Born in 1946 and brought up in Cupar, Fife, I was educated at the local school - Engaging the voters and tearing through voter apathy has been the subject of much debate over the past few years, but trends were reversed last September when turnout averaged 84.5 per cent across Scotland.
Keeping the momentum going beyond this mass surge in political engagement is now the challenge.
But so far, on a local level – in the world of local councils and small town democracy - the voting public have yet to taste the same surge of energy for change.
Earlier this month I spoke in a Scottish Parliament debate on the importance of regeneration in local government.
Historically there was very little connection between voters and the wider community. In 1831, there were fewer than 3000 electors in Scotland for parliamentary elections, which meant that the connection with the wider community was negligible.
Until the Pontefract by-election, which took place on 15 August 1872, people voted by going up to the front, to the returning officer, and saying what candidate they were going to vote for. Indeed, before 1872, the way in which people voted was published.
Democracy worked in a substantially different way once the 1872 Ballot Act came into operation.
Looking at international comparisons from 1960 to 1995, top of the league is Malta, which during that time, without compulsory voting, had an average turnout of 94 per cent. In the same period, Denmark had 87 per cent turnout, Sweden had 86 per cent turnout and the UK had 76 per cent turnout.
In the United States, turnout in that period was lower at 48 per cent. That is interesting because the US has a very different model of democracy. Basically, all power is held at the bottom of the heap and the states choose what powers to give back up to the top. However, this does not seem to make any difference to engagement.
We talk about turnout going down, but the turnout among those who could vote in the 1945 general election was 70.05 per cent, and the turnout in the 1997 general election was almost identical, at 69.39 per cent. So, what motivates people to vote is perhaps something quite subtle. The high turnout that we had in the referendum might be because people felt that they could change the system, rather than simply change the faces.
There are some ideas that could be considered in local elections to see if it makes any difference. Randomising the order of people on the ballot paper could work, or alternatively circular ballot papers could be used, so that no one is at the top and no one is at the bottom.
Although I have been a member of a political party for 53 years I wonder if would also be helpful to eliminate the party designation from the ballot paper so that people voted for who they actually knew, rather than the party.
Ultimately if there is one lesson we can take from the referendum and try to replicate it at a grass roots level it is that we need strong messages that are reinforced across local areas if we want people to be engaged.
