The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Are Scottish teenagers more in favour of independence?

The polling evidence suggests not.

By George Eaton Published 10 October 2012 11:16

First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond. Photograph: Getty Images.

First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond carries a sliver putter signifying the next location of the Ryder Cup. Photograph: Getty Images.

The hope among nationalists and the fear among unionists is that the decision to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the Scottish independence referendum will aid the SNP's cause. Young people, it is supposed, are more susceptible to Alex Salmond's patriotic appeal than their older compatriots. But the polling evidence we have suggests that this is not the case.

A survey by the Mail on Sunday last month found that support for independence stands at just 26% among 14 and 15-year-olds (who will be 16 or 17 in 2014), compared with 27% among the rest of the population. As pollster John Curtice noted:

This shows the assumptions made by some that younger voters tend towards independence is some way out. The crucial group are those over the age of 60, who are more inclined to vote. We may yet see a deal which extends the franchise for the referendum but we don’t know if the people in this category will turn up and vote, as turnout among younger voters is traditionally low.

The SNP will, naturally, hope to shift these numbers over the course of the campaign. But it's already clear that allowing young Scots to vote won't be the game changer that the party needs.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Scotland Scottish independence SNP Alex Salmond

More from George Eaton

View the discussion thread.

22 comments

Thu, 2012-10-11 15:22 — MikeB (not verified)

A survey by the Mail On Sunday finds in favour of the unionists, well that's a surprise.

Thu, 2012-10-11 14:28 — Drew Edward (not verified)

On the issue of teenage votes, I suspect the SNP have polling research which shows teenagers are more likely to support independence, otherwise why push so hard to get votes at 16/17.

But most in depth polling shows the groups who support independence in terms of gender/race/age/income shows support for independence is highest among the lower income groups, easily reaching more than 50%. Middle class or higher earners have more to lose and less risk averse. But typically those on lower incomes are the ones who are less likely to vote, so the SNP's big challenge is getting the 30-40% or so who typically don't vote at elections to vote in the referendum.

Wed, 2012-10-10 19:58 — Davidaslindsay (not verified)

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. Indeed, it is already starting in Scotland. “Some” 16 and 17-year-olds will have the vote. Which ones, exactly? And why, exactly?

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.

As for Ed Miliband’s being in favour of this, he may have been in the past, but even then he was in that case pretty much the only person in the Labour Party who was. He would not be now, I confidently assert. If he ever really was.

He should appeal directly to those who can and will vote by declaring his implacable opposition to it under any circumstance, including if it should appear in the Scottish referendum legislation together with some Old Dixie-style property, “literacy” or Poll Tax qualification thus introduced into our political system. The electoral base of the SNP, of course.

Thu, 2012-10-11 13:23 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

As usual DAVIDASLINDSAY you are talking a load of twaddle.

If a 16 year old can work, pay tax and national insurance join the Forces get married and have children they should be given the right to vote. Even more so about their country's future where they will be spending a lot more time than you!

Thu, 2012-10-11 10:40 — Tripitaka (not verified)

It does seem a little strange that you think a child can be 'still a 16 year old' one day, and 12 months later be a switch can be flicked that elevates his or her opinions to the sort of status necessary that they be represented nationally. Of course it makes sense that 18 is enshrined in law as the voting age, if only because it is no better or worse than the numbers on either side, but there is no moral distinction that this law reflects, only an administrative one.

Wed, 2012-10-10 22:04 — kelelmist (not verified)

You are on dangerous ground, weighing the opinions of others, and their votes.

Wed, 2012-10-10 19:45 — anne warren

let's hope all Scottish voters get balanced information and make an informed decision. The 16-17 year olds will proably have to live longest with it.

Wed, 2012-10-10 19:39 — mike cobley (not verified)

I would no more vote for independence than I would vote to chop my left leg off! The fight is on to defeat the right and that's a fight I'm not backing down from.

Wed, 2012-10-10 19:41 — mike cobley (not verified)

and when I say the right, I'm not referring to my other leg...

Thu, 2012-10-11 02:13 — Benjamin Rae (not verified)

Mike, the right have a grip on the UK political system wether Labour or the Tories are in.
A game changing moment is needed and Scottish independence could very well be it. Right ideology is so entrenched in UK media, institutions and political class that no general election makes any meaningful difference.
Independence on the other hand would genuinely put the wind up them and break their grip on power with knock on consequences for rest UK.
If you really want a break from the awful politics we have I'd argue that independence is the best way forward. Then Scotland can show that another style of government is not only possible but significantly better.
That would eat into the lie hat there is no option other than carry on with failed neo liberalism.
If independence is rejected then I'm afraid it's business as usual

Thu, 2012-10-11 11:33 — mike cobley (not verified)

"If independence is rejected then I'm afraid it's business as usual."

Dont forget the Burke quote, 'All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men (and women) to do nothing." And dont forget that the Tories are still locked into a historical decline in support, so rejecting independence and staying in the fight will pay dividends in terms of a decent, civilised democracy to live in and hand on to our descendants. Of course when I say descendants, I mean those who come after us in all corners of the British isles; my committment to social justice is not limited by a line on a map.

Thu, 2012-10-11 03:48 — Fergus Pickering (not verified)

So you suppose Mr Salmond is a creature of the left? I don't think so.

Thu, 2012-10-11 03:48 — Fergus Pickering (not verified)

So you suppose Mr Salmond is a creature of the left? I don't think so.

Thu, 2012-10-11 02:12 — Benjamin Rae (not verified)

Thu, 2012-10-11 13:03 — Benjamin Rae (not verified)

My central point though is that a successful social democratic Scotland changes the context for political debate in the rest of the UK. The UK political establishment only ever gives way on anything when their power is genuinely threatened. The referendum is a chance to do that not just for Scotland but the rest of the UK.

Thu, 2012-10-11 17:05 — kelelmist (not verified)

You are right, spot on.

Wed, 2012-10-10 14:33 — Peter A Bell (not verified)

16-year olds are being given the vote because it's right, not because it's politically expedient.

Wed, 2012-10-10 14:24 — kelelmist (not verified)

But we suffer from the stupidity of those voting in Toryland. That is why I will be voting YES for independence. Just think, a Gove-free zone, a Hunt-free zone, and this is just the start.

Wed, 2012-10-10 11:36 — darren close (not verified)

Of course the Scots won't vote for independence! They're not fools, they know which side their bread is buttered on. Free tuition fees, prescriptions etc. while we south of the border have to not only pay for such "luxury" but, through our taxes, pay for the rest of the UK as well. United Kingdom!?! It's anything but!

Wed, 2012-10-10 16:23 — Benjamin Rae (not verified)

Your wrong of course. Tell me this? If England is running a deficit of it's own how are you paying for Scotland. Add that to the fact that Scotland puts in more than it takes out then it doesn't make a lot of sense to say English paying forbScottish giveaways.
On a side note, I really think it's extraordinarily selfish of Labour supporters to attempt to derail independence due to effect it would have on Labour's electoral prospects.

Thu, 2012-10-11 11:11 — darren close (not verified)

Probably because what you refer to as an English deficit is in fact a national deficit as in the debts accrued by the National Health Service, the Border Agency, the Armed Forces, the National Highways Agency to name just a few. Unlike the rest of the UK, which seems to swing between a British and a Scottish, Welsh, N.I. identity when it suits, it seems that to many people England/Britain are one entity. Besides which does it seem fair that one citizen of the UK should have their care fees paid for by the state while just over the border someone in the same circumstances shouldn't? A country that to all intents and purposes is united? In my view, you either give everyone in the country free health care, tuition fees etc. or, if you can't afford it, nobody in the country should have free fees. Anything else is an affront to fairness, equality and common decency.

Thu, 2012-10-11 12:51 — Drew Edward (not verified)

You are correct to point out some of the anomalies of devolution set up under Labour, as they limited devolution to over 60% of spending power with only 6% revenue raising powers, relying largely on the block grant and the Barnet formula. If they had also devolved major revenue raising powers including most domestic taxation, the Scottish Parliament would raise the money it spends alone and people in England would not feel they are paying for universal benefits in Scotland.

Labour's fear was this kind of system would prove successful and show Scotland could be economically independent following the projections in the McCrone report, classified as highly confidential and hidden for 30 years by the UK Government:

'An independent Scotland's budget surpluses as a result of the oil boom, wrote Professor McCrone, would be so large as to be "embarrassing".

Scotland's currency "would become the hardest in Europe, with the exception perhaps of the Norwegian Kronor." From being poorer than their southern neighbours, Scots would quite possibly become richer. Scotland would be in a position to lend heavily to England and "this situation could last for a very long time into the future." Independent newspaper Friday 9th Dec 2005 How black gold was hijacked: North sea oil and the betrayal of Scotland