IAIN Macwhirter forecasts what he considers to be the inevitability of a Labour-Liberal Democrat minority government propped up by the SNP following the coming election ("Why Miliband cannot help becoming prime minister", The Herald, March 26).
If he turns out to be correct, one inevitable consequence of that would be a SNP manifesto commitment in the 2016 Holyrood election to hold a second independence referendum during the remaining lifetime of the then Westminster government if, as is likely, they remain the government at Holyrood. Such a referendum is in the gift of Westminster rather than Holyrood, but the threat of the Lab-LibDem government in Westminster losing the SNP support would be sufficient for the former to accede to the demand of the latter for a second referendum.
If a second referendum is ever to be held, the Electoral Commission should consider afresh the specific wording of the question to be asked bearing in mind that a substantial majority rejected independence in the 2014 referendum. Rather than simply repeating the previous question which led to that rejection, would it not be more appropriate to ask instead: "Should Scotland remain part of the United Kingdom".
Alan Fitzpatrick,
10 Solomon's View, Dunlop.
YOUR contributor Doug Marr Voted Yes in the referendum and is honest enough to admit to doubts about the quality of those who would implement independence ("Question of quality in candidates for election, The Herald, March 27).
He cites the unnecessary and ill-conceived measures that have done little to improve the quality of our lives over 15 years of the Scottish Parliament and questions if there is enough native high quality talent to cope with complex political, administrative and technological challenge of independence.
He suggests that the omens are not good.
These are some of the reasons why more of us voted No and faced fact over fantasy.
R Russell Smith, 96 Milton Road, Kilbirnie.
I NOTE with interest your report on the Edinburgh University/ YouGov poll outlining the principal reasons for people voting No vote ("Referendum No voters 'felt British' and had fears for future", The Herald, March 27).
Illuminating as this is, what I find more significant was the Ashcroft Poll of September 29 last year 4 which analysed the way people said that they voted by demographic age groupings, namely 16 - 24, 25 - 34 and so on. The result showed that the working population voted in favour of Yes but the 65 years and over group voted heavily, 73 per cent to 27 per cent in favour of No.
If there were a rerun in say, 10 years, time then, sad to say, me and my fellow oldies will probably be voting "with our wings" thus leaving a majority in favour of independence. This issue is not done and dusted by any means.
Dr GW Cross,
17 Dykesfield Place, Saltcoats.
I WATCHED Question Time with interest on the BBC on Thursday after the leaders' debate and was interested to see that the audience - including the chairman and most of the panel - were affronted at the idea that the SNP might hold the balance of power after the General Election.
As I recall, at the time of the referendum the majority of people in England wanted Scotland to stay as part of the Union which, by definition, means the Scottish voters having representation at Westminster.
After a "No" vote, they are now complaining of that very fact.
Will the people of England please make their mind up?
Do they want Scotland to remain part of the Union and Scottish voters to exercise their democratic right or would they rather we were locked out of the UK electoral process by becoming an independent nation?
Is it too late to have another referendum alongside the General Election but this time let the English decide on whether Scotland should be an independent nation?
The result could be very different from September.
Be careful what you wish for, people of England.
William Thomson,
25 Lithgow Place, Denny.
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