John Curtice: SNP may be opening the door to a new generation of voter apathy
JUDGING by the rhetoric on both sides, the question of whether 16 or 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote in the independence referendum is one of the key flashpoints in the dispute between the Scottish and the UK governments.
Alex Salmond’s critics suspect the proposal that this group should have a vote is part of an attempt to “rig” the referendum in his favour. They reckon the SNP believe 16 and 17-year-olds are more likely to back independence.
In practice we know little about what 16 and 17-year-olds actually think about independence, and nothing at all about the views of those who will be 16 or 17 in autumn 2014 – that is today’s 13 and 14-year-olds. Nevertheless, it is highly unlikely that the SNP’s proposal would deliver them a significant advantage.
Most opinion polls do not interview those aged 16 or 17. However, because of Salmond’s proposal, one recent YouGov poll did. There were only 114 of them, so the poll figures are only indicative. But contrary to expectations, just 26 per cent of those 16 and 17-year-olds who did have a view and who said they would vote indicated they would back independence – well below the equivalent figure of 39 per cent for adults as a whole.
For further evidence we have to look at the views of those aged, say, 18 to 24, on the grounds that their outlook is likely to be similar to that of those who are only slightly younger. Even here we have to be careful because no individual poll contains very many such voters. So only if a number of polls consistently find that this age group is more supportive of independence can we presume that younger people are generally more likely to vote Yes.
While two of the four most recent polls that have reported how 18 to 24-year-olds would vote in an independence referendum have found they were more likely to vote Yes, the other two found the opposite. On this basis, we cannot presume that the opinions of younger people on independence are in fact particularly distinctive at all.
But whatever their views, 16 and 17-year-olds can only possibly make a difference if they actually cast a vote in the referendum. In practice, most would not do so.
Many young people lack the motivation to vote. The SNP gave the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds in two recent health board elections. Even amongst all voters, the turnout in those elections was abysmal – 23 per cent in Dumfries & Galloway and just 14 per cent in Fife. But amongst those aged 16 and 17 who managed to get their names on the register, the turnout was even worse – just 13 per cent and 7 per cent respectively.
Above all, under the rules for voter registration – which are decided by Westminster not Holyrood – the only people under 18 whose names should appear on the electoral roll are those who will be 18 before 1 December next comes around. As a result, the only additional young people to whom the SNP could conceivably give the vote in any referendum held in the autumn are those who will be 18 in a matter of weeks anyway – as a careful reading of last week’s consultation paper makes clear.
So, despite the rhetoric, in practice the dispute between the two governments is about a small number of voters who are relatively unlikely to vote and whose views may well not be particularly distinctive. That hardly sounds like sufficient reason for having a rumpus.
• John Curtice is Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University
Email to a friend
Print this page- Family mourn death of Glasgow ‘fight’ schoolboy
- Rangers takeover: Duff & Phelps threaten legal action against BBC
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Rangers administration: Fans fear Duff & Phelps claims could scare off Green
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- Scottish Independence: SNP ‘won’t be Yes campaign’s only voice’
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond’s pledge to sign up 1m voters
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Sunday 27 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 42 comments to this article
Page 1 of 3
Gibbo
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 04:17 PMThis man should be called Fraser Dads army ilk, Mr Doom and Gloom but there again he is a Unionist and has great difficulty coming to terms with the Inevitable,
DNK260
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 03:26 PMShould 16 and 17 year olds be allowed to have a right good bevvy up the town on a Saturday night? .......If not, why not?..................................................................................Should 16 and 17 year olds be allowed to see 18 rated films?............If not why not?.......................................................Should 16 and 17 year olds be allowed to buy firearms and ammunition?.........If not, why not?
DNK260
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 03:18 PMThe professor is wrong, imo. From the same article. "In practice we know little about what 16 and 17-year-olds actually think about independence, and nothing at all about the views of those who will be 16 or 17 in autumn 2014 – that is today’s 13 and 14-year-olds". This is the only relevant fact in his article. I do not believe for a second that the voting behaviour of 1617 year olds in an utterly boring, and almost irrelevant Heath Board election, gives the slightest indication of how they will view an emotional and evocative issue such as independence. Curtis, in another article himself says that "Mori surveys show that 50% (of eligible people) say they will definitely vote in a general election – in a referendum 70% say they would vote." I don't think the good Professor will find many youngsters discussing whether or not Mrs Theresa Douglas makes a good chairperson of the Lothian Health Board or whether Susan Goldsmith should be replaced by TQM as their finance director. He will, however, hear people screaming abuse at the TV every time England are playing football and, if he asks them to complete the phrase, "English ___________" is, he's unlikely to hear replies of "mustard" or "dictionary" very often. The voting intentions of 1617 year olds is easy enough to predict and including them will give the SNP an advantage. If it didn't, they wouldn't be included.
Anagach
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 11:59 PM38 bodach every Scot, man & woman, should have the right to vote on this important matter wherever they live! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sadly not possible, and not strickly democratic either.
bodach
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 10:45 PMevery Scot, man & woman, should have the right to vote on this important matter wherever they live!
rider000
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 09:51 PM36Tightfisted Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 08:40 PM SO................as a 16 year old soldier you could be asked to die andor kill for your country.........but you're not allowed any say in who makes the decisions to send you into conflict. I don't care which side of the debate you're on....THAT JUST CAN'T BE RIGHT !!! ........................................... It's you that isn't right, no 16 year old is allowed into a combat zone so the only way they would die is by accident not by duty. GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT!
Tightfisted
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 08:40 PMSO................as a 16 year old soldier you could be asked to die andor kill for your country.........but you're not allowed any say in who makes the decisions to send you into conflict. I don't care which side of the debate you're on....THAT JUST CAN'T BE RIGHT !!!
Tightfisted
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 08:37 PMDoes anyone actually pay any attention (apart from the BBC who line his unionist pockets) to anything that this pedantic codger actually pontificates upon these many years..........he's like a figure from "Back To The Future".....and is surely a "Man With NO Future" as the debate trundles on !!!
samcoldstream
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 07:51 PMProfessor Curtice isn't playing with the truth. He is simply laying bare the facts in an unbiased manner.
Anagach
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 07:39 PMSo even Curtis (unionist par excelence) thinks this fight over 16 and 17 year olds is not based upon seeking advantage.
jdships
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 06:27 PM18 well informed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So what you are now saying is people shouldn't put forward opinions as they might not be well founded!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well that's straight out the Salmond " Handbook on how to rule " ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- " In this job the only opinions worth considering are my own " as he said
JREwing
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 06:23 PMCurtice has a track record of abject failure in regard to his political analysis. He is just another of the paid dependency rent-a-gobs like the majority of "journalists" in this newspaper. No doubt it will be Iain MacMillan CBI next
M78
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 05:30 PMWould be interesting to trigger an F.O.I. enquiry to ascertain how much time Curtice spends in his day job as a "professor" against the time spent in the media spouting anti S.N.P. propaganda
Smokeball
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 05:02 PMNo6 -- 16 and 17 year olds are not liable to pay council tax (there's no such thing as "community tax") - liability begins at age 18. Of course, if the voting age were reduced to 16 then it would only be fair to reduce the age of liability for council tax.Admittedly most of them still wouldn't pay it as full time students are exempt and in any case they live in the parental home - but single parents who currently get the 25% single householder discount until the oldest non studentschoolpupil child is 18 would lose it when said child became 16 instead.------------- I think it goes without saying that if 16 and 17 year olds are considered old enough to vote then they are also old enough to buy alcohol and cigarettes, drive cars and motorbikes, serve on juries, join the army AND GO ON COMBAT DUTY, which they currently do not ,and serve as MPs, MSps. MEPs and councillors.---- Personally I don't think they are old enough for any of these, nor marriage for that matter, and at 16 I was completely clueless about politics and current affairs, but maybe today's 16-17 year olds talk of nothing else.
well informed
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 03:40 PM24 Denying them the right to poison themselves too soon is no a bad thing! I wish I had denied myself when I was that age!
Page 1 of 3
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.