h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"except that they can legally get married and have children of their own"

They can only marry with parental consent, the law does not deem the responsible enough to smoke or drink.

The ability to get pregnant is far from a measure of responsible behaviour or forethought.

Isn't the reason for Gretna Green's popularity that in Scotland you can marry without your parents' consent at 16?

Deb

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/scotland/relationships_s/relationships_living_together_marriage_and_civil_partnership_s/getting_married_scotland.htm


yes in Scotland (since we're talking about the Scottish referendum) you can get married at 16 without consent of your parents

at 16 you can also enlist in the army, get a job, pay tax, rent a house, and all manner of other things

smoking and drinking does not an adult make

Is it just me or are the newspapers biased beyond any credibility?

Though I am not a fan of breaking up the union, even I can see SOME benefits to an independent Scotland. None of the papers seem to be reporting any favourable facts for the "yes" campaign.

From what I've been hearing here in the States the No campaign's threats and exhortations are winning Yes votes.

They could be picking up yes votes, or motivating the complacent no voters to get engaged and to the polls. I am not sure that they actually thought it would be this close a run to the finish line

Mmm, I am sure that they didn't think it would be this close and are now bricking themselves

'"except that they can legally get married and have children of their own"

They can only marry with parental consent, the law does not deem the responsible enough to smoke or drink.

The ability to get pregnant is far from a measure of responsible behaviour or forethought. ' tuxucii

I cannot tell you how many times I have copied and pasted this quote of mine in the last couple of weeks on various forums to explain this issue...

'They are letting 16 and 17 year olds vote because in Scotland, 16 is the age of limited majority. English teenagers used to run over the border to get married in Gretna Green because you can get married in Scotland at 16 without parental consent but it's 18 in England. If you are old enough by law to get married, own land, enter into legal contracts or join the armed forces and possibly die for your country, then it's only right to be able to vote to decide your country's future. (Not saying I agree with the age, but that's the law). This isn't an election where it can be changed in 5 years if you don't like the politicians & government in place, this is a lifetime descision to make an independent nation and will affect young people more than most.'

<>

By law, members of the armed forces have to be 18 before they are allowed to fight. Those under 18 are not allowed to deploy with their units to dangerous areas.

No one ever expects the Scottish referendum!

''<>

By law, members of the armed forces have to be 18 before they are allowed to fight. Those under 18 are not allowed to deploy with their units to dangerous areas.>>'' swl


Cos no terrorist or insurgent group has ever thought of using an army training ground as a target, have they?

A sixteen-year-old kid who is desperate to join the army will often claim to be eighteen. If he gets sent into combat, it isn't the army's fault that he's under the proper age.

I don't think 16 year olds have been able to sign up and pretend to be 18 year olds since about 1940

In WW1 maybe, paulh but not these days. And there is a difference between being 18 and going off to fight and a terrorist attack on a bus load of junior soldiers (Catterick) or a pub full of trainee women soldiers who were non-combatants (Guildford) because terrorists never attack and kill civilians, do they?

By breakfast on Friday the complete poll results should be available.

"Cos no terrorist or insurgent group has ever thought of using an army training ground as a target, have they?"

Yes, but those people also explode trains, planes, cars, shopping malls, places of worship, sporting stadia, people's houses, banks, hospitals, police stations, nightclubs and themselves.

Banning 16 year olds from all of those places seems a bit weird.

And in the normal democratic way, whatever the result, the outcome will be debated ad nausium.

Most of the people who are going to vote are already decided, but it is probable that the difference between a yes or a no is so small that the don't knows will hold the balance. There are likely to be sufficient abstainers to ensure that the result is voted for by a minority anyway and many Scots who are currently and possibly only intend to be living away temporarily, get no vote.

I do hope that whatever the result, that it is gracefully accepted by the 'loosers'.

And I hope that the decision turns out to be the right one - but of course, we'll never know.

I hope they stay.

PP.

I'm hoping that the winning will be done graciously.

although I'm still of the opinion that if we retain the status quo, regardless of any "devo max" concessions that are made later, at some point there will be another referendum.

Who are they "looser" than?


From the news I've heard, there is not expected to be many abstaining from the vote. The turnout is expected to be at a percentage usually associated with "democracies" lead by "presidents for life" and "supreme leaders". Only someone like Qadaafi would be disappointed in the turnout percentage expected.

"I don't think 16 year olds have been able to sign up and pretend to be 18 year olds since about 1940" [Whisky]

I doubt that it has stopped entirely. In one of those movie quizzes, Gene Hackman was brought up as someone who joined the Marines as a 16-year-old in 1946 or 1947. There may be a few examples from the Vietnam era as well. Some kids lie more competently than others, and not all recruiters are sharp enough to see through the lies. Today, though? I don't know.