The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-10990, in the name of Christina McKelvie, on the voting franchise for 16 and 17-year-olds. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament acknowledges the recent petitions to extend the voter franchise to all 16 and 17-year-olds in all elections; understands that, during the Scottish independence referendum in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse constituency area, 16 and 17-year-olds were highly visible in attendance at political debates and activity on both sides of the campaign; welcomes this contribution, which, it believes, demonstrates their willingness to become involved and take full part in the political process, and notes calls for the UK Government to amend the voting franchise to include all 16 and 17-year-olds in future Scottish and UK Parliament elections.
12:35
It is a great honour to lead today’s debate, but I have certainly not been leading the debate on the voting franchise for 16 and 17-year-olds for as long as some members have been—I know some have been leading it for many years. I say a huge thank you to my colleagues from across the chamber who signed the motion to allow it to be debated. I lobbied some of them, and I really appreciate their support.
I also thank the young people who have petitioned and worked hard on the issue and who have taken part in democracy. I pay particular tribute to the Scottish Youth Parliament, which has run its votes at 16 campaign for many years. There have been many petitions over the years, many of which we have signed. I also pay tribute to a constituent of mine, Mr Max Cruickshank, who has worked alongside the Scottish Youth Parliament and has been youth worker for many years—he has always backed the votes at 16 campaign.
It has always been our party’s policy to be committed to votes at 16; I remember debating it many decades ago. As a Government, we have applied that to the very limited areas over which we have control. It was a great delight to see the Edinburgh agreement set out that, for the referendum that we have just experienced, 16 and 17-year-olds would have what is a very important civic duty and responsibility. Some voices were cynical about the ability of our young people to participate in the referendum debate, but those voices were certainly silenced. They got it very wrong.
Some 16 and 17-year-olds were a bit doubtful about whether they knew enough to vote, but those same people have come to me since the referendum and said, “Yeah, we got it right.” Has the member found that, too?
Absolutely. I have a few anecdotes of my own about some of the many hundreds of young people I have spoken to over the past wee while.
There is no way of predicting voting patterns in an untested group—that was something of an unknown quantity for us all. It was a bit of a leap into the dark, which is the phrase that Disraeli used when the franchise was extended under the representation of the people legislation. That came into play on 18 September, when it was again a leap into the dark.
John Mason has just referred to the fact that there was some doubt among young people themselves. It took a century for voting rights to be extended from a tiny minority of property-owning men over the age of 30 to universal suffrage for every adult aged 18, regardless of wealth, property, class, employment or location. Some 3.6 million inhabitants of our small, amazing country turned out to vote in the referendum, 109,533 of whom were 16 or 17-year-olds, so I think that many of those doubts were blown away by the time it came to referendum day.
The future of Scotland does not lie exclusively in the hands of the older generation. We would like to think that it does, but I know that, during the referendum, all my colleagues who are present will have had amazing conversations with young people, who, in some cases, even stumped me with their knowledge and their aspirations for their country. Those young people will build their lives, families and careers in this country, and they will eventually enter old age here. Democracy is not just a snapshot in time for them—it is a process, an evolution and a constantly changing arc of responsibility. To work successfully, democracy must respond to those shifts in society so that it reflects the demands that are made on it. Today, we are taking that issue very seriously.
The First Minister has said that 16 and 17-year-olds have shown themselves to be
“serious, passionate and committed citizens”
and that there is an
“overwhelming, unanswerable”
case for giving them the right to vote in all future United Kingdom and Scottish elections.
As I said, I have been enormously impressed by the teenagers with whom we have debated and discussed the question of independence and the future of Scotland. Campaigning around my constituency in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, I met hundreds of 16 and 17-year-olds who had become seriously engaged in politics because the referendum vote and their part in it became so important to them.
One day, we had a yes hub in the centre of Hamilton, and a group of 15 young people came along in their lunch break from Hamilton grammar school. None of them had made up their mind about how they were going to vote in the referendum and they all had ideas about what they would do. It was a nice sunny day, and we stood in the street and had a debate about the powers that Scotland should and could have.
One of the most endearing and amazing sights, which will remain in my memory for all time, was the sight of those kids walking along the road, armed with all the bits of information—they were going up the top cross to see the better together people and do the same with them—talking about nuclear weapons, pensions, childcare and their standing in the world. One person was saying, “But could we move nuclear weapons safely?”, and another was saying, “No, I don’t think so.” That kind of debate took place in every street in every part of Scotland, and no more so than among our amazing young people. They took that great leap. I am sorry to mention it—except I am not sorry to mention it—but the membership of my local branch is now huge and populated by many of those young people, some of them as young as 14.
It is not because of the precedent set by the Scottish referendum that the law needs to be changed; it is because getting young people engaged and involved in their future is a fundamental tenet of democracy. Young people demand that engagement—none more so than my 16-year-old son, who this time last year would never have thanked me for a political conversation, never mind a debate. He got so engaged in the referendum that he was up at 7 am, knocking on my door, saying, “We need to go and vote.” I do not think that I had any influence on how he voted, because he is a very strong-willed young man, but he had made up his mind and has become very involved. I think that I have created a bit of a monster. He watches every debate and critiques me on it. I do not know whether that is a good thing.
With the extension of the franchise, Scotland can be a beacon to the rest of the UK. For once, let the UK Government accept that we were right. We have proven it. Our young people have proven it. It is now time to give every 16 and 17-year-old the same right as anyone else to decide directly who governs them.
It is good for every political party and it is good for democracy. I ask my colleagues throughout the chamber, the young people who have all arrived in the public gallery—[Interruption.]. That is bad, Max; you are not allowed to applaud. We can see enthusiastic support from the public gallery. I ask the Scottish Government to use every means, including the Smith commission, to ensure that there are votes at 16 for every young person in the UK.
12:43
I congratulate Christina McKelvie on securing the debate, and I note her long-term commitment to the issue. Like her, I have supported votes at 16 for a long time.
There is a need for much wider political and electoral reform on a number of issues. I am grateful to Christina McKelvie for her recent support for a campaign that I am involved in—women 50:50—which is about ensuring that all future sessions of this Parliament are balanced 50:50. At least four other members who are now in the chamber have shown their support, and I would encourage my colleagues to do so, too. The moment is now.
On the issue of votes at 16, I cannot believe, looking back, that it was ever viewed as controversial. As Christina McKelvie touched on, it seems the normal and right thing to do to give young people a voice. Christina McKelvie reflected on some of her experiences of the referendum campaign. I remember doing one street stall in the east end of Edinburgh. At about 3 o’clock, the school tipped out and we were overtaken with secondary 5 and 6 pupils from Portobello high school, desperate to ask some hard questions about the currency—“Ah, but what about X, Y and Z?”—so much so that we blocked the road. A few people on Twitter highlighted the health and safety hazards that we had created, and it all got a bit dramatic for a second.
I participated in dozens of other hustings. Without a doubt, the most invigorating were those for young people. For example, I took part in hustings that Boroughmuir high school and James Gillespie’s high school hosted. Some 700 S5 and S6 pupils were in one place grilling me and Sarah Beattie-Smith from the yes campaign on the cases for and against independence.
Saying that the best questions came from young people has the danger of sounding patronising, but that is true. I think that that was the case because young people are less likely to think about I, the individual, and are more likely to talk about we, the country, and what type of country we want to be. They have less political baggage and are more driven by the first principle of what can be done to make this country a better place.
I have not read the full report, but earlier this week I heard Professor Ailsa Henderson talking on “Scotland Tonight”, I think, about the demographics in the referendum result. I am sure that I heard her say that, when research was done into who had read the most before they came to their conclusion on how they would vote, it was found that 16 and 17-year-olds were the most informed group. I think that the evidence from the University of Edinburgh was that those in the 16-to-17 age category had done the most homework.
So what now? We have a duty to keep the political engagement alive. There is a great danger that those people, who currently have a voice, will be excluded from next year’s general election. I appreciate the sensitivities of a members’ business debate, but I have no doubt that Christina McKelvie is calling on us and David Cameron to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds have a vote in next year’s general election. I support that call; indeed, I have written to David Cameron to ask for that to happen.
There is a reason for that. If a person voted no, as I did, they did so because they believe that the best way to make our country a more prosperous, equal and just place is by working together across these isles using the resources, hopes and ambitions of 63 million people. If a 16 or 17-year-old voted no, they are now relying on other people to vote for that vision. If a person voted yes, they will be angry and disappointed. I get that, but there is a great danger that they might be disenfranchised from the political process because they, too, are voiceless without a vote.
Therefore, I back 100 per cent what Christina McKelvie is arguing for. I fully support her campaign and hope that the message to Mr Cameron from the Parliament is loud and clear. We need to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote next year.
12:47
I congratulate Christina McKelvie on securing this important debate, which gives us an opportunity to reflect once again on the great civic participation in Scotland during the referendum campaign.
There are many examples of how young people have engaged in the process through schools, youth clubs and the Scottish Youth Parliament, which Ms McKelvie has already mentioned. I want to highlight in particular one group of young people and their response to the referendum.
The Scottish Youth Theatre, which is Scotland’s national theatre for and by children and young people, chose to have independence as the centre of its deliberations over the two years that led up to the referendum. By choosing to use independence as the theme, the aim was to prompt young people to ask questions and to allow them to voice their fears and research all aspects on all sides of the debate.
That was reflected in the many versions of the “Now’s The Hour” production, which was performed as part of the Scottish Youth Theatre’s summer festival in 2013 and went on to be adapted and performed in many areas. The concept was very interesting and unique. The young people wrote a letter to their future selves that expressed their deliberations on the referendum process. Above all, the production was really entertaining. I had the delight of seeing it in the Parliament during the festival of politics in 2013. I attended it with my son, who was then 16 years old and was going through the same process. He found it thought provoking, informed, fun and reflective of young people and their maturity in the way that they were approaching the matter. A BBC documentary about the production was broadcast in April 2014.
The young people took part in a collaboration in the cross-party group on culture in the Parliament in May 2014. Undaunted by an esteemed audience that included the National Theatre of Scotland, which was also performing, and a panel that included Ruth Wishart and Billy Kay, the young people performed part of “Now’s The Hour”, went on to engage with and talk to people who attended the cross-party group, and gave more insight into their experience of what they were doing in their deliberations on the referendum.
It was a fantastic opportunity for young people. Many people were able to see the production at the Edinburgh fringe, during which it was performed every lunch time. It was a great reflection of our young people and of Scotland’s support for young people through the Scottish Youth Theatre. For 38 years, the Scottish Youth Theatre has been giving children and young people in Scotland a wide variety of opportunities to participate in high-quality theatre, which has given them a voice. We owe the theatre a great debt, and we should offer it great thanks for those opportunities.
The Scottish Youth Theatre puts young people at the centre of everything that it does. It believes that every young person in Scotland has a great deal to offer and, in its work, it gives those young people a chance to shine. If we put our young people at the heart of everything that we do, we can expect the same wonderful outcomes that were shown by “Now’s the Hour”.
The argument for extending the franchise should not be doubted. If anyone does doubt it, they should go and look at the work of the Scottish Youth Theatre and the amazing young people who took part in it. I hope that in the future the franchise will be extended in all elections. I encourage every young person involved in politics and youth organisations to consider making their views known to the Smith commission.
12:51
I, too, am pleased to speak in this debate, and I congratulate Christina McKelvie on securing the time to allow it to take place. I add my support to the call for the franchise to be extended to include 16 and 17-year-olds across the whole of the United Kingdom.
It is true that my party initially opposed lowering the age for voting in the referendum. At the time, we made it clear that we were not opposed to altering the age for voting but we were opposed to singling out the referendum for a trial extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds.
Notwithstanding that, I fully accept the decision of the Parliament to lower the voting age for the referendum. Indeed, without the Prime Minister’s signature on the Edinburgh agreement, 16 and 17-year-olds would not have been allowed to vote.
The situation now is entirely different, as 16 and 17-year-olds have been given the vote. They have conducted themselves commendably and they have engaged in the political process. The motion talks about how 16 and 17-year-olds were “highly visible” and active and made a welcome contribution to the constitutional debate in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. That certainly reflects what I witnessed of young people across the Scottish Borders. During the long referendum campaign, I spoke to many young voters in school debates, at hustings and on polling day itself. I was hugely impressed by the level of engagement and understanding that they demonstrated. It was clear that many of them were taking their responsibility very seriously by turning out to vote, and I hope that their experience will encourage them to participate in future elections.
That is why I believe that the case has now been made to extend the franchise, but that should be done in the correct way—namely, on a UK-wide basis. I will not repeat at length the arguments about at what age people should be allowed to vote. Parliaments have to draw a line somewhere and it seems to me that there are valid arguments for having the age for voting set at 16, 17 or 18. That is particularly true in the United Kingdom where there is no single age at which all responsibilities and liabilities are imposed at once. One age is not necessarily better than others. Indeed, we need to do more to engage with voters of all ages and to increase turnout.
However, one point that I find convincing is that, when the voting age was reduced in other countries, turnout rates for 16 and 17-year-olds were found to be comparable to those of the electorate at large and higher than those for 18 to 20-year-olds. If lowering the voting age will help to increase overall turnout rates, that is a compelling reason to look at it very closely.
On a purely practical level, we cannot ignore the fact that the vote has now been given to 16 and 17-year-olds. We are therefore now talking about withdrawing the right to vote from a group of people who have been allowed to vote on the future of Scotland and the United Kingdom. Now that that decision has been taken, to oppose extending the franchise in all elections would be the wrong thing to do. Given the way in which 16 and 17-year-olds conducted themselves last month, we should all be proud of them and we should be thinking very carefully about extending the franchise to them all permanently.
12:54
I thank Christina McKelvie for bringing the debate to the chamber. It is good to see Joe FitzPatrick in the chamber to respond to the debate—as the Minister for Parliamentary Business, he does not get many opportunities to do that, and I am sure that he will thank Christina, too.
Like Christina McKelvie, I have been a supporter of the campaign to extend the franchise for as long as I have been in the Scottish National Party, and probably longer. I have always acknowledged the point and the theory behind it: at 16, people can marry, join the Army and work full time and pay tax. Now, we have seen the practice, and what actually happens.
It is the same with so many big reforms: things seem a bit scary and risky before they happen, but once they do, everybody suddenly sees how well they can work. Perhaps there is a wider lesson in there, but I will leave that aside for another day to avoid accusations of digging up the referendum.
To go back to what Kezia Dugdale said about the questions that are asked, it is fair to say that, during the referendum campaign, we got a different type of question when we appeared in front of a youth audience. We would get the ones that we expected: the standard questions about the currency or the European Union—even “EastEnders”—came up. However, we also got questions that surprised us.
I was on the panel at a question-and-answer session in the Scottish Youth Parliament. It was not so much the content of the questions that surprised me, but the electronic voting system that allowed reality television-style rating of our answers. I can assure members that that was a nerve-wracking experience.
At all the schools that I visited, there was a fantastic atmosphere and energy. At Broughton high school, I was ushered in to speak to the headteacher, who realised that the head of modern studies had brought me in as the sole MSP for the session, and said to me, “Whatever you do, don’t talk about the referendum.” I said that of course I would not talk about the referendum; it was just a question-and-answer session rather than a debate. However, the referendum was all the young people wanted to talk about, so I spoke about the importance of voting. I said, “Make the decision and research it—I will leave that up to you, but what matters is that you vote”—and boy, did they do so.
I have had great experiences even in primary schools. The unpredictability of the questions is amazing. At Flora Stevenson primary school, I was asked, at the end of a long series of quite serious questions, one of those questions that just throws you: “What is your secret talent?” I thought, “Oh, heck”—it was a bit like being on reality TV. What could I say to a group of 11-year-olds in that situation? I will leave members to think about how they might have answered that question.
At another primary school, I was asked towards the end of a question session if any MSPs had ever been arrested. That is an interesting question—I will not think about where it came from, but it gave me an excuse to talk about non-violent direct action and the types of things that many MSPs have done for causes that they believe in, such as removing Trident.
In the last two days before the referendum, a Yes Scotland shop opened on Gorgie Road just along from Tynecastle high school. On the first day, the Tynecastle kids all came in looking for information. It must have been good information, because they all came in the next day wearing “Yes” badges.
Those were all great experiences that I will look back on fondly. Looking ahead, I wonder whether 16 and 17-year-olds, if they are enfranchised, will vote in elections with as much passion as they voted in the referendum. Maybe they will, or maybe not. Elections are different from referendums—are we ever going to have an 85 per cent turnout in an election?
We must remember that not everyone who has the right to vote exercises it, and that is a valid choice that we have to respect. I hope that 16 and 17-year-olds will get the vote and will be able to use it, whether that is under a Scotland act or a United Kingdom-wide act. The extension of the franchise is a really good reform—as was said on the eve of the referendum, “Let’s do this!”
12:59
I thank Christina McKelvie for bringing the debate to the chamber. There are more than 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK, and they are denied the vote. In the run-up to the referendum, I debated and campaigned with many in that age bracket in Glasgow. They engaged thoughtfully and passionately in the debate, and I believe that the case for giving them the vote in any election is overwhelming.
I believe that 16 and 17-year-olds have sufficient maturity and knowledge to cast a vote if they wish to do so. The law recognises that they are able to make complex decisions and take on a wide range of responsibility, and they show in practice that they make a positive difference.
There is a wide problem of young people disengaging from politics. Putting aside the referendum, recent reports suggest that 30 per cent of young people aged 18 to 25 were not registered to vote in advance of the recent local government and European elections, and there are also people who registered but did not bother to vote.
Action is now long overdue. It is essential that we let 16 and 17-year-olds engage with and participate in our democracy, after having learned the principles of democracy in compulsory citizenship education. One suggested way in which to solve the problem is automatic registration, but it is not for me to make a decision about that; it is just an example.
If young people have the vote, they will be inspired to get involved in our democracy. I believe that that is fundamentally important. Our 16 and 17-year-olds engage in many aspects of our industries and our communities, they engage culturally, they serve in the armed forces and they get married and have families. Those issues are more important than a vote and, if they can participate in them, why should they not have the vote?
We must not make 16 and 17-year-olds wait. It is squandering their energy and passion and their enthusiasm to participate in democracy. As a community and a nation, we suffer because of that.
It is important that our 16 and 17-year-olds are made to realise that we value their ideas and aspirations. If they are not allowed to vote, a section of our community is missing in real terms. Hence, it is important that people who are at school, college and university can see, and therefore believe, that we take their views seriously. They must be allowed to participate in decision making. Importantly, that will encourage them to continue to use their vote throughout their lives, which is important.
If democracy is to survive, we must allow our young people in our schools and colleges to be educated in democracy. That is right, and I think that the time is right for it. I therefore support the right of 16 and 17-year-olds to vote, not only in Scotland but across the UK, and in all elections.
13:03
I, too, would like to congratulate Christina McKelvie on securing this important and timely debate.
I start by listing some of the arguments against extending the franchise. People said, “90 per cent of them don’t want the vote”, “The benefit doesn’t outweigh the expense”, “It will cause division in families”, “Politics is corrupting” and, of course, “They don’t know enough about the serious issues.”
Those arguments were put not against young people getting the vote but, back in the days of the struggle for women’s suffrage, against women getting the vote, although some of them were repeated to try to stop the franchise being extended to 16 and 17-year-olds. Denying women the vote for those reasons seems absurd now and, listening to the debate today, I feel confident that we will see an extension of suffrage to 16 and 17-year-olds.
I want to spend some time praising the particular role of schools in educating young people in democracy in the course of the referendum campaign. The journey that young people went on during that time was noteworthy. If the chamber would indulge me, I would like to praise the schools and educational institutions that held debates in which I participated: Tranent secondary; Jedburgh grammar; Langholm academy; Dumfries high; Dumfries academy; St Joseph’s college, in Dumfries; Dumfries and Galloway College; Moffat academy; Wallace Hall academy; and Annan academy. Outwith my region, I stepped in for a colleague in a debate in Cleveden secondary, just up the road from my house.
In all of those debates, I was really struck by the efforts that the teachers—and, indeed, the pupils, who were often involved in the organising—had put in to make them happen. They are not easy to pull off; they are something of a logistical exercise, and the curriculum is busy.
The teachers should be congratulated not only on organising the debates but on the way in which they prepared pupils. I believe that extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds will benefit all voters because young people will start to be educated at school, where they will have access to good-quality, clear and balanced information, not just what they get through the media. That will make them good citizens and political participants for the rest of their lives, which is, of course, very important.
Modern studies teachers, in particular, played a really important role in organising a lot of the debates. I am not saying that those teachers were involved exclusively but they certainly played a prominent role in the schools I spoke at. If we get 16 and 17-year-olds the vote and continue this level of political education in schools, we must make it consistent and ensure that it reaches all pupils. Modern studies is a fantastic subject and a source of pride for the Scottish education system, and it would be great if everyone took it. However, we need to consider how we roll out the best-quality political education to all our 16 and 17-year-olds.
In the last few weeks of the campaign, I ran many street stalls in different towns in the south of Scotland. Many of those stalls were close to schools, and in those last few weeks we benefited from marvellous weather, which allowed us to engage with young people. One of my best memories comes from Moffat, where I saw three fifth-year pupils from Moffat academy sitting on a park bench in the lunch-time sunshine and absolutely focused on reading “The Wee Blue Book”, which was one of our materials.
A lot of young people got engaged in the campaign towards the end of it, but the fact is that many of our debates had taken place six months before. Six months is a long time in the life of a 16-year-old and I would be keen to ensure that, if the franchise were to be extended in future, activity took place in schools as close to the vote as possible to capture the sense of excitement that we saw in the campaign’s last few weeks.
13:07
I, too, congratulate Christina McKelvie and thank her for bringing such an important and timely debate to the chamber.
The referendum was a remarkable demonstration of democracy at its best, and I think that this afternoon’s debate has demonstrated this chamber at its best, too. Members have made impassioned speeches recalling young people’s engagement and energy and their considered contributions to the debate on Scotland’s future. Clare Adamson highlighted how the Youth Theatre was such a great reflection of our young people, and Joan McAlpine very importantly praised the role played by schools in ensuring that our young people had the information that they required to take part in what Hanzala Malik called a passionate debate.
It was right for Christina McKelvie to start off by thanking our ambitious young people who, by and large, ensured that we managed to get votes for 16-year-olds in the referendum. However, it was also important that she acknowledged those perhaps longer in the tooth who have been campaigning for votes at 16 for a very long time, some of whom are in the chamber this afternoon.
A lot has been said about the record-breaking turnout and unprecedented levels of engagement by the people of Scotland, but it is crucial that we continue to engage and enthuse them. We must not lose the momentum that was reflected in the substantial number of people who voted for the first time, around 109,000 of whom were 16 and 17-year-olds. That is a huge number of people.
The 18th of September was the first time that 16 and 17-year-olds were entitled to vote in a national poll. The SNP Government has had the policy for a long time. As Christina McKelvie said, we have always believed in extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, and we have done that where we have the powers to do so. I know that that is the position of probably every member who is in the chamber and a large number of members, across the parties, who are not with us.
However, when the Government introduced the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Bill in 2013, there was not universal agreement on the principle of enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum. Members of the Scottish Parliament and, in particular, members of the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee should be proud of the way in which they scrutinised the Scottish Government’s proposals and of their constructive and pragmatic approach. That was the case for members of the committee and of the Parliament irrespective of where they stood on the principle of the franchise. Members ensured that, if it was going to happen, we would do it properly and safely and we devised a workable system for safely extending the franchise.
It is a measure of the strength of those proposals and the Parliament’s work that the arrangements received broad support across the political spectrum and among key stakeholders such as child protection groups and electoral administrators, both before and after the referendum. As I said at the time, not everyone agreed with the principles. Looking back, like Kezia Dugdale, I find it hard to believe that the measure was ever viewed as controversial, but it was. It has been a pleasure to witness the democratic engagement of our young people, who were proud to claim the right to register their vote on a question about the future of their country. The measure is no longer controversial.
Marco Biagi mentioned that, because the arrangements worked to such good effect, they provide us with a template for extending the franchise not just in Scotland but elsewhere in the UK and maybe in other jurisdictions that might be looking at how things worked in Scotland. I was particularly pleased to hear John Lamont’s support for extending the franchise for all elections.
The Scottish Parliament already has a range of powers with regard to local government elections, which we have used to good effect, I think. However, Westminster retains responsibility for the franchise for and the method of electing members to the Scottish Parliament and members’ length of tenure. Sections 1 to 3 of the Scotland Act 2012 will devolve some but not full responsibility for the administration of those elections. Those sections will be commenced as soon as possible to ensure that we can prepare for the Scottish Parliament elections in 2016. However, even after the commencement of those sections, the Scottish Parliament will still be without key powers in relation to the election of its members. To be clear, without powers that are additional to those that will be devolved by the Scotland Act 2012, we cannot legislate to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the elections for the Parliament in May 2016 or the local elections in 2017. I hope colleagues will strongly agree that the Parliament must have those powers.
The referendum and its underpinning legislation were made in Scotland and there is no reason why that should not be the case for all elections in future. With the Scottish elections just 20 months away, the Government has written to the UK Government requesting as a matter of urgency the devolution of the remaining responsibilities for elections to the Scottish Parliament and local elections in Scotland. We have also urged the UK Government to introduce legislation at Westminster to lower the voting age for its elections—that resonates with John Lamont’s comments.
In the run-up to the referendum, I was privileged to join Cabinet colleagues at a number of events to engage thousands of people on our proposals for Scotland’s future. One of those events was specifically designed to allow us to interact with and listen to our young people. It was held in the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre in Glasgow and was jointly organised with the Scottish Youth Parliament, Young Scot and YouthLink Scotland, supported by other youth organisations.
A variety of subjects were discussed, including education, the constitution, defence, young carers, the environment and much more. For me, one question that a very articulate young woman put to me stood out. Very reasonably, she asked whether 16 and 17-year-olds would get to vote in the elections to the Scottish Parliament in 2016, which at the time I hoped would be for the first independent Scottish Parliament. I answered that, in line with SNP policy, an SNP Government in an independent Scotland would legislate to reduce the voting age to 16 for all elections. “But what about the election in May 2016?” was her retort. “You can’t give us the vote then take it back,” she said. “That would be wrong.” She was absolutely right. It will not be an election for an independent Scotland, but it would be a travesty if we cannot find a way to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds are enfranchised to vote in that election.
Scotland’s young people have amply demonstrated their enthusiasm, engagement and willingness to participate in our democratic processes. They have not taken their responsibility lightly and neither should we. I sincerely hope, therefore, that the UK Government will take proper note of the positive experiences that we have had here in Scotland, so that we can ensure that all 16 and 17-year-olds are able to vote in all future elections.
13:15 Meeting suspended.Previous
First Minister’s Question TimeNext
Draft Budget 2015-16