Letters: Big Yes vote, or forget independence

Published on Thursday 16 February 2012 00:00

In branding devo-max “a dodgy back-up plan to save the SNP” Jim Sillars, like Alex Salmond, fails to appreciate just how different David Cameron’s take on Scottish independence is to that of the two previous Labour prime ministers.

Mainly for party reasons they were desperately trying to stem the flow of Labour votes to the independence movement at all costs, hence the Scottish Parliament, MSPs and devolution et al. Mr Cameron has little or no party-political baggage in that respect and has called the independence movement’s bluff to get a bit of realism into the debate.

Putting aside all of Salmond’s posturing and cherry-picking, we should be absolutely clear that anything short of a convincing Yes vote in the referendum will mark the end of the independence/devolution debate so far as the Westminster government is concerned, and the sooner Scotland wakes up to that basic fact the sooner we can get down to a serious debate on just what the subject of independence means for everybody concerned.

Irvine Inglis

Reston

Berwickshire

Hamish Haswell-Smith (Letters, 15 February) points out that “the Scottish devolution referendum in 1997 was won on a minority vote – only 44.9 per cent of those entitled to vote actually voted for devolution”.

He goes on to suggest that “at least half of all Scottish voters should be required to vote in favour of any major change to our 300-year-old constitution”.

May I suggest that the same criteria be used now as those used to establish that 300-year-old constitution.

The previously standing 800-year-old constitution was changed by a vote of the Scottish Parliament with the direct consent of considerably less than 44.9 per cent of the general population, which was entitled to vote at the time; and an even smaller percentage of the general adult population, which was then not entitled to vote.

Notwithstanding the arguments about its legal powers to do so, I am anxious to know how the present Scottish Parliament would vote on such an issue if no referendum were to be held, as happened in 1707.

(Dr) Francis Roberts

Greenbank Avenue

Edinburgh

Hear, hear Robert Black QC (Letters, 15 February) for, hopefully, putting to rest the scaremongering being peddled by all and sundry on the legality of the Scottish referendum. I hope many of those guilty of said scaremongering, and also plain untruths, read and digest his letter.

The Scottish Government is, clearly, perfectly entitled to hold the referendum and spurious challenges to that right will fail. Thank you, Mr Black, for setting it out so lucidly.

C Murphy

West Calder

West Lothian

Peter Jones (Perspective, 14 February) accepts that “separate” has negative characteristics.

If he looks at Roget’s Thesaurus under the heading for “separated”, he will see the adjectives “alienated, alone, different, disjoined, distant, quarantined”.

Under “independent” are “free, neutral, proud, self-helpful, strong willed, voluntary, wealthy”.

These are clearly different meanings, and I wish the Unionists would stop playing with words.

The opposite of “independence” is “dependence” (addiction, belief, subjection, trust etc) – what we have to look forward to if Peter Jones is right.

Iain WD Forde

Main Street

Scotlandwell, Kinross-shire

If Scotland becomes independent, will the blue be removed from the Union Flag?

If so, my question leads me on to one more. Does the cross of St Patrick on the flag truly represent Ulster?

After Scottish independence, would it not be logical for the flag to be the St George’s cross with a couple of wee logos representing Wales and Ulster?

Rob Jamieson

Newton Crescent

Dunblane

Comments

There are 7 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

7

mallus12

Friday, February 17, 2012 at 02:45 PM

Does anyone want this to go on for years or even decades? The devo-max would ensure this outcome. I believe Salmond knew from the start he would not win an outright victory. Instead he will use Devo-Max to keep things on the boil not to mention keeping himself in a nice little earner. He is also tempting fate delaying for two and a half years-the whole politicl landscape may well be different---he could find himself facing an absolute refusal to make any concessions--Cameron may not be PM then and have been replaced by someone who tells Salmond to accept the no vote or organise another referendum on an IN or OUT vote.

• Report Unsuitable

6

Pilrig.

Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 08:02 PM

Not only had Dave Cameron - as Irvine Inglis asserts - no political baggage regarding Scotland, he has only ONE MP in Scotland !

• Report Unsuitable

5

fourbyfour

Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 01:24 PM

Ahh, Mr Inglis, might I remind you that Westminster has no powers to prevent another referendum in the future. That is a decision which will be made in Scotland. And you proclaim that Cameron has called the independence movement's bluff. What bluff?

• Report Unsuitable

4

oorwulliesma

Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 10:53 AM

If there is only one question, and the independence vote falls short, no one need be in any doubt whatsoever that Westminster will let devolution (at least, any advance on the status quo) sink until such time as the Scots start agitating for enhanced devolution or independence once again. The Scotland Bill might never become law if the Unionists believe they have the upper hand. A defeat for the SNP in the referendum will mean stasis for as long as possible, and Scotland will be made to pay for its temerity: relegation to the outlands where no one may speak its name. That this would be a general punishment - to the naysayers as well as the independence and devolution movements - would be a kind of justice. This, of course, will not happen because Cameron is de facto as hard-nosed and realistic as he appears soft and touchy-feely. He will call the SNP's bluff because he has nowhere else to go, and because he knows that Scotland is a lost cause for the Unionist Tories. Labour is a different kettle of fish and will fight, as will the LibDems. It will be interesting to see how these three parties regroup after independence. Methinks they will be vying with each other to show just how very independent they are, and, with the passage of time - a few years at most - they will be wondering what all the fuss was about. Now, let's get down to the nitty gritty and find out what the pros and cons would be of an independent Scotland, and, more to the point, what are the pros of staying in the Union? Details on a postage stamp, please.

• Report Unsuitable

3

samcoldstream

Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 10:20 AM

The last author should look online at the various permutations of the cross design of the very first "Union Jack"? Long before the UK was ever brought into being or the UK Union Flag was designed, at various times throughout their history, the countries of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden were in some form of Union or another. Each Scandinavian nation kept its original cross design as flown today.

• Report Unsuitable

2

gus1940

Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 08:44 AM

#1 I and most Scots would prefer 'George Foulkes Day'.

• Report Unsuitable

1

cajwbroomhill

Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 06:27 AM

"Separation" is the word for leaving the UK, since independence would be vitiated by membership of the EU, if that corrupt, outdated, failed experiment has survived a vote for SNP referendum. Rather, Scotland's interests would be served, like those of EWNI, by concentrating on re-establishing and enhancing trading and cultural links with partner Commonwealth nations, while, of course, retaining friendly trading with our European and US friends and all other Intl associates.(and why not re-name 5November "Edward Heath Day?)

• Report Unsuitable

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.