Extending the franchise to include 16 and 17-year-olds just for the referendum was a controversial decision.

It was done before any such move had been tested during less momentous votes such as local authority elections, which would have allowed for an opportunity to learn more about how this group of teenagers arrive at political decisions and whether they have the maturity fully to grasp the issues before them.

But events have overtaken such considerations. Sixteen and 17-year-olds did vote in the referendum and appear to have exercised their vote thoughtfully and with a degree of sophistication that has come as a surprise to many.

It was widely assumed, including by Yes supporters and strategists, that extending the vote to this group would boost the independence cause. An optimistic message of radical change is usually assumed to play well with the young. In fact, voting analysis by YouGov indicates that the youngest voters in the referendum showed as much scepticism about Yes Scotland's independence claims as many older age groups, a small majority of 16 to 24-year-olds in the actual poll appearing to have voted No. They did not vote en bloc, but as individuals, as older voters tend to do. School-age voters have proved in media debates, classrooms and on the streets to be impressively well-informed and perceptive.

Teenagers are a notoriously hard group to reach politically. Before the referendum, with low turnout at Holyrood and general elections a cause of ongoing anxiety, the younger age groups showed the greatest degree of disengagement, being less likely to vote the younger they were. Efforts must now be made to maintain the enthusiasm they displayed in the referendum, where turnout was so high, so that they do not drift back to the political sidelines.

In view of all this, there is a strong case for extending the franchise to this age group in future elections.

This would admittedly add to existing anomalies in relation to coming of age. At 16, it is possible to join the regular army with parental consent (soldiers are not supposed to fight until age 18), pay tax and indeed marry, but it is illegal to drive a car until 17, or buy alcohol or tobacco products until 18.

This need not impede extending the franchise, however. The staggering of the coming of age process over a two-year period is something that teenagers are already used to. It is by no means certain that they or their parents and wider society would see any reason to, for example, lower the drinking age just because the voting age was lowered, but any teenager who did feel strongly on the issue could, as a voter, lobby their MPs and MSPs about it.

There has been a wider cultural trend in recent years for young people to be infantilised compared to earlier generations, as a consequence of settling down later in life and, often, living with parents into their thirties due to sky-high property prices. But that has perhaps created a false impression of their level of maturity. There are now clear grounds for extending them the vote.