Aye or Naw, young Scots have a stake in their future

As the Yes and No sides of the Scottish independence argument trade barbs over currency union, EU membership and oil and gas reserves, one fascinating aspect of the coming referendum risks being overlooked by the UK media.

On 18 September, for the first time in a poll in the UK, 16- and 17-year-olds in Scotland will be eligible to vote.

Some commentators predict a low turnout by young voters. Others say enfranchising 16- and 17-year-olds has the potential to narrowly swing the vote towards Yes. In the past few months, the two official campaigns for and against independence have intensified their efforts to mobilise the youth vote.

Meanwhile, projects such as the Scottish Youth Parliament's "Aye Naw Mibbe" seek to stimulate and inform, while remaining politically neutral.

For me, votes at 16 is a rights issue and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is the best starting point for giving context to this debate. Although the UNCRC does not explicitly guarantee the right to vote to those under the age of 18, it does strongly emphasise the "evolving capacities" of children and young people.

As a society we have already deemed 16- and 17-year-olds capable of making informed decisions about when to have sex, when to leave school and when to marry. They can work full time and pay taxes. However, opponents of lowering the voting age have argued that young people do not have the capacity to understand the complexity of the arguments. I disagree for two reasons.

First, with regard to votes at 16, the UNCRC stresses the absolute importance of involving young people in choices that affect their lives, proportionate to their level of maturity and capacity. That decisions taken by governments, parliaments or councils have a significant impact on young people's lives is not in doubt.

Pivotal decision

Children and young people are some of the biggest recipients of public services. So it is simply not fair to exclude them from choosing their political representatives in an election - or to object to them having a stake in a once-in-a-generation, pivotal decision about the future of their country. They have a right to be involved.

However, these arguments could apply to all children so why stop at age 16? This brings me to my second reason.

In my view, the independence referendum vote is proportionate to the evolving capacities of our young people. This is a judgment call - and I trust in the judgment of our 16- and 17-year-olds to make the same informed decisions that adults will, in respect of the governance of our country. So for me, this is about rights, fairness and trust in our young people.

Giving 16- and 17-year-olds the vote reflects my vision of what Scotland as a progressive, rights-respecting country could be.

Their enfranchisement for an event as historic as the referendum on Scottish independence will make it much harder for politicians to exclude young voters from future polls. Whatever the referendum's outcome, the genie will be out of the bottle. That's why I will support any move to allow votes at 16 in future elections, whether for the UK or Scotland, national or local.

I am urging all young people eligible to vote in September to engage with the issues, register and join the debate – whatever their view.

And I hope that the democratic right that tens of thousands of 16- and 17-year-olds will experience in Scotland on 18 September will also be enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of young people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland before too long.

Tam Baillie is the children's commissioner for Scotland