Scottish Independence Referendum is agreed: vote in 2014

[removeduser_487563287433]

Meh. It's not really important. It was part of a trade off in the Edinburgh agreement that got the SNP to accept a straightforward question, which they didn't want to do.

[The Great Montrose]

By that reasoning then let's give 3 year olds the vote as well. I mean, they're going to have to grow up and whatever the future holds for Scotland, right?

The move to give the vote to 16 and 17 year olds was a calculated and cynical one by the SNP to enfranchise a portion of the population they could easily manipulate into supporting them.

The fact is, the vast majority of 16 and 17 year olds are not mature enough to vote because they don't have a job, haven't lived away from their parents or supported themselves, and simply have too little life experience to make sound judgements. It's as simple as that.

Theres no point in even discussing your first point and you know that.

It wasnt a cynical move, the SNP have always supported giving 16 and 17 year olds the vote and they've been able to deliver on this policy for the biggest decision my nation will face in decades.

The vast majority of 16 and 17 year olds are mature enough to vote, many of them have a job (Part-time it may be but it's still a job), we can get married have a family at 16 and 17, we can fight and die in foreign countries at 16 and 17, we can drive at 17, the point about life experience doesnt make sense, does a 19 year old thats never had a job, sits at home and lives in his parents house have that life experience you so value? It's as simple as that.

[removeduser_487563287433]

"The vast majority of 16 and 17 year olds are mature enough to vote". Baseless and subjective quote of the month right there.

[The Great Montrose]

Really Ferrets, so Pielstick didnt just say before that "The fact is, the vast majority of 16 and 17 year olds are not mature enough to vote" which is the same as mine yet he sounds even more sure as he adds "the fact is"

Your off topic slants dont work.

I am 16, I know how mature people my age are and I know that theres only a few who I wouldnt view as mature enough to vote in my year. Now unless Pielstick is also 16/17 then I dont see how he can know as a "fact" the vast majority arent mature enough to vote.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Difference is he managed to give a load of reasons why. You just said whatever suited the yes campaign, as per. And every sixteen year old thinks they're mature. But I think mature people are able to accept data.

[The Great Montrose]

His reasons were not having a job and not living away from parents, they dont really seem like great reasons to me, are those two reasons essential to qualify as having maturity?

I said reasons as well, you know reasons like we can get married and have a family, thats a sign of maturity? Clearly we're trusted to do that. We can join the army, they deem us mature enough to do that. We can have jobs, again we're trusted in that. Yet we're not mature enough to vote? When a person turns 18 do they automatically gain that maturity?

I never said every 16 year old thinks they're mature, I said the vast majority of those my age I know are mature enough to vote and decide our countries future. These people have much more at stake than you Ferrets they deserve a vote.

What data has been offered to me on this point?

[removeduser_487563287433]

How would you know? And yes, I would agree with him. I mean, it's fairly obvious in our discussions that you were not yet out of school, because some of the things you've said about the realities of day to day life were just naive. And maybe you can get married in Scotland at sixteen, but you are a backwards people.

That'd be a joke if any mods get het up.

[Rootsie]

many of them have a job (Part-time it may be but it's still a job)

You can have a part-time job at 14.

we can get married have a family at 16 and 17

That doesn't mean it is a good thing, it means that our legal system is archaic.

we can fight and die in foreign countries at 16 and 17

That is totally untrue. You can join the armed forces at 16 (with signed parental consent), but you cannot serve on operations until you are 18. Furthermore, until you turn 18 you serve under different Terms of Service.

We can join the army, they deem us mature enough to do that.

As I said, you cannot join the armed forces of your own free will at 16 or 17. You must have signed parental consent.

the point about life experience doesnt make sense, does a 19 year old thats never had a job, sits at home and lives in his parents house have that life experience you so value? It's as simple as that.

Personally I think that the voting age has to be totally arbitrary. Whether that is 14, 16, 18 or 21 there has to be a minimum age.

I believe that 18 is fine. In my view citizenship is about give and take. At 18 you become a 'full' citizen and you get all the rights that come with citizenship, things such as voting or being allowed to stand as an MP or MSP. However, you also get responsibilities such as being called for jury duty.

If we allow votes at 16 then we are showing young people that they can all the "fun" parts of democracy without any of reponsibilities that go along with it. I don't believe that is a good message for society to send to young people.

[The Great Montrose]

I dont believe the case is so in shops etc. Rootsie,

You are still in the Army, doesnt matter if it's with parental consent.

I agree Rootsie a minimum age is a must, my personal view is 16.

Thank you Rootsie for actually adressing the points made.

Ferrets again you've just ignored what I've said and instead chosen to call me naive and make a poor joke. How do I know what?

[removeduser_487563287433]

I'm sorry what did you say? Sixteen year olds are mature because all of the things they can (well, you were wrong on some but let's ignore that) do rather than what they have in all likelihood have done?

Sixteen year olds are schoolchildren. Why give the vote to children who we only just then legally allow to leave education?

[Rootsie]

I dont believe the case is so in shops etc. Rootsie

Actually, there are only 5 areas that under 16 year olds cannot work in: Factories, Mines, Construction, Merchant Ships and Transport.

Local council can set by-laws about employment age, but nationally you can work in a shop at 14. The reason you don't see many 14 year old shop assistants is mainly due to the fact that it really pushes up your insurance to hire a under-16.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publicati.../04/02155040/1

You are still in the Army, doesnt matter if it's with parental consent.

It does matter because you are not considered able to make the decision on your own, you can only make it with the assistance of an adult

Also, there is a huge difference in how an under 18 is treated compared to an over 18. As an under 18, at any time you can go to your platoon commander say, "Sir I want to leave the army" and you'll be allowed to leave. If you are over 18 you have a 3-month period during your initial training when you can ask to leave, after which you are committed for 4 years service.

In case you are wondering, I joined the army at 17.

I agree Rootsie a minimum age is a must, my personal view is 16.

Why 16 in particular?

Do you think that 16 year olds should serve on juries or fight on the frontline?

Thank you Rootsie for actually adressing the points made.

No problem, could you address the points that I have made?

[Condottiere 40K]

Voting age is a compromise; a lot of people don't really mature until they reach twenty one. There are some who reach a level of adult maturity when they start secondary.

I remember I believed a lot of nonsense when I was sixteen, and hormones tended to direct a great deal of decision making.

[selder]

The fact is, the vast majority of 16 and 17 year olds are not mature enough to vote because they don't have a job, haven't lived away from their parents or supported themselves, and simply have too little life experience to make sound judgements. It's as simple as that.

If that is the case then those who are not very mature will probably not sign up to vote nor take the time out of their day to participate in the first place. While those who are mature and responsible will make a point to exercise their rights. Its a moot point.

I mean, it's fairly obvious in our discussions that you were not yet out of school, because some of the things you've said about the realities of day to day life were just naive.

Source? Or is it just the usual ferret character assassination at play?

but you are a backwards people. That'd be a joke if any mods get het up.

I am sure you were only joking ferrets, as most of your posts seem to fall into that category.

Personally I think that the voting age has to be totally arbitrary.

Since when did what someone personally thought take precedence over actual law? The Age of Legal Capacity states that a person has full legal capacity at the age of 16, what is it that you do not understand about that?

Actually, there are only 5 areas that under 16 year olds cannot work in: Factories, Mines, Construction, Merchant Ships and Transport.

Ever heard of Apprentices? I knew many an apprentice tool worker who worked from 14 on up. Maybe that was before your family moved to Scotland though, so you might not know about the hundreds of thousands of young men who learned many a lesson about life at a very early age around my hame toon.

When I was a child...

[removeduser_487563287433]

Source? Or is it just the usual ferret character assassination at play?

Somebody actually has to claim a fact before you can source it, but I am glad you are at least pretending to start caring about data. I think it's a fair point - Andy's case for independence comes down to tribalism because his every attempt to make rational cases have been brushed aside by people who actually have experience in life.

It's not character assassination because I don't think the fact Andy is a schoolboy is a bad thing - I was a teenager when I joined these forums myself, but yes it does automatically mean he has much less life experience and I agree with Pielstick that it's enough to deny him the vote for a couple of years more. I just said it wasn't surprising, just as it wasn't surprising when we discovered some people aren't even Scottish, Selder.

There's a prevailing ideology on this forum, pushed hard by the Hex, that what people are and their experience in life doesn't affect their views. This is clearly nonsense. You have never hesitated to use my Englishness as a tool against my views, so do not be hypocritical by pretending you are bothered by this.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Just jumping in here on a slightly related point- that of the armed forces that some of you have mentioned.

I've read several articles and watched one avenue of the current debate unfold with particular interest- though of the Scottish Regiments in the British Army:

To both sides, especially those with links to the armed forces, do you think that the soldiers themselves should get a say in who they wish to serve with? The SNP has stated that wish for all Scots personnel to join the new army of Scotland, a smaller and as they've stated defensive force (who would indeed lack the capabilities and serious career opportunities of the UK armed forces due to its proposed make-up and mandate- the defense of Scotland, instead of being a real offensive capable force- this isn't a bad thing in itself, it just means career soldiers who join the army for that side of things, may be put off...but anyway), and they seem to impy that Scotland should automatically inherit those UK units who are predominantly Scottish.

Meanwhile the MoD has stated in effect- that this is ridiculous. A A) The solider should get a say if they firstly wish to serve in a foreign countries military (A point i'd agree on), and B) It wouldn't actually give Scotland a balanced or capable army, as the Regiments Scotland wants won't give it any logistics, intelligence and support capability required for the running of a military- also as Scotland defense budget will be significantly smaller, meaning fewer personnel, and also research and development into new doctrines and technology will not be as a priority (Though here i believe the MoD needs a kick in the pants- but that's a separate issue).

Anyway, what i'm asking is, in the same vein as we're speaking currently about choice- shouldn't the troops individually get to decide if they remain or join the Scots forces? And much in the way of the Irish Guards are still part of the UK, shouldn't the Regiment of Scotland- created by the UK stay in the UK armed forces? That's where its tradition lays surely, its foundation- battle honours etc.

Or is the SNP right and they should be given to Scotland in the case of an Independence vote? As their Scottish based?

You can probably tell the slant i'm with, but some articles for better information (That give both sides as always!)

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/scot...ents-1-3128366

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...forces-funding

EDIT:

Another article that rather supports my own view, i really just wanted this line from it::

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.co...-row-1-3129226

The visit coincides with the publication of an analysis paper, prepared by UK civil servants, which aims to highlight the benefits to Scotland of the £34 billion UK defence budget. The Scottish Government proposes a £2.5 billion defence force, assuming a Yes vote in the referendum next September.

I'm not really sure given the rather large proportion of the UK military that the Scottish Units have in comparison to size ratio, how the SNP can actually say they won't be cutting jobs (Not just front-line, but logistics and all the supporting staff and facilities this entails, and lets face it. A tiny budget in comparison. Let alone the costs in terms of economic livlihood of families and bases etc provide- how will a poultry 2.5 billion compensate for all that? To be honest, i can see exactly why an Independent Scotland wouldn't need such a large budget yes- but that dose'nt seem to way-lay the point that the lack of such funding will cost us.

[removeduser_487563287433]

It's very clear that in the advent of independence then Scotland would, relatively speaking, have a negligible defence capacity. Denmark is usually held as the model, and the BBC has a great analysis below.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-21628443

The question is, would it even have as much as an armed force as Denmark? The SNP has a virulently anti-NATO history which directly contrasts with Denmark's embrace of its role as a nation actively supporting NATO operations.

[Condottiere 40K]

Who do the Scots have to fear will invade them - Vikings, Irish, Geordies or Björk? They could let the Clans police themselves and provide a militia.

The Scots Regiment could easily be integrated into the British Army, much like the Gurkhas.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Who do the Scots have to fear will invade them - Vikings, Irish, Geordies or Björk? They could let the Clans police themselves and provide a militia.

The Scots Regiment could easily be integrated into the British Army, much like the Gurkhas.

Gurkhas are a very, very unique example. It's much more likely that, if any arrangement were made, it would be like the arrangement where Irish citizens are permitted to enlist in the British armed forces. 6.7% of the British army's soldiers are volunteers from the Commonwealth, and about a hundred Irish citizens joining the British army every year.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-28951130.html

[Dante Von Hespburg]

It's very clear that in the advent of independence then Scotland would, relatively speaking, have a negligible defence capacity. Denmark is usually held as the model, and the BBC has a great analysis below.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-21628443

The question is, would it even have as much as an armed force as Denmark? The SNP has a virulently anti-NATO history which directly contrasts with Denmark's embrace of its role as a nation actively supporting NATO operations.

That's a very interesting article, i admire also the Danes frankness

He says there is no direct threat to Denmark and they can also rely on their partners in Nato.
Mr Kværnø went on: "So our investment is not in our direct and own defence but rather in keeping our preferred partners happy so that they will come to our rescue at the end of the day".

This is how i see Scotland operating to be honest, with such a small military, the SNP should just come out and admit it, we'll proably be likely relying on the UK to provide us with serious defense assets in the case of hostilities or terror attack, in lieu of the fact we'd be like their back door, so it would be in the UK's interest to pick up our own slack. Though this i see as being highly unfair to the rUK who would shoulder the costs.

I mean in all seriousness when it comes to Defense of Scotland either in conventional or unconventional warfare, lets face it, an independent Scotland would be heavily reliant on the UK. From things like Intelligence networks, to even out military policies, the UK would have a large say in what we do realistically i believe. As so much would effect them, and we'd rely on their worldwide secret service network, navy, logistics etc. While i'm not saying We wouldn't be able to have our own intelligence services, with such a small budget its not going to have world influence or any depth of true efficiency- i can more see us using UK intelligence, in return for certain basing rights etc. (That would be ironic if they kept trident here!)

Also this brought an interesting point:

The Danish government oppose nuclear weapons but do not question whether their Nato allies sail nuclear armed submarines in their waters.That was one of the controversies at the last SNP conference which saw the party adopt a pro-Nato stance.
Mr Kværnø says that ignoring the issue is a matter of military practicality.
He said: "I can't see a member of Nato taking a firm stance on a nuclear free zone in, for example, the North Atlantic or around Scottish waters. That would be difficult."

We'd probably too have to keep quiet on Trident... As that as has actually been stated would affect our NATO membership application. Its probably the only use NATO would really have of another small country like us joining- the strategic location for a nuclear base, as lets face it- the Atlantic straits can alread be covered by Denmark (NATO member), Norway (Various military sharing) and Greenland.

Who do the Scots have to fear will invade them - Vikings, Irish, Geordies or Björk? They could let the Clans police themselves and provide a militia.

The Scots Regiment could easily be integrated into the British Army, much like the Gurkhas.

I think the matter is less actual defense more in terms of high far will our policy militarily be dictated by those we rely on - In the case of us not getting into NATO, that would be... the UK! And also the economic side of it- jobs and careers, as well as industry and development. Its already been said the Royal Navy would not use Scottish Shipyards, indeed i think the rUK (Wales and N.Ireland especially) stand to gain quite a lot of business from our independence ironically, no wonder their so silent on the issue.

As to the Gurkas, as Ferrets have said their a special case, and indeed having Scottish Citizens join up with the rUK military, won't actually do Scotland much good in terms of its economy- it just means the UK gets extra troops and the benefits that entail over us.

EDIT:
Ok looking at the Danish Defense budget, why the hell do some in Scotland use them as an example, for 2012 their defense budget was 23.2 billion!

http://www.fmn.dk/eng/allabout/Pages...penditure.aspx

The total budget for 2012 for the Ministry of Defence in the 2012 Finance Act is DKK 23.2 billion.

Compare that to the SNP's 2.5 Billion...Its stupid to say we'd be anything like them, who by their own admission have no threats and rely on NATO for protection... So how can the SNP really say they won't make job cuts to the armed forces, when clearly they'll barely have enough to field anything more than a token force.

Their aware for instance that just to throw some numbers out their, modern fighter craft (which just get more and more expensive in the future, check F-15 purchase thread to see some of the numbers and sources thrown around for a fifth gen or even 4th Gen aircraft!)

That number has since been reduced by 72, but development and production costs have risen by a fifth to £20.2 billion, and support costs have also risen, according to the NAO.
Altogether the watchdog estimates that each individual aircraft is £55 million - or 75 per cent - more expensive than planned and the total programme cost will eventually hit £37 billion.

http://www.channel4.com/news/multibi...spend-revealed

So... how will that 2.5 Billion stretch to founding and running an air-force? Necessary for Defense of the much vaunted oil platforms...

No as i said Scotland dose'nt really have any hostile threats now. BUT it does mean for anything serious or even semi-serious we are as i've thought going to have to heavily rely on the UK. And that doesn't come for free. What concessions will they want for basically doing the jobs that we can't?

Heck how are we even going to have the special forces necessary for counter-terrorism and asymmetrical warfare that's probably the largest threat we face? Training, equipment, support all costs. For instance without a serious amount of that budget going on a few we won't even be close to the UK's SAS in capability, they can deploy worldwide to protect UK citizens and have proven their effectiveness... what will we use to protect our citizens in an independent Scotland? Probably we'd call the UK (we'd probably have to use their embassies too to be honest, as hosting an embassy of our own to every country in the world may prove...costly)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ial-force.html

This article actually gives a good breakdown of the costs it requires to maintain such a modern and relevant force to defense:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/spec...-iraq-1-514653

An SAS captain serving in the regular regiment, 22 SAS, can earn up to 40-45,000 per year, with various allowances, while a junior sergeant or senior corporal can earn 30,000 per annum.Such is the demand for the security skills of former SAS NCOs and officers in Iraq that pre-tax pay can range from 200 to 700 per day.

Special forces soldiers cost up to 2 million each to train, and all must be chosen from men who have already served for several years in their parent units. Less than 20 men a year pass out into the regiment.

So would Scotland have the ability to have something comparable? No. We could, if that's all we want our defence budget to go on, but we also need some sort of air-forces and naval forces. If for nothing else. as a logistical support and transport.

[Condottiere 40K]

Which isn't quite the same as the continuity of regimental tradition.