Letters Special: Sturgeon needs to take heed of what the polls are telling us

Keith Howell,

White Moss, West Linton, Peeblesshire.

IT behoves the First Minister to act on behalf of all the people of Scotland, not just her own SNP supporters. After all, 2,000,926 of us voted emphatically No in the 2014 referendum, and we have not changed our minds.

So why then is Nicola Sturgeon so adamant that there should be another referendum so soon after the last one? What happened to the assurance given that the 2014 poll was “a once in a generation” event?

Furthermore, Brexit is a poor excuse to put forward since the number of people who voted on that issue in Scotland was quite low; in fact only 41.6 per cent of the electorate of 3,987,112 voted to remain in the EU.

Now it would seem that she is prepared to ignore legislation to try to get her own way. But she has failed to provide answers to the multitude of legal anomalies relating to her impending challenge to the Government.

It is most unlikely that she will attempt to challenge the Government in the law courts since this whole matter is political, not legal. She cannot just hold a referendum without coming to an agreement with the Westminster Government – the constitution is not a devolved matter.

First Minister Sturgeon has many hurdles to cross; for example the Presiding Officer at Holyrood would require to give approval to the competence of any such proposals; and the Lord Advocate would have to be consulted about their legality. Undoubtedly the Supreme Court could rule any such Bill to be illegal.

Indeed, the SNP Administration would be required to answer fundamental questions on the matter such as:

What would be a plausible European policy for an independent Scotland?

Can Scotland’s current unsustainable fiscal policy be sorted out?

What measures will the SNP administration take to reduce Scotland’s £15 billion deficit?

What effect would the discontinuance of the Barnett Formula have on the Scottish economy?

What would be the implications of a Scottish/English passport and customs border?

I simply do not believe that the SNP administration has any plans to deal with such issues. They are totally focused on one objective: independence. And most unfortunately it seems that it cannot deviate from this quest.

I believe the “guid” folks of Scotland will reject the SNP's independence policies, and that the UK will prosper in an ever-changing world.

Robert IG Scott,

Northfield, Ceres, Fife.

DAVID MacKenzie (Letters, April 25) says he is confused by my claim (Letters, April 22) that Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Czech Republic, Slovenia and Croatia achieved independence without referenda.

If we use the Scottish referendum as the benchmark, had we voted Yes then we would have achieved independence through that referendum. This is not so for any of the countries cited.

In the case of the Baltic states, they declared independence before any referenda were held. Latvia declared independence on May 4, 1990, holding a referendum on March 3, 1991. Lithuania declared its independence on March 11, 1990, holding a referendum on February 9, 1991. The Estonians issued their Sovereignty Declaration on November 16, 1988, and a referendum on March 3, 1991. Thus, their independence was achieved prior to any referendum, which was not realisation of independence but an endorsement of it.

Much the same is true of the Balkan states, where the referenda came at the end of a long process of discord and dispute leading up to independence. Their referenda were again an endorsement and, unlike Scotland had we voted Yes, not a means of achieving independence. Mr MacKenzie chooses to ignore this important distinction, in much the same way as he ignores the remaining arguments in my letter, including the support of Margaret Thatcher for the proposition that a majority of SNP MPs is a mandate to negotiate independence.

Conveniently David Torrance in his column this week questions how the SNP can make good its boast that only it can “make Scotland’s voice heard” any more than the “feeble 50” Labour MPs of the 1987 Parliament could protect us from Mrs Thatcher. However inadvertently, I think Mr Torrance is right, but I do not consider this an argument against independence, but rather in its favour. Even if the SNP were to win every constituency on June 8 it would still constitute just over nine per cent of the House of Commons. The outcome of the coming election, though, seems certain to be that Theresa May will win a much-enhanced majority and the freedom to act this brings. But Scotland will have contributed relatively little to this, even based on polls most favourable to the Conservatives. Mrs May will win or lose this election in England and it is there that her political interests will lie. Mr Torrance is right – participating in this Union, Scotland renders itself powerless.

Lastly, Mr MacKenzie suggests that a vote for independence should be greater than 75 per cent, even though 52 per cent is sufficient for negotiations to leave the EU, when 62 per cent of the Scottish vote was to Remain. Does that seem consistent? Does it seem fair?

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue, Dumbarton.

THERE has been much coverage lately about the death of Sir Arnold Clark, who built up a business selling cars. Sir Arnold was successful because he believed in treating his customers fairly, eschewing the traditional shady practices of car dealers who promise to supply you with “a nice little runner” only for the wheels to fall off just round the corner from the showroom.

I never bought a car from Sir Arnold but I'm sure he would have conceded that, in the event of the wheels falling off the car he'd recently sold me, the deal I had entered into with him would be null and void.

I am reminded of shady used car dealers every time I hear Ruth Davidson or some other Unionist talk about the SNP promising the 2014 referendum was “once in a generation”. The deal we were offered by Better Together if we voted No was that the Scottish Government would be given so many extra powers that we would have a de facto federal state, with Westminster retaining only powers over foreign policy and defence. The other main plank of the offer was that only by voting No could we retain our place in the EU.

As it turns out, the wheels fell off that sweet deal just round the corner from the referendum. We find ourselves ejected from the EU, very few of the promised powers have come our way and the signs are that Westminster will use Brexit to increase its dominance over Scotland.

I voted Yes in 2014 and eagerly anticipate the opportunity to vote Yes again in the near future because Scotland has been had by the shadiest of con artists. The deal is null and void.

David C Purdie,

12 Mayburn Vale, Loanhead, Midlothian.

DAVID Torrance (“Tectonic plates of Scottish politics are moving again”, The Herald, April 24) says with incredulous panache that the SNP is seeking to “re-toxify the Conservative brand through vilification over the rape clause”. It seems to me – and I hope many others – that the Conservative brand of toxic blue has been created without any help from anyone else. The Conservatives have given us austerity with chronic low pay for the many, the bedroom tax, food banks, zero hours contracts, demeaning back-to-work interviews, cuts to benefits, including disability benefits. Their policies are responsible for alarming levels of workplace stress caused by equally alarming levels of staff shortage in our schools and hospitals.

The fight within their ranks that gave us all Brexit was achieved by scapegoating migrant workers and immigrants and the so-called Conservative brand has been doing this for centuries. A hundred years ago the same brand outed trade unionism, the Irish and Jews as the problems holding back the nation’s greatness. Today, it is the Liberals, Scottish nationalism, Northern Irish nationalism, Labour leftism and any other political brand that is not Conservative that threatens the eternal and socially unequal renewal the Conservatives hope to bring about.

The Conservative brand has been consistently toxic and we need only ask ourselves how it is that a party could think up and approve such a rape clause in the first place if it was not already toxic.

Jim Aitken,

2 Carlton Street, Edinburgh.