Independence is much more about community confidence than it is about the SNP

Independence is much more about community confidence than about the SNP. I have far more confidence in my fellow Scots than in any Westminster government to act in the best interests of Scotland and to be able to work out a sensible approach to the many matters that have to be dealt with. We are far from stupid.

Many folk are waking up to realise that remaining in the UK is not likely to serve our best interest in future. For example, most can see that the reduction in the NHS allocation for Scotland is as a result of Barnett Consequentials because England continues on its NHS privatisation journey. To balance that the Scottish Government has little choice but to allocate sums from elsewhere.

Please don't lay Gaelic signs at the SNP’s door. Bilingual signs on trunk roads were first approved in the time of the Scottish Office when Donald Dewar was Secretary of State. Other authorisations followed through the Labour/Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive, notably in 2003 when Deputy Transport Minister Lewis Macdonald, currently Allan Sutherland’s MSP for the North East of Scotland, consented many in the West Highlands. Similarly, the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 with its requirement for all public bodies across the country to have a Gaelic Language Plan was promoted during previous administrations.

In presenting our respective arguments, please let’s be accurate.

And, just for the record, I'm not a member of any political party.

John C Hutchison,

Taigh na Coille, Badabrie, Fort William.

DAVID Torrance (“’Bring it on.’ Why Unionists may agree to a new referendum”, The Herald, February 13) writes that in 2014 Unionists “took their eye off the ball when it came to timing and an extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds (a voting group who, according to last week’s BMG poll, now overwhelming support independence).”

This is interesting for reasons that Mr Torrance does not explore. First, he seems to have forgotten that 16 and 17 year olds, thanks to the Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Act, Scotland have a defined legal entitlement to vote at Scottish elections –that is, Holyrood and local authority election - though not for Westminster or European elections.

There are therefore two voters rolls. One is for Scottish and local authority elections, which includes 16 and 17 year olds, while the other is for Westminster and European elections, which does not include them. In 2014 it was the Scottish electoral roll that was used, so that would be the precedent.

However, there is another electoral group on the “Scottish”, but not on the Westminster roll - the citizens of other EU countries residing in Scotland, who can only vote in Holyrood and local authority elections, but not for Westminster or the EU Parliament.

I am a little surprised that a well-informed journalist such as David Torrance would be unaware of either of these things. But perhaps what he is really arguing for is that in the next independence referendum the Westminster (and European Parliament election) voting roll should be used, even if contrary to the precedent of 2014?

From the point of view of the Unionist cause it would have the twin advantages of excluding both 16 and 17-year-olds, but also the citizens of other EU countries. The former, as Mr Torrance says himself, overwhelmingly appear to support independence, but, given the significance that retaining EU membership would be likely to have in any future referendum, and in particular their right to remain here, one might reasonably expect the latter to likewise be overwhelmingly in support as well.

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue, Dumbarton.