NICOLA Sturgeon will shortly pick up the reins as First Minister from Alex Salmond.
I wish her well in that post; I have a vested interest.
But I do hope Ms Sturgeon bears in mind that the principle of separation of powers applies to her roles as SNP leader and as First Minister just as it does between the legislature and the executive, something that Mr Salmond seemed quite happy to ignore.
If she follows Mr Salmond's example then I fear that she will lend the notion of a "minority government" an entirely new definition.
As leader of the SNP, which persuaded a minority 45 per cent to vote Yes, Ms Sturgeon is democratically entitled, indeed it is her democratic duty, to seek by lawful means to persuade us majority 55 per cent No voters to her way of thinking and to support independence.
As First Minister, however, her duty is as political leader of the whole of Scotland, inclusive of all of her people and she and her government are charged with protecting the interests of and being fair to all her citizens.
This includes being fair to those in the private sector who take the personal risks to run businesses, those who employ people and to all who will have to pay the taxes to support all of the policies espoused and promises made during the referendum campaign, and not merely being fair to those who will benefit from them.
Continued focus on independence, and delivering those policies and promises, may be what the minority Yes voters want the SNP Government to do to the exclusion of all else, but the majority No voters expect and indeed are entitled to their voices being heard and listened to.
It will be a concern to the 55 per cent majority, so shortly after the referendum, that our elected leaders discuss the possibility of declaring independence on the back of either a majority of SNP MPs being returned to Westminster or a recurrence of an overall SNP majority in Holyrood.
Tactical voting is not unknown. As I have in local council elections, I could vote SNP because I do not again want the dead hand of a Labour government killing off any semblance of entrepreneurial endeavour. Further, a majority of seats in a first-past-the-post system as in the UK Parliament does not automatically mean a majority of the overall popular vote.
I have no doubt that the SNP will do well in the 2015 UK General Election. For the sake of the whole of Scotland and for all of its people I hope they do; as that will empower the Scottish Government in negotiations with the UK Government on the devolution of powers, because that will still be a work in progress whatever the terms of the vow given by the three main UK parties during the referendum.
But for a government, or some of its members, even to postulate such an SNP majority of Scottish seats in the UK Parliament as a basis for a declaration of independence is an affront to the voice of the 55 per cent.
Ms Sturgeon would do well not to mistake that as a mandate for independence. Only a plebiscite could deliver that.
Alasdair Sampson,
The Pines,
7A Loudon Street,
Stewarton.
DAVID C Purdie is correct in describing me as neither an SNP voter nor sympathiser (Letters, October 20). I am indeed one of the clear majority of Scottish voters who unambiguously voted No to Scottish independence, and I believe that is our democratic right to have our vote recognised by the incoming First Minister.
To do so, all Nicola Sturgeon has do is to tell us: "I believe in self-determination and so cannot and should not disagree with the verdict of the Scottish people. Independence has been rejected, so on my watch, the Scottish Government will not pursue that aim, nor do anything which might put Scotland's status as part of the UK at risk."
It does not seem unreasonable to expect Nicola Sturgeon, coming into office in full knowledge of the will of the Scottish people, to pledge to work in their interest, which has now been defined in the clearest possible terms: Scotland will continue as part of the UK.
Indeed, it is difficult to see why she would wish to become First Minister if she did not intend to do so. Like I said, over to you, Nicola.
Peter A Russell,
87 Munro Road,
Jordanhill,
Glasgow.
GORDON Taylor's letter (October 20) referring to the SNP's vote of no confidence in the Callaghan Government in 1979, says a great deal about the Labour Party in Scotland. Just weeks after the referendum to decide Scotland's future, in which Labour stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Tories, he resurrects this 35-year-old story, trusting, no doubt, that there will be few who remember the facts.
That was, of course, the vote of confidence after the "Winter of Discontent" when the trade unions rebelled against Labour's policies.
The lorry drivers went on strike, and the refuse collectors, and the NHS ancillary staff, and the gravediggers. Labour had no majority in the Commons, and yet clung to power for four and a half years - longer than most governments with secure majorities. They were able to do so with the support of the SNP, after the Liberals had abandoned them.
Everyone understood that this was to ensure that Labour's devolution proposals went through, and Scotland would at last have its own representative body. But Labour allowed its own policy to be so watered down as to be almost worthless, and the notorious 40 per cent rule to be imposed - never used again in any other referendum - prevented the measure from coming into force.
There is a convention in the real world which Labour failed to grasp: if you don't deliver the goods, you can't expect to be paid. But the SNP actually did Labour a favour. After another sixth months of the Callaghan Government, Labour would have been annihilated. As it was, it took them a decade to begin even to look like an electable party.
Stuart Porter,
26 Durness Street,
Thurso.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article