“Being in the Scouts was the best part of my childhood” was the most-respected Yes argument, and it gave the case for expansion its human scale. Other Yes voters described confidence, practical skills and belonging; one backed investment in “the recruitment and support of adult volunteers” as well as facilities and equipment.
The strongest No arguments did not dismiss youth groups so much as challenge the package. One called cadets “a clearer and more structured” route into military service, while another warned against assuming Scouts and Guides were “an automatic pipeline into the armed forces” and asked why other youth activities should not receive similar funding. A further No case said local clubs, CAMHS and SEND support had more urgent claims.
That left a question of scope hanging over the Yes case: whether growth should be funded across all three movements, or whether cadets and civilian groups deserved different treatment. A No voter put the objection plainly: “The question’s not a great one. It should have asked about one or the other, not both.”
Beneath the arguments about uniformed groups was a contest over public support for youth provision more broadly. Yes voters pointed to the decline of youth clubs and the value of supervised activities; No voters countered that public money should reach young people whose interests lie elsewhere.
The vote backed expansion; the debate never settled who else should be brought along.
37 Opinions
Whether or not they end up as a pathway to military service, more time spent in groups like this might help prevent gangs of masked thugs roaming the streets etc. These groups can help to show that there are better ways to be patriotic, and better ways to preserve our values as a nation in a changing world.
These are well established organisations that already receive funding. The question asks should this funding be increased. I would rather any additional (imaginary) funds were put in to other organisations or projects for youth whose interests lie elsewhere.
WHO ON EARTH WOULD VOTE NO?!?!?!
Yes for many it gives structure and discipline, I'm not sure of the overall value unless it leads to army etc but its a social activity which we need more of for our youth in society today.
I'm always moaning that we need more activities for teenagers, so it will be silly of me to dismiss this as a possibility. Cadets are a separate class to Scouts & Guides though. Let's not forget that ONE of the many reasons youth clubs have all but disappeared is the one size fit all checklist safeguarding mired in administration costs etc. Safeguarding is crucial...so how else can we get the costs down for more all rounded youth activities? 🤔
Scouts; Guides, Cadets and Boys Brigade too should be bolstered. The youth leaders are mostly voluntary and with the demise of youth clubs then they go a long way to develop rounded adults with a sense of belonging and duty.
My daughter went through cadets, leaving as a Sergeant. I can't begin to tell you the amazing experiences she had, and how much she grew into a confident young woman. I now volunteer at my local cadet group and it's an incredible organisation which affects real change in teenagers' lives. I've had cadets tell me: "I'd rather be here than at home Sir" because they know it's a safe place, with like minded peers, and staff who genuinely care for their wellbeing.
Why?? If your in those positions for money you're doing the wrong job!.
The government is already FAR too big. The government needs to get out of our lives!
scouts and guides are genuinely great but lets not assume that they are an automatic pipeline into the armed forces. Sports clubs instill discipline and motivate kids too. Will martial arts/boxing clubs, swimming teams and social volunteering initiatives or other beneficial activities for kids receive similar funding? if not why give money to scouts/guides?