WHAT Frances McKie (Letters, May 9) chooses to call "permission" for the Scottish Government to hold another independence referendum will be a required negotiation with Westminster in order that said referendum would, in the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement – signed by Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon – enabling the 2014 independence referendum, "deliver a fair test and decisive expression of the views of the people in Scotland" in that it would "be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, government and people".
In other words, the result – for or against – would stand; unlike the recent unilaterally-declared independence debacle in Catalonia, where the leadership must have known that the result could only be a poll of "the faithful" as around half of those eligible to vote, didn't – and the leaders then ran away pursued by international arrest warrants.
How far has that set back the cause of Catalonian independence?
However, given that the SNP is currently a minority administration shored up by the opportunist Green Party, it is questionable whether it will still be in power after the next Holyrood election; so your correspondent may not be "naming the day" for another independence referendum any time soon.
Philip Adams,
7 Whirlie Road, Crosslee, Renfrewshire.
ANGELA Haggerty 's positive perspective on last Saturday's independence march ("Dismiss the independence marchers at your peril", The Herald, May 9) is a welcome antidote to the sneering negativity from some other political commentators. Social media is awash with many memorable photos, unlike the paucity of pictures in most newspapers, and I find it astonishing that this enormous, Saltire-flying, peaceful march, which snaked its way through the heart of Glasgow, was given so little newspaper coverage. Even if looked at through cynical eyes, as fewer people are buying newspapers these days, surely a potential sales boost of at least 35,000 and possibly as much as 90,000 would be welcome.
That tens of thousands of people, from all over Scotland and beyond should have come together to support a cause in which they passionately believe is proof positive that the desire for independence is alive and well in Scotland. I wasn't able to be there, but a friend who was summed it up perfectly when she emailed me, writing "the blue and white flags in their thousands billowed and tossed on an unstoppable tide of optimism and were never becalmed".
Ms Haggerty got it right; the people who marched last week in hope, not fear, "don't deserve to be mocked and belittled. They should be listened to". And what they are saying is that there will be no becalming of Scotland's right to self-determination, the optimism is billowing, and the independence movement is unstoppable.
Ruth Marr,
99 Grampian Road, Stirling.
WHO would have thought? David Mundell has missed an opportunity to be a stand-up comedian.
I would recommend everyone who voted No in the 2014 independence referendum to watch the appearance of the Secretary of State for Scotland before the Holyrood Finance and Constitution Committee and then try to explain how this in any way can be described as respect for the devolved parliament. However much he wriggled Mr Mundell essentially stated that consent whether given or refused by Holyrood would be completely ignored by Westminster.
Now we all know. Fishing, fracking, GM crops et al can be decided upon by Westminster irrespective of every member of the Scottish Parliament voting against them. Oh they really love us.
David Stubley,
22 Templeton Crescent, Prestwick.
WHILE it is true, as Douglas R Mayer writes (Letters, May 8) that any party could form the government in an independent Scotland, does he really think that the SNP would be content if it wasn’t them?
Gordon W Smith,
21 Baronscourt Gardens, Paisley.
MARTIN Redfern (Letters, May 7) omitted to complete his definition of patriotism: if you believe in a Scottish state you are a Scottish Nationalist; if you believe in a British state you are a British Nationalist. It really is quite simple.
Graeme McCormick,
Redhouse Cottage, Arden, By Loch Lomond.
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