Lack of specifics casts doubt on the credibility of independence poll

Published on Wednesday 1 July 2009 21:16

At first glance, the recent ICM poll (your report, 1 July) offers comfort to unionists and hope for federalists, given that only 28 per cent voted for independence and 63 per cent were content with London rule over defence and foreign policy. However, in this instance, the devil is in the lack of detail and the generalisation of the questions.

Instinctively, humans will huddle together and clutch at any straw-man when drowning in tumultuous economic seas – even a profligate one like Gordon Brown. Similarly, the herd mentality is a natural response to defence matters. But how many of the 63 per cent feel safe in the knowledge that Bush's pet poodle, Tony Blair, took the UK into an illegal war in Iraq, and that Gordon Brown is about to commit more of our over-stretched and under-equipped troops to the unwinnable conflict in Afghanistan?

Are the 63 per cent happy about the WMD cover-up; the proposed Trident renewal and nuclear energy programmes which could be forced on Scotland; that the UK government reneged on a promised referendum over the Lisbon constitution/treaty; that Scotland has no inherent control or negotiating rights over its own natural resources; or that UK workers have been denied the same legal rights as their EU counterparts through opt-outs insisted on by the UK's two Tory parties in London?

The Calman Commission has confirmed the blessed Donald Dewar's assertion that devolution is a process, but, sadly, without London approval, none of the three unionist parties can take yes for an answer. Neither can they offer a social democratic alternative, to affirm Scotland's fundamental policy divergence on health, education and the law. Lord Forsyth is right – we are on the motorway to independence but, hopefully, we can reach the final service station before the oil runs out.

JOHN DOBBINS

Balbeggie Street

Glasgow

If much of the opposition to a referendum on independence is due to the worry that we will be asked to vote on the issue continually "until we get it right" (a "neverendum"), there is a simple solution. As a condition for supporting a ballot, the unionist parties should demand a commitment from the SNP that, in the event of a "no" vote achieving a two-thirds majority, it would not seek a further ballot for a minimum of, say, 20 years.

This would give the unionist parties the impetus to campaign for a strong "no" vote, as much as for the SNP to campaign to avoid becoming irrelevant for a generation. "Scotland free in thirty-three" has a certain ring to it.

IAN BAXTER

Broomieknowe Gardens

Bonnyrigg, Midlothian

Tory leader David Cameron seems to believe Scotland should be satisfied if our parliament is given responsibility for internal affairs, with Westminster retaining control over foreign affairs and defence. On the contrary, it is precisely these two areas that are vital. That is why we need independence.

We must escape from the illusion of British governments that they are still a major power. It was this that landed us with the disasters of the Iraq war and nuclear-armed submarines on the Clyde. It has also deprived us of the proceeds of the oil in Scottish waters and of our own membership of the European Union and other international organisations.

Scottish independence will remove such problems and lead to a much more reasonable and co-operative relationship between the two countries. It should also help the government in London to escape from the illusions of the past and to conduct its affairs more sensibly and realistically.

PAUL HENDERSON SCOTT

Drumsheugh Gardens

Edinburgh