MY first reaction on reading your report on the proposal for a federal UK by the seemingly august Constitution Reform Group issue (“Federal UK is ‘last chance to save the Union’”, The Herald, April 27) was that the term "Reform" is inappropriate. As the Union ain't broke why are they trying to fix it? It seems that the motivation can only be to try to avoid another independence referendum.
Apparently the basis of the proposal is that Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland would each be able to cherry-pick those powers they wished to have, leaving the remaining powers with the UK Parliament. Is it feasible for the concept of federalism to work in practice unless all the countries choose to have the same powers? Of greater significance is the not-unreasonable assumption that Scotland under an SNP-dominated Holyrood dedicated to independence would demand all powers. This would make a nonsense of the federal concept and so would be rejected, inevitably triggering demands for another independence referendum.
Alan Fitzpatrick,
10 Solomon's View, Dunlop
PERHAPS it is the prevailing mood as to securing the runner-up position in the forthcoming election that prompts me to highlight consideration for the federal). Inevitably the SNP will press for another referendum if the forecast bloc landslide occurs.
The efforts towards a federalised UK as currently being done by the Constitution Reform Group must be considered as a last chance opportunity for all committed to the UK remaining as a one political entity. A case for tactical voting? Definitely, and on a large scale.
Allan C Steele,
22 Forres Avenue, Giffnock.
HUGH Kerr (Letters, April 27) is a new member of the SNP, so perhaps can be excused for his rather strange belief that not voting SNP in the second vote will lead to his expulsion from the party. What is even more bizarre is his notion that doing so will forward the cause of independence.
Mr Kerr cannot know for certain the results of the Holyrood election in advance, and the SNP may well require winning list candidates to secure an overall majority.
I did not join the SNP to vote for other parties.
The SNP is the party which will secure independence, and I will be backing it in every vote I cast.
Willie Douglas,
252 Nether Auldhouse Road, Glasgow.
DAVID Cameron, who won't be visiting Scotland before the Scottish parliament elections on May 5, presumably in case his presence has a dampening effect, has nevertheless managed to pour cold water over the Tories’ campaign by claiming that there won't be a future referendum on Scottish independence as "Scotland-lite will be enough" (“Cameron: SNP will not push for fresh ballot on break. Mr Cameron's respect for Scotland has always been synthetic, but he must be lite in the head if he thinks that the SNP will stop campaigning for independence.
Nicola Sturgeon has made it clear that the task facing the SNP is to persuade a majority of the people of Scotland that independence is in Scotland's best interests, but she has also been adamant that the decision on whether or not there will be a second referendum will only be made, not by a First Minister, nor by a Prime Minister, but only and alone, by the people of Scotland. Mr Cameron should bear in mind that “no question is ever settled, until it is settled right'.
Ruth Marr,
99 Grampian Road, Stirling.
RATHER than simply and repeatedly nagging the SNP for, as she sees it, constantly waving the threat of another referendum on independence (“Davidson: Sturgeon disrespecting Scots on referendum”, The Herald, April 22), Ruth Davidson should make the case for requiring, in any further referendum, a majority of more than 50 per cent+1. No-one can seriously pretend that a Yes result that scraped such a narrow margin represented the settled will of the Scottish people, whereas a requirement of a two-thirds majority would make it plausible to say that there was a deep and widespread desire for independence unlikely to evaporate for generations.
Paul Brownsey,
19 Larchfield Road, Bearsden.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel