Young Scots more opposed to assisted dying than other age groups, poll finds
Young people aged 18-24 are more opposed than any other age group to attempts to legalise assisted dying in Scotland, a new poll has found.
The news comes as the Lib Dem MSP spearheading the proposals announced he has dropped the section of the plans that would have allowed 16-year-olds to end their lives with medical assistance.
The proposed Bill – brought forward by Liam McArthur - would now require people to be at least 18 before they can apply for medically-assisted euthanasia.
The plans would see the law changed so a patient could request medical assistance to end their life if they had a terminal illness and had been ruled mentally fit to make the decision by two doctors.
MSPs are scheduled to vote on the broad principles of McArthur's bill at Holyrood on 13 May.
Discussing his decision, Mr McArthur said: 'In other jurisdictions that have changed the law to allow dying people access to the choice of an assisted death, such as the US, Australia and New Zealand, 18 is the age from which terminally ill adults become eligible.
'On balance I now feel that this would be most appropriate for Scotland.'
The change to the proposed Assisted Dying (Scotland) Bill comes as the results of a survey by pollsters Whitestone, commissioned by anti-assisted suicide campaign group Care Not Killing, are published.
It shows initial support for the Bill is highest among 45-54 year olds with 83 per cent of those surveyed in favour of it.
Meanwhile, the lowest level of initial support was found to be among people aged 18-24 at 69 per cent.
The poll also found that two thirds of Scots oppose assisted suicide when they consider how it operates in practice and think about the arguments against it.
The pollsters said that support for assisted suicide among the general population falls to just 19 per cent when those taking part were presented with 10 arguments against assisted dying, including facts about how it operates overseas.
The study found that among those who initially support assisted suicide, only 25 per cent continued to do so after considering the arguments against.
Dr Gordon Macdonald, CEO of Care Not Killing which is spearheading opposition to the legislation said the results show the public 'have genuine fears' about the Bill.
He added: 'This shows that most people have no fixed views on the matter and are deeply troubled by its consequences.'
The news comes after SNP Health Secretary Neil Gray refused to reveal how he will vote on the Bill.
He will not make his views known publicly until after MSPs vote for the first time on the issue.
The private member's Bill lodged by Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur has so far failed to win public backing from a single member of John Swinney's Cabinet.
The First Minister has also said he intends to make his own personal views known on the issue in the coming days, before the Stage One vote to decide whether the Bill will continue to proceed through parliament.
Mr Gray had said: 'As I'm the lead minister for the Bill, I'm going to be following the government's position, which is of neutrality.'
Three previous attempts to legalise assisted dying in Scotland have failed to secure enough support from MSPs.
Asked about his own position on Thursday, Mr Swinney said: 'I have got views on that and I will set them out in due course.'
Mr Swinney, who has previously spoken of his 'deep Christian faith' and voted against the Assisted Suicide Scotland Bill in 2015, said he intends to make a 'public statement' on the issue before the Stage One vote, and added: 'It will obviously be my individual view.
'I appreciate I'm the First Minister but it will be my view, I will have one vote on this issue and I will make clear my view.'
In order to proceed to Stage Two, the Bill would need to secure majority support among the 129 MSPs on May 13.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Britain is Scottish: a truth from history that's still true today
A couple of examples. James Boswell's diaries for Sunday 21 November 1762 describe his meeting with a fellow Scot Walter Macfarlane who was 'keenly interested in the reigning contests between Scots & English'. Boswell says this of Macfarlane: 'He talked much against the Union. He said we were perfect underlings, that our riches were carried out of the country and that many others were hurt by it.' Switch the date from 1762 to 2025 and some of the language but not much of it, and this is very familiar stuff. Another example. There's been a bit of a fad of late for books about James VI, focusing mostly on what his sexuality might have been, but I quite enjoyed The Wisest Fool by Steven Veerapen and, as with Boswell, there are striking familiarities with now. In the bookstalls of London and Edinburgh in the early years of James's reign, there were pamphlets explaining why unionism was a wonderful idea and pamphlets explaining why unionism was a terrible idea. There were also Brexit-style arguments over what kind of union Scotland and England should have; was the best idea some kind of loose federation or should the countries go for a much closer, Wales-style deal instead? So ancient, so modern. On top of all that, there's now a new piece of work that suggests a more surprising historic take on the relationship between Scotland and Britain. It's by the Glasgow University Professor Dauvit Broun and it concludes that medieval Scottish historians and scholars regarded the Scottish kingdom as equivalent to Britain; Britain as fundamentally Scottish in fact. 'Scotland as Britain can be detected quite clearly in histories of the Scottish kingdom written in Latin and read by Scots between the 1380s and 1520s,' says the professor. Professor Broun says this idea of Britain as fundamentally Scottish will be provocative in today's polarised debates about national identity and I can see what he means. There are some Scots today who think one of the big problems in the debate about national identity is that there are English people who project their sense of nationhood on to Scotland, do not appear to respect the separate Scottish identity, or actually conflate England and Britain. I don't think this happens as much as we think, but when it does, it's irritating. Read more However, what makes the idea of the English projecting their sense of nationhood onto Scotland more interesting is Professor Broun's idea that it's happened the other way around as well and there are Scots who conflated Britain and Scotland. The professor quotes John Mair, sometimes called the father of Scottish unionism, and says Mair's vision was essentially of a Scottish kingdom expanded to include England. Mair assumed a Scottish king would come to rule Britain which is indeed what happened in the end. As we know, the king that did it, James VI and I, was certainly of the Better Together persuasion; 'this kingdom was divided into seven little kingdoms,' he said in an address to parliament, 'Is it not the stronger by their union?' But a Scottish king projecting his sense of self, and nation, and union, onto England wasn't the beginning or the end of it. Indeed, the extent of the Scottish projection or influence on England and the UK makes me wonder how surprising and provocative the idea of Britain as Scottish really is. It seems to me that it still underlines the way the United Kingdom works. Britain was Scottish and still is. Obviously, England remains the dominant partner constitutionally and politically, but even politically Britain has often been Scottish. One of the history books I've opened recently is The Wild Men by my former colleague David Torrance, which relates how Scottish the first Labour government was, but it's continued ever since with Scots often at the top of British government, and not always when it's Labour in power. The history books also tell us it was bigger than that: much of the British Empire is covered with Scottish fingerprints so not only is Britain Scottish, the British Empire is Scottish too. James VI and I (Image: Free) The signs of Scotland as Britain are more permanent as well; they're built in stone. I did a walk round Glasgow recently with Colin Drysdale, the author of Glasgow Uncovered, a book on the city's architecture, and many of the architects we talked about went way beyond Scotland and had a massive influence on England and Britain too. John James Burnet, for example, designed Glasgow's Charing Cross Mansions and lots of other fine buildings in the city. But he also worked on British icons like Selfridges and the British Museum. Visit London and look at the buildings and a lot of what you're looking at is Scottish. The projection of Scotland onto Britain is everywhere else as well, once you start to look for it. Business and trade (the vast majority of our exports are to England). Population: there are more Scots living in England than there are in any single Scottish city. And music, culture, the arts, food, drink, technology. And Lulu of course. All of it, as well as our influence on politics and government – and a Royal family that's arguably more Scottish than English – says to me that the idea of Britain as Scotland is not surprising at all. Professor Broun says it raises fundamental questions about the nature of British identity, so let me suggest an answer. The concept of Britain as Scottish isn't a distant idea in the minds of medieval scholars. It still exists, it's still real, and it's still proving how interconnected we are. And of course, it raises the eternal question, the one that bugged us then and bugs us now: how much would it cost to unravel it all?
Scotsman
3 hours ago
- Scotsman
The 6-point plan Scottish Labour must seize on to ram home the advantage against 'confused' SNP
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Against, the odds, depressing poll numbers and barely believable claims of Nigel Farage's invincibility, this was a significant victory for Labour and a boost for the leadership of Anas Sarwar. The phrase often attributed to Mark Twain seems appropriate - 'reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Anas Sarwar, leader of the Scottish Labour party, celebrates with deputy leader Jackie Baillie. | Lisa Ferguson This by-election is also a timely reminder that after 18 years in government, the SNP look weary, divided and lacking momentum. The reality for most Scots is a governing party that has become less concerned with fighting Westminster, but is still not tackling with conviction the many policy areas impacting the everyday lives of the electors. Farage and Reform remain a threat. They are eating into the Scottish Tory vote and act primarily as a party of protest with a populist, ultranationalist (English) and isolationist agenda. The achievement to date, in the form of Ukip, was Brexit, an act of national insanity, more recently their barely concealed racist attack on the Scottish Labour Leader on social media and yesterday the offer of a referendum to ban the burka. The Reform party has no pedigree, or political creed, or positive policies and is Trumpian in it's behaviour and political outlook. Its appeal reflects protest, opportunism, cheap patriotism and a claim to be on the side of working people and a dislike of elites. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This is a poisonous fraud, a vulture party exposing predatory behaviour, and an amateur version of populist parties elsewhere in Europe. But because they represent the 'anti-politics' lurking in the minds of many in the UK, they are dangerous, especially under the first-past-the-post electoral system. Their sickening addiction to barely concealed racism, hatred of immigrants and contempt for the European Union are unfortunately helping to divide and possibly destroy a once respected Conservative Party. For the SNP, the picture is more confused. Scotland is stalled as a nation. Scotland is bitterly divided on its constitutional future, where many Scots see campaigning on Independence as a major distraction from the effective governance of the nation. John Swinney in Hamilton ahead of the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election (Photo by Jeff) | Getty Images For the SNP, the drive to independence has lost momentum. This has led to much soul searching over the party's immediate tactics and to what extent there should be a more enthusiastic push towards their primary purpose as a party. It is a curious irony of politics that Scottish Labour now faces two nationalist parties that represent protest as a political weapon against the UK government. This provides an opportunity for Scottish Labour to project a more unified approach to our politics and hammer home the point that, as happened between 1999 and 2007, that rebuilding a critical harmony between Holyrood and Westminster and building on devolution is long overdue. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This is 'Unfinished Business', representing a journey, not a destination - opening up a new era of devolved government that makes more of Scotland's potential and places our priorities much higher up the Westminster agenda and the public agenda. This, of course, requires the UK government to waken up to the wisdom of four-nation governance and make much more significant concessions, opening up the possibility of a more Federated form of Union in the future as even England opens up to the benefits of decentralisation, which may then evolve into something more significant. This would help allay the fears of many Labour politicians and supporters that being more Scottish would be equated with support for independence. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The remark from President Roosevelt seems appropriate. 'The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,' he said. But for all the new opportunities facing Labour in Scotland, the fact the SNP has been in government for 18 years is hugely significant. Being in government is hard work and the pressures and never-ending challenges of office can be draining. But for the SNP, the constant turmoil of competing priorities is clearly taking its toll. Despite John Swinney steadying the ship after the Sturgeon era, the conflict between governing and campaigning is taking its toll as are the divisions within the SNP about priorities. This affords Labour the opportunity to become once again the party of choice for an ambitious Scotland. For the labour Party in Scotland, there is, of course, more work to be done after a period of stress in the first year of the new Labour government at Westminster. Policy missteps, the impression that Scotland was slipping down the Westminster agenda, and proposed changes in welfare and cuts in benefits have concerned traditional Labour voters and supporters, and Mr Sarwar. These darker days are easing and a more progressive agenda looks likely. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Scottish Labour Deputy leader Jackie Ballie, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar and Davy Russell, newly elected Scottish Labour MSP for Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse yesterday (Picture: Jeff) First Scottish Labour should continue to value distinctive Scottish perspectives on UK issues and be confident in emphasising differences with Westminster, when appropriate. Second, the Labour Leader should follow the example of the Welsh Senedd Leader who does contest unpopular Westminster policies publicly in her role of defending Wales. Third, Labour should intensify their assault on SNP policy failures in areas such as, education, health, prisons, industrial strategy and poverty - the peoples agenda. Fourth, there is a pressing need to break the tribalism in the Scottish Parliament and accept that 'coalitions of the willing' could achieve more consensus as happened with a real coalition in the period 1999 to 2007. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Five, assert a greater degree of willingness for dialogue and action with the other nations and the UK where issues and differences are resolved between governments, not in the Supreme Court. Warfare provides good copy but poor policy. Six, there is a need for the Parliament to be freed from the tyranny of the Scottish Government who are suffocating innovation. The boundaries have become blurred. The legislature should represent all parties. As 2026 approaches, Labour can offer a new deal for Scots and realise the potential of a remarkable idea, devolution, which is still in its infancy. Sir Keir Starmer must work to better understand that devolution can't stand still and accept that further change is essential not just because it makes sense, but because it is the only way for Scotland to be content within a changing Union and knowing there are attractive alternatives to independence. Scotland is a remarkable nation; it is also unfinished business. The next phase of devolution is long overdue and is required to set out a vision for the next quarter of a century. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad More Britishness will not answer the 'Scottish Question', but Gordon Brown's idea of a 'Union of the Nations' could work if Westminster accepted the fact the debate about Scotland has a long way to go. This article started with my description of Labour's victory in Hamilton being significant, but it is more than that. Spectacular would be more appropriate in relation to the victory in difficult circumstances, but mainly because of the potential it provides for Scottish Labour to once again be at the heart of how Scotland is governed. Sarwar's rallying call should be, 'the chance to serve our country – that is all we ask', which were the late John Smith's last words.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
What can Reform do to shift the idea it is the ‘Nigel Party'?
Labour breathed a huge sigh of relief after a surprise victory in the Scottish parliament by-election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. Senior Scottish Labour figures had feared coming second or even third behind Reform UK; for once, it wasn't expectation management. Labour insiders admit privately the tight three-horse race confirms that Reform UK is on the map in Scotland, previously hostile territory for Nigel Farage. 'Something is up when you knock on doors in Scotland and get Reform talking points thrown at you,' one minister told me. Reform's advance will make Labour's task of ousting the SNP in next May's Scottish parliament elections much harder. After Keir Starmer's landslide last year, when Labour won 37 of Scotland's 57 seats, the party had high hopes of ending SNP rule north of the border after 19 years. But an unpopular government at Westminster has dragged Labour down; it has lost one in six of its 2024 Scottish voters to Farage's party. Reform is also on course to do well in next May's elections to the Welsh parliament, where Labour has called the shots since devolution in 1998. Although Reform had hoped to come at least second in Hamilton, it can still claim momentum in Scotland. A much bigger setback for Farage than its third place was the resignation of Zia Yusuf as party chair. After Reform's sweeping gains in last month's local elections in England and the Runcorn parliamentary by-election, Farage said: 'We would not have done […] what we did without him.' Now, Farage is dismissing Yusuf's claim to be responsible for Reform's meteoric rise. Tough game, politics. The energetic, telegenic Yusuf had made a good start in professionalising Reform – something Farage spectacularly failed to do as leader of Ukip and the Brexit Party. As a Muslim, Yusuf gave Reform cover against allegations of racism, but received nasty abuse on social media from some Reform supporters. Yusuf had plans to attract Muslim voters and that is why he was angered by Reform MP Sarah Pochin's call for a ban on the burqa. However, there were wider reasons for his departure. He felt sidelined after being put in charge of the Elon Musk-style Doge unit in councils run by Reform. The 38-year-old multi-millionaire entrepreneur didn't suffer fools gladly, and his abrasive style upset some at Reform's Millbank Tower headquarters (Labour's base when it won its 1997 landslide). He was blamed by critics for escalating the feud with former Reform MP Rupert Lowe. They complained that Yusuf was not a team player – a bit rich when that label applies to Farage in spades. The departure is a reminder of Farage's achilles heel: he falls out with senior figures in every party or campaign he is involved in. The loss of Yusuf will make it harder to make the Doge exercise work. This matters because the party needs to make its claim credible that vast savings can be made from cutting waste to be a contender for power. Crucially, Farage cannot be a one-man band – the 'Nigel Party', as it's dubbed at Westminster. He gives the impression of wanting to be the only tall poppy, but will need a cabinet-in-waiting to convince voters his party could run the country. However, other parties should not get carried away with Farage's woes. Voters are less bothered about Reform infighting than the Westminster village. Conservative claims that Reform is imploding are wishful thinking, and their humiliating fourth place in Hamilton illustrates their dire position. Reform remains a real threat to Keir Starmer's hopes of a second term. Labour is banking on turning the next election into a presidential contest between Starmer and Farage. Labour insiders call it a 'nosepeg' strategy: they hope left-of-centre voters who have given up on Labour after its poor first year will hold their nose and back Starmer to keep Farage out rather than defect to the Liberal Democrats, Greens or independents. Labour plans a parallel move in Scotland: 'Vote Farage, get SNP.' As my colleague John Rentoul noted, Labour should attack Farage for his 'fantasy economics' rather than being a 'privately-educated stockbroker'. Polling by More in Common shows that voters believe Starmer had a more privileged upbringing than Farage, and believe the Reform leader speaks more for the working class than the prime minister. Starmer allies insist the lesson has been learnt. Starmer's welcome moves to tackle child poverty and his U-turn on the winter fuel allowance suggest he realises he must also make a positive appeal to left-of-centre voters and not merely ape Reform with tough language on immigration, which such voters don't like. But he will need to go further, with an economic reset including tax rises, to pay for his new social justice commitments and avoid the impression that Wednesday's spending review will mean 'austerity 2.0'. Labour's approach has dangers: in attacking Farage head-on, some Labour MPs worry, the party risks amplifying his message and building him up further. There are no easy roads to a second Labour term.
