Letters: Why a second referendum must be conducted under different rules

Nicola Sturgeon should be left in no doubt of the serious consequences of holding another referendum and if she is tempted to cry foul at what some would like to portray as a moving of the goalposts, she should remember how she so quickly dismissed her own previous talk of “once in a generation”. Of course she argues the new circumstances are different and she is right. But those changes in circumstances justify the terms of voting needing to be revisited.

As well as the “super majority” issue, the First Minister will also of course have to deal with the need to change the question asked to allow Remain and Leave answers, as rather belatedly the Electoral Commission concluded during the run-up to the EU referendum that a question gifting one side the positive Yes response gave undue advantage.

Keith Howell,

White Moss, West Linton, Peebleshire.

I NOTE the article by Nigel Smith proposing a 55 per cent vote Yes necessary to secure a second independence referendum. There is no mention of the fact that the UK voted 52 per cent Brexit (Scotland voted 62 per cent Remain).

Whatever happened to that 55 per cent threshold?

Next it will be 55 per cent of those on the electoral register. Now where have I heard that before?

Christine Grahame,

SNP MSP,

The Scottish Parliament,

Holyrood,

Edinburgh.

THE idea to block a simple majority vote for any future independence referendum will remind many people of the 1979 fix that the Labour Party imposed on the devolution referendum that year.

It seems a simple majority is good enough for choosing which party governs us or whether or not we are to remain in the EU, but for certain people it's not a good enough test for Scots wanting independence.

Any move to impose such a restrictive covenant on a future Scottish independence referendum should be opposed for the anti-democratic move that it surely is.

Kenny MacLaren,

SNP councillor, Renfrewshire Council,

2 Avondale Drive, Paisley.

BILL Brown (Letters, October 19) seems to be recommending that we should rely on faith to see us through the uncertainties of Brexit. “Faith”, of course, has been defined as a belief in something one knows is probably untrue, but, leaving that aside, it must be asked: faith in what or whom?

If he means the Almighty, His track record of avoiding calamity is patchy at best, whether natural, like the Japanese tsunami, or man-made, like the First World War. But perhaps Mr Brown’s faith is in Mrs May, whose views on Brexit have swung like a weathercock? Or in negotiators like Liam Fox or the egregious Boris Johnson? Aye, right. Or perhaps faith in lemming-like voters in England?

Faith, clearly, will not do: what is required is careful reasoning based on reliable evidence. Such reasoning always returns to the same conclusion: Scotland’s interests are inevitably subordinated to England’s, if they are not ignored altogether. It is inescapable that the only remedy for this is for Scotland to become fully independent.

Donald R Buchanan,

75 Antonine Road, Bearsden.

I TRUST that Bill Brown, who accuses Rosemary Goring of "scaremongering" over Brexit, has read your front page article ("Inflation bites as families to lose millions in income", The Herald, October 19) and would remind him that Brexit hasn't even started yet.

Mr Brown questions the prospect of 5.3 million people in Scotland going it alone "for no good reason" but Norway, Denmark and Finland have roughly the same size of population as Scotland and seem to be going it alone just fine, and the inhabitants of these nations, and every other independent, democratic nation in the world (many of whom are smaller than Scotland), would probably rate it as desirable that when they vote in an election, they get the government they voted for, which is one of the good reasons why Scotland should emulate them.

Regarding the twin values of faith and hope which Mr Brown points out Scotland has embraced for centuries, that was exactly what the Yes campaign was rooted in, and what is needed now more than ever; faith and hope, plus confidence in our own country's abilities to build a better and fairer society that encompasses all of Scotland. Mr Brown suggests that Ms Goring should think "deeper and longer" about how she will vote in a future independence referendum, but as she is one of Scotland's most respected journalists, I think he should accept that Ms Goring will have already thought deep and long on the subject, and although Mr Brown won't like it, she is very far from being alone in her conclusions.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road,

Stirling.

I WAS intrigued to read Elma Cunningham's stated embarrassment at the SNP conference proceedings she saw on TV, which she says made her ashamed to be Scottish (Letters, October 18). Whilst it's understood that many will oppose the idea of independence, viewed from furth of Scotland, and in direct contrast to the some of the themes of the Tory Party conference in Birmingham, it strikes me as strange that the themes of openness to outsiders, and inclusiveness should not give at least some cause for cheer, even if the rhetoric of governments doesn't always live up to the reality. Even the promise of a second independence referendum wasn't presented as the done deal it may have seemed.

A mixed bag in reality then, but a cause for utter shame? That seems sadly symptomatic of the polarisation of politics in many countries in the west, where echo chambers are de rigeur and the “other side” is viewed as simply awful and without redeeming features. This is surely deeply damaging, both to the fabric of the nation and its democracy.

Michael Rossi,

66 Canalside Gardens,

Southall, Middlesex.

''BREXIT means Brexit – except for the City of London” is what Theresa May should have said when she was lecturing the country on what Brexit means. Peter Russell appears to think the same (Letters, October 19) when he dismisses any special deal for Scotland (or anywhere else) as it is '' a geographical area''. I thought that the UK voted as ''a geographical area '' to leave the EU. I do not recall any small print on the ballot paper itemising those with exemptions in the unlikely event of the Leave camp triumphing .

While the financial sector is an important part of the UK economy, after the crash of 2008 it was evident that too much of our economy was dependent on this one area so we have been, unsuccessfully so far, attempting to rebalance the economy. Why then should we single out the financial sector as deserving of special measures vis-a-vis EU tariffs while the greater part of the economy is neglected ?

Our priority in this situation should be to treat all areas of the economy the same and not single out “the City”, which to many people is a metonym for corrupt , tax-dodging morally bankrupt Masters of the Universe .

James Mills,

29 Armour Square, Johnstone.

HOW on earth in this age of a soaring national debt, falling currency and prosecution of austerity can it be the intention to spend billions of public money to protect “our” financial services (which contributed hugely to putting us in this state) in the form of “passporting ” of financial dealings between London and the EU ?

Older readers will recall the Ealing comedy Passport to Pimlico, a wonderfully amusing fiction about a part of London which suddenly discovered it was independent.

This latest idea is a Passport to Plutocracy, and is far from funny.

Jim Lynch,

42 Corstorphine Hill Crescent, Edinburgh.

I AGREE. If London can get a special Brexit deal, so can Scotland. The difference is London has been lobbying since June 24, it has a set of proposals to discuss, and in negotiations the EU side would know they are facing a united team; if London doesn't get its way it won't leave the UK and wreck the negotiation.

In contrast Scottish Brexit Minister Michael Russell complains there is no "process" for UK discussions so he can't make any proposals. He is an astute and powerful politician, and must know the time to set your stall out is before the rules are set.

Instead of making impossible demands by megaphone the SNP should have already organised an all-party "Smith 2" style Commission involving all sides of industry and public agencies to agree which devolved powers and funding we want and need.

That way it could demonstrate wide support, reasoned arguments and evidence.

Unless, of course, as with fracking, there are secret discussions going on that the public is not to hear about before next year's council elections.

Allan Sutherland,

1 Willow Row, Stonehaven.