 August 2012 at 11:59  
Blogger Alistair May said...

As a matter of fact, the statement "16-year-olds in the UK can’t ... leave home or get married without parental consent" is simply wrong.

They can, and always could, IN SCOTLAND (hence why young English couples eloped over the border to Greta Green to get married). Your grace makes understandable, but telling, error that English = UK. Unfortunately, that common mistake is one that's done a deal of harm to Scottish fondness for the union.

23 August 2012 at 15:25  
Blogger William said...

To say that England = UK is predominantly (83.8%) correct. If Scottish fondness for the Union is upset by this qualitatively correct, but inaccurate statement then perhaps they would be better off on their own where they can define their country with exactitude.

What a shame that would be though. I hope and suspect that most Scots are far too canny to be motivated by such partisan irrelevancies and will simply ask; is the union good for Scotland or not?

23 August 2012 at 19:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

William. The Inspector has stayed in a few places in Scotland, before the 2007 tobacco ban on special excursion trains, even though private rail operators didn’t mind you smoking in the vestibule. It’s the concept that a cigarette smokers fare money is almost as good as any one else's, you know. Anyway, often too tired and slightly the worse due to the real ale bar on the train, we happy band of rail enthusiast brothers spent happy evenings conversing with our hosts. The Scot’s prime concern is stability. He is not avowed to take a chance. So, don’t be so surprised if the vote for independence comes to naught. Salmond won’t be...

23 August 2012 at 19:56  
Blogger William said...

I hope so Inspector. The sooner these divide-and-rule politicians get their comeuppance the better.

23 August 2012 at 20:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

As an alternative to the EU, we should be looking at extending the union, not contracting it. How about a free vote to ALL of Ireland. A devolved government in Dublin, plus readmission. It’s actually what was asked for 100 years ago before the British government vetoed the idea as it might upset the unionist protestants...

23 August 2012 at 20:48  
Blogger William said...

Good idea. With Her Maj. doing her bit to build bridges, it doesn't seem such a distant reality.

23 August 2012 at 21:01  
Blogger steve said...

I think the £7billion loan from the UK and the EU have shown Irish independence to be a lie. They aren't dependent. They are us and we are them.

All I want as a 40 something English man is a vote for an English Parliament.

23 August 2012 at 21:17  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

I think you are onto something here, but we would need "home rule all round", like a Parliament for all the countries of the UK, as well as a Union Parliament in London- Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales. I am not sure about Cornwall, I think a few Cornish people want their own Parliament as well.

23 August 2012 at 21:22  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Also, on the question of 16 year olds being able to vote, is a different question to the real issue as noted in the post. That is why allow this precedent for this election, if not as an attempt to alter the result. This does not seem very fair.

23 August 2012 at 21:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah. The Inspector has long urged the eviction of the incumbents presently living in the House of Lords to make way for an English parliament. The would leave the House of Commons with the reduced scope of the national issues such as Treasury, Defence and Foreign affairs AND as reviser of certain devolved parliament legislation. It can work and it will work. We have been receiving EU legislation for years, and our representatives will just have to get off their rubberstamping hides and start doing some proper work, what !

On the issue of votes for the 16+, one is all for it. Get these young types involved in the democratic process at this age and they might even develop an interest in it.

Toodle pip, old thing...

23 August 2012 at 21:39  
Blogger William said...


A very interesting proposition. I have long thought that some kind of English Parliament was inevitable, but shuddered at the thought of the extra politicians trying to justify their existence. Redefining the House of Lords to vote on English matters only may be just the solution. With the revised commons voting on UK interests and acting as a kind of second chamber for the devolved parliaments, one only has to wonder on how to keep the Commons in check. Perhaps Her Maj. could step in?

23 August 2012 at 22:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

William. You have the final piece of the jigsaw. It would be to the head of state to refer back to the commons national legislation that in the aforementioned opinion, needs revising. Of course, this may not go down too well with our monarchy as it stands. But needs must, and the monarch will be required to play a more discerning role than has been the case. It’s all for the good, you know...

23 August 2012 at 22:49  
Blogger DougtheDug said...

Ah Your Grace, you've made the mistake of applying English law to Scotland.

16-year-olds in the UK can’t purchase cigarettes or alcohol; they can’t drive; they can’t leave home or get married without parental consent; they can’t give blood; they can join the army, but can’t go on active service. They can’t obtain a street trading licence; they can’t go abroad to act or perform music professionally; they can’t get a credit card; they can’t apply for a mortgage, or own houses or land. They can’t be called for jury service; can’t change their name; and can’t act as an executor of a person's will. They can’t place bets, purchase fireworks or become a local councillor.

Not quite correct. I've corrected it for you.

16-year-olds in Scotland can’t purchase cigarettes or alcohol; they can’t drive; they can’t give blood; They can’t go abroad to act or perform music professionally; they can’t get a credit card; they can’t apply for a mortgage. They can’t be called for jury service; and they can’t place bets, purchase fireworks or become a local councillor.

But they can leave home or get married without parental consent; they can own houses or land; they can change their name; they can act as an executor of a person's will; they can obtain a street trading licence and they can join the army, but can’t go on active service;

Anyway, Cameron's offer of 16 and 17 year olds getting the vote in Scotland in exchange for a single question on the referendum is not about stopping a devo-max question being put on the ballot paper as that's never going to happen but all about getting the SNP to share the blame for the unionist failure to produce a devo-max question by agreeing to its removal early on.

25 August 2012 at 13:54  
Blogger Tommy said...

This is brilliant news, this actually brings England closer to full independence, unlike scotland we do not have a voice so we are depending on the scotch to make the break. If the English were allowed a say in this then Scotland would surely be independent quicker but I suspect salmond does not really want it, he wants to retain Englands queen with the British army and the pound sterling but be governed from brussells and not London.

26 August 2012 at 18:30  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older