DURING the Holyrood farewell to the departing First Minister, Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie repeats the unsupported charge, echoed over the last few weeks by a few dissatisfied Unionists, that the independence referendum has divided the nation and left wounds that will "take many years to heal" ("Referendum energised our nation", says Salmond on his last day", The Herald, November 19).Where does he see these wounds in our country ?
Are there running battles in the streets as disenchanted bands of Yes Scotland supporters confront exultant, champagne-swigging No campaigners?
Are there heated arguments in the queues in Tesco as shoppers dissect the rights and wrongs of the "vow"?
Have neighbours fallen out and built higher fences between themselves as they argue the merits of border controls in an independent Scotland?
Tell me, Mr Rennie, where are the signs of your "divided nation"? Nowhere, except in the letters of a very few correspondents, have there been any suggestions that life would not continue as it was before the referendum
This is reminiscent of the accusations of violence and intimidation directed at the Yes campaigners at the tail end of the debate by a man suffering from alektorophobia (a fear of eggs). Perhaps Mr Rennie's real concern is the resurgence of political activism which was triggered by the referendum and refuses to go away, and which presents a formidable challenge to the moribund political class, as represented by so many of his own party, both at Holyrood and Westminster.
James Mills,
29 Armour Square,
Johnstone.
YOUR correspondent R Murray (Letters, November 19) tells us that the reason there was a No vote in September's referendum was due to a majority rejecting divisive nationalism. However, he makes the erroneous assumption that every Yes voter was driven simply by nationalism. Many based their Yes vote on ideas of social justice and creating a better society; others from the perspective of having more accountable government; and others still for the chance to create a more lithe and adaptable economy. So, varied and at times contradictory reasons.
If Scotland is to unite going forward then surely there's also an obligation to recognise the multiplicity of reasons people voted Yes and No, and not reduce it to simple, comforting assertions.
Michael Rossi,
66 Canalside Gardens,
Southall, Middlesex.
THE No vote is already wavering if the result of a recent poll, which indicates nearly half of Scots want a second referendum within a decade is accurate ("Almost half of the country wants to see independence referendum again", The Herald, November 18). This scenario may not be too far-fetched.
Unless the Labour Party under a new leader regroup quickly and provide strong opposition to the SNP, the outcome of the 2015 General Election could well see some 20 SNP MPs, including Alex Salmond, taking Westminster by storm to hold the UK Government's feet to the fire.
In the Scottish Parliament election in 2016 independence will almost certainly feature prominently in Nicola Sturgeon's manifesto and with an increased majority for the SNP very likely, the pressure for another referendum as soon as 2018 could be irresistible - and this time I would not be too sanguine about a No vote winning the day.
Nicola Sturgeon will not feel bound by her predecessor's contention that, in the event of a No vote, the referendum question would be laid to rest " for a generation". And, yet again, Westminister seems to be taking their eye off this particular ball. A vow will not mean much next time.
Ronald J Sandford,
1 Scott Garden,
Kingsbarns,
Fife.
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