I WOULD like to knock on the head this nonsense that unionists of all shapes and sizes, in the absence of any other argument, continually drag out of a “once in a generation referendum”.

While it is true that these words were uttered by Alex Salmond and in a looser sense by the current First Minister in the lead-up to the vote, they were expressed as opinion, not as any legally binding commitment. Those words were certainly not in the Edinburgh Agreement. As far as I can see this was not the subject of any resolution approved by the SNP membership. My own reaction on hearing those words being uttered by Mr Salmond was “not in my name” and I’m sure that I was not alone in this response.

The total membership of the party is in the region of 125,000 and the vast majority of independence voters like myself have no direct connection to the SNP. We do not blindly support everything the current Government does or says but, given no viable alternative, we are joined with them in a common cause. Therefore, we reserve the right to continue to press for independence for as long as we are able.

Gordon Evans, Burnside.

ALAN Morris (Letters, August 25) has chosen his words carefully when he says he believes there was no “legal” commitment to the 2014 referendum being a “once in a lifetime” event, and he asks for proof to the contrary. He may well be correct, but I just wonder if the specific statements by the Scottish Government (first page) and Alex Salmond (preface) actually printed in the former’s 2013 publication Scotland’s Future mentioning “once in a generation” could each be construed as amounting to a verbal contract with the electorate? Perhaps a solicitor would care to comment? In that regard I came across an Agenda article in The Herald on May 31, 2019, by Peter Begbie, a solicitor, entitled “Don’t ignore the power of verbal contracts” which is well worth reading.

Mr Morris asks also for the definition of “a lifetime , which currently would be rather more than the biblical 70 years. However, having said the referendum is “a once in a generation opportunity” , at the end of his Preface Alex Salmond states also that “ Our generation has the opportunity” and “ It is time to seize that future...... “ so quite clearly he is talking about taking that once in a generation opportunity in 2014 .

If these statements are not legally binding, should they be morally binding? If they are neither, why were they made and were we expected to treat them as being not worth the paper they were written on, with all that that reflects on anything the Scottish Government and Mr Salmond ever say? There used to be a saying that “an Englishman’s word is his bond “ , but it seems Mr Morris considers that certainly does not apply equally to a Scotsman’s word .

Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop.

I AM certain the Yes movement will be delighted with today’s crop of letters (August 25). Alan Fitzpatrick implies that the normal democratic process of winning elections and fulfilling a manifesto isn’t required in Scotland; that the “total number of votes cast by the actual voters for the respective parties ... is much closer to an actual referendum”. As the British nationalist parties fight every election on independence, and now the SNP is to do the same, the winner of the crude Yes/No count in 2021 should determine Scotland’s status as an autonomous country or a dependency.

Ian Lakin extols the virtues of George Galloway as a “winning ticket” in the No team, alongside the No leadership of London MP Douglas Ross, the soon-to-be Baroness Davidson and Richard Leonard. Nicola Sturgeon must be rubbing her eyes in astonished, euphoric disbelief at this rag-tag team of blustering, disparate non-entities. One plus: it will be those residing in Scotland who decide this issue. The promotion of “Scottish ethnic voting”, with all its disturbing baggage, and even more disturbing advocates, will be kept at a proper distance.

GR Weir, Ochiltree.

WHAT is going on? There are now 12 SNP MSPs not standing again at the Holyrood 2021 election (“Health Secretary Freeman reveals she will stand down at next year’s election”, The Herald, August 25).

Derek Mackay had no choice but the others did. At all Holyrood elections a certain number of MSPs always decide to leave but not only is 12 a large percentage of the SNP it also comes at the moment, in theory, when the party can push for a second independence referendum, which is supposed to be the burning ambition of all SNP members. Given Joe Biden’s example, then age ought not to be a barrier, so is there something going on we are not being told?

It does seem rather odd to quit when the summit appears to be within touching distance unless the very real and insurmountable problems stopping independence being viable are coming into a much sharper focus?

Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow G77.

NICOLA Sturgeon is losing a number of ministers, and questions are being asked about who will replace them – assuming that she forms a government next May. May I suggest that part of the solution could be to strip out departments that are unnecessary because they represent areas that are not devolved but reserved?

Michael Russell’s brief is the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs, reserved areas. He is retiring, so closing his department would bring a net saving. Further, Scotland does not require a minister for Europe and International Development. These subjects are reserved. Ms Sturgeon’s Cabinet has ballooned in size since 2014. Isn’t it time to slim it down a bit?

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh EH14.

IAIN Gunn (Letters, August 22) states that “those on the unionist side of the constitutional debate, frequently become vindictive…” I agree with this statement, and coincidentally Tim Flinn (also Letters, August 22) gives a perfect illustration of arguments being made that are insulting and lack any supporting evidence.

As a Government the SNP has consistently invested and supported public health measures nationally and regionally (through health boards). This investment is not new, it has been sustained over a long period of time and unlike the decisions in Westminster to dismantle Public Health England in the midst of a pandemic, the Scottish Government has remained true to its policy commitments.

Therefore, to suggest that I (and many other independence supporters) flout the Scottish Government regulations because we are a “thrill-seeking” shower of dafties who just fancy a wee shot at going it alone is insulting but sadly typical. In fact the opposite is true, my vote is with the SNP because of its commitment to the health of the people in Scotland, and particularly to those in greatest need, and I consider this will be best served as an independent nation.

Trish Grierson, near Castle Douglas.

ALEX Salmond has been acquitted of all charges against him and did obtain a judgement in his favour regarding the pre-trial processes. He has therefore in law nothing to defend, yet he and by association his erstwhile colleagues continue to be assailed, for only political reasons, by the opponents of Scottish independence.

The iniquity of that is surely to be recognised by all fair-minded people, as is the unjustified, unforgivable distress now suffered by his family.

Such actions by his political opponents are generated by the very worst of motives and it is time they were brought to an end. It is to be remembered that losers very often resort to personal attacks and the behaviour of the losers in this case is a perfect example.

John Hamilton, Bearsden.

Read more: Letters: George Galloway may well be on a winning ticket