Herald on Sunday letters: what readers are talking about this week

On Wednesday, June 12, the English Tory Press gave huge coverage to the ComRes opinion poll suggesting, with Boris Johnson as PM, the Conservatives could anticipate a 140-seat majority. They did not focus on the SNP having 56 Seats. The principle of unlimited sovereignty of Westminster has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. The UK Supreme Court acknowledges that Holyrood is the expression of our sovereignty.

The disaster to Scotland of our being dragged out of the EU with no deal, when 71% of us are Remain, is well documented. Add to that a premiership of Johnson and his known antipathy to the Barnett Formula and Holyrood would need to call indyref2 urgently.

Most Conservative Party members would accept Scottish independence as the price of Brexit. However, Westminster would not agree, and legally trained Nicola Sturgeon, correctly, would normally ask for a Section 30 Order; but what if there is no Westminster?

Currently, Johnson is saying many things he knows are not true, for example to renege on our debt would make us an international pariah state and the EU know it is a hollow threat. It would also destroy his proposed Canadian-style free trade agreement.

He talks of us leaving the EU with no deal at Hallowe'en, but he would be brought down by a vote of no confidence. He talks of renegotiating the withdrawal agreement but the 27 won't break ranks. That leaves a choice of another referendum or a general election.

Would he prorogue? With Scotland being run illegally from Methodist Central Hall, the time would have come to bring our MPs home.

John V Lloyd

Inverkeithing

Reasonable conditions?

Reading through Alan Sutherland’s letter (The Herald on Sunday, June 16), his list of essential requirements for the forthcoming Referendum Bill develops in an interesting way.

While I am pretty sure Mr Sutherland and I would disagree about who should be able to vote in an independence referendum, clearly the Bill should define this.

As for the question to be posed, I would be content with a Leave/ Remain question, particularly as a “Do you wish Scotland to leave the United Kingdom?” could well be a slam dunk for the independence movement after a year or so of Boris Johnson as PM.

As for a confirmatory referendum, there was no such provision in 2014, and despite much discussion about one prior to leaving the EU, the likelihood of this happening seems vanishingly small. However, since, after a Yes vote, it might give the London government what seems to be an opportunity to dig in and offer no more than a totally unreasonable independence deal which would be rejected by the Scottish electorate, I suppose I can see Mr Sutherland’s logic, even if I strongly reject it as no more than rampant opportunism.

I must admit to some sympathy with Mr Sutherland’s view that 50%+1 would be a “fiasco”. However, he proposes going much further – almost 18% further in fact – requiring a Scottish independence vote to be carried by “two-thirds of voters”. The full implications of this really do need to be fully drawn out.

First, using the electoral roll as the base, not just those who actually vote, means that if you are on the roll but don’t vote you effectively vote No. Too bad if you are in hospital, or even dead!

Second, in 1978, George Cunningham only demanded 40% of the electorate vote Yes to a Scottish Assembly, but Alan Sutherland demands a figure nearly 70% higher than that.

Third, his requirement for Scottish independence to pass would be approximately 30% higher than the majority that will take the UK out of the European Union.

Last, the fact is that 50%+1 is the system of political decision-making in the United Kingdom. I can appreciate that Mr Sutherland would gerrymander an independence vote as far as is necessary to prevent independence, but I think he should be clear that his efforts are not merely to protect “our precious Union”, but to do so at all costs.

Finally, I was disappointed to see that he left matters at that point, as I had been looking forward to further requirements, such as the independence option being printed in Latin on the wrong side of the voting slip in a very small font size? Or perhaps that anyone proposing to vote Yes should present themselves at the Polling Place wearing a kilt and be required to do a rendition of “Will you stop your tickling Jock” before being allowed to vote. No doubt this will come later.

Alasdair Galloway

Dumbarton

People need answers, not grievance

The SNP has long sought to use the UK’s choice of a Tory government, along with a degree of demonising of a sequence of Conservative leaders, as levers to get its way on independence. Yet the people of Scotland know that leaders and their parties in government come and go, and recognise the SNP tactic as largely political opportunism.

Genuine rational arguments will be needed to change the majority view in Scotland that still favours the many advantages to our positive interdependence with the rest of the UK. Grievance might help to keep the SNP faithful stirred, but it will not break the UK.

To convince the people of Scotland, the SNP will need to provide logical answers on the fundamentals of currency and economic policy, explanation of how an independent Scotland could afford the SNP’s largesse, how and on what terms a breakaway Scotland would be accepted into the EU and just how self-determination will work for a new and marginal member of the Brussels club.

Keith Howell

West Linton

I'm tired ... I want a bacon sarnie

Thanks to Ruth Marr for the reminder to Martin Redfern about SNP education accomplishments (Letters, June 16). His constant carping is growing increasingly tiresome.

New input from James M Gardner – our free telly licences are getting whipped away and now he wants us to be unable to have a bacon sarnie as well.

Cradle-to-grave? God's waiting room looks unexpectedly shabby and boring.

M Brady

Edinburgh

Should religion be written out?

Scots law states that there must be three church representatives on council education committees. Perth and Kinross councillors recently removed voting rights from religious members by invoking a legal loophole, which states that religious membership on the board is mandatory but voting rights are at the discretion of each council. In August, Edinburgh City Council will decide whether religious representatives should vote on education policy.

The idea that morality flows from religion has received a major set-back in the public perception in recent years with the well-documented incidence of paedophilia and child molestation among Catholic and Church of Scotland priests, and the shocking revelations of the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry – suggesting that even the devoutly religious are far from immune from immoral behaviour.

Has the time now come to remove the privileged position of Christianity from Scotland's schools? And while we are at it let us condemn the blasphemy law to history.

Doug Clark

Currie

I don't recognise this country

When I was a young man, induced abortion, the deliberate killing of a human being at an early stage in her or his development, was considered a horrible act. Adultery was regarded with deep disapproval. Drug-taking was believed to be a degrading practice indulged in only by wealthy socialites and criminals.

Now in my 80s I find that induced abortion, adultery and other behaviours that were once frowned upon are promoted by the mass media and politicians to such an extent that anyone who disapproves of them is called insulting names, like "misogynist" or "holier than thou". Some harmful drugs are described as "recreational", use of such drugs is widespread and some people even campaign to have illegal drugs legalised.

What is worse, children in schools are being taught immorality at the instigation of the government, overriding the objections of many parents.

Last year, I gave up going on foreign holidays. What is the point? I already live in a foreign country.

John Kelly

Kelso