FOR those of moderate political persuasion, recent proceedings in both Houses of Parliament and in the courts showed politics at its worst and a depressing culmination of three years of going round in circles, pointless delays and grubby political manoeuvring. Whilst no party can escape its share of responsibility, not least the Conservative Government, many Scots will have been watching the antics of the SNP with shame and utter disbelief, not only for its MPs' behaviour and choice language in the Commons Chamber, but more so for its deeply flawed assertion, made time and again, that it speaks for all Scottish people on the issues of EU membership and independence.
Ian Blackford and others, like broken records, are predictable in their diatribes about having a series of mandates from the Scottish people, none of which stand up to scrutiny by any reasonable logic. A true mandate can only be claimed on issues that are not tangled up in countless others. We entered the Common Market in 1975 and will leave the EU both on a UK-wide referendum, the results of which have no legal consequence when viewed nation by nation. For the SNP to claim otherwise denies the basic premise of the vote and respect for the democratic process.
The attempt to give cause and effect to independence through Brexit, arising from the meaningless catch-all phrase "material change" in a 2016 manifesto beggars belief. EU referendum analysis shows that more than one-third of Leave voters in Scotland were from SNP backgrounds, meaning that its own electoral base is disunited on the issue. So mired are the SNP’s political tactics in sowing division and distrust that any request for a second independence referendum must be refused until the dust has settled on Brexit to allow voters clear heads on a very different proposition.
The SNP has always been quick to display its "outrage" at what it sees as a democratic deficit, but is oblivious to its own role in creating this. The First Minister has never accepted the decision of the 2014 independence referendum, the biggest democratic exercise in the nation’s history and with a result that was beyond question. For many Scots, the atmosphere of debate then was neither positive nor enjoyable, but it was at least based on the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement where both sides said they would abide by the result at the point of its signing, only for the SNP to go back on its word. Can anyone bear to imagine what it might be like second time round with all that has gone on and a slump in the quality and tone of political and public discourse?
Perhaps we need to look abroad at how others handle referenda and impose a 60/40 split on future UK constitutional change to ensure it is the settled will of voters, many of whom must now long for the day when politics returns to addressing the people’s everyday concerns.
David Roxburgh, Glasgow G33.
I AGREE entirely with R Russell Smith (Letters, September 13) who suggests that “the focus on the SNP and IndyRef2 during the current turmoil should be relegated to the touchline meantime. I believe that the constant stream of letters has been an attempt to divert the attention of your readers away from the debacle that is Brexit and the failure of the Scottish Conservatives to make any contribution to the debate other than from the perspective of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation.
John Milne, Uddingston.
I WOULD respectfully suggest to the ever entertaining R Russell Smith that it is precisely because of "a constitutional crisis, a compromised Prime Minister, the Irish Border backstop, Brexit No Deal fiasco, and an expected General Election" that the SNP and Indyref2 are sorely needed; indeed, Nicola Sturgeon has won an award from 100 European print media editors for "being a crucial voice of reason" in the debate over Brexit.
Ruth Marr, Stirling.
Read more – Cameron: Second Brexit referendum 'cannot be ruled out'
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