Sturgeon call for veto is undemocratic

Share this article
0
Have your say

Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister designate is showing scant regard for ­democracy – a subject on which she ­lectured the Scottish people throughout the referendum campaign.

Her speeches show she does not seem to accept the Edinburgh Agreement, as she is still talking about the next independence referendum despite the fact that 55 per cent of those who voted wished to stay within the UK. It would help if our soon-to-be First Minister actually accepted the will of the majority.

As regards a possible ­referendum on the EU I have a certain sympathy with the idea that no part of the UK should be forced out of the EU against the will of the ­majority of its people.

However, a simple veto is grossly undemocratic. One Scottish vote would in effect be equal to ten English ones – it would be a part of the UK telling the rest it could not leave the EU, a recipe for ­conflict.

What would be a possible solution would be an agreement that the majority to leave should not be a simple 50 per cent +1 but rather, say 70 per cent across the UK.

Sadly, the Scottish ­Government has set the 50 per cent +1 precedent and that appears to be what the Prime Minister is seeking.

The Scottish Government also insisted that the other parts of the UK had no say in the independence referendum despite the fact that a Yes vote would have impacted on all the home nations.

Ms Sturgeon’s contempt for democracy is now being clearly shown – she believes that a minority can impose its will on a majority ­provided that minority ­supports her cause.

(Dr) Roger I 
Cartwright

Turretbank Place

Crieff

In attempting to defend her EU veto stunt Nicola Sturgeon complains that, because of the greater number of ­voters elsewhere in the UK, Scotland may be “outvoted” in the event of a referendum on EU membership.

Does she not understand the democratic process of a referendum? That scenario is precisely what happened in our own recent referendum.

Overall, there were more No voters than Yes voters. But in Dundee, for example, there were more Yes than No voters.

Does that make a blind bit of difference?

Should Dundee somehow have the right to “veto” the result? 

Where does Ms Sturgeon’s “logic” take us? Supposing Scotland as a whole voted to stay in the EU but the Edinburgh “constituency” voted to leave, would Edinburgh have the right to veto the Scotland veto? 

In the event of a second independence referendum – God forbid – will Ms Sturgeon sign up to the proposition that unless all 32 of 
our “family” of constituencies ­declare for independence then any single one of them may veto the outcome?

She would have my ­support on that one.

Colin Hamilton

Braid Hills Avenue

Edinburgh

We’ re going to need a couple more Irn Bru crates, aren’t we?

I can’t wait to see the ­arranged marriage of Nicola Sturgeon and Jim Murphy (200 towns in 200 days?) as they campaign together against leaving the EU in an in/out referendum imposed by the UK Tories as the only way to cling on to power at Westminster.

The problem for the SNP will be that a UK vote to leave the EU will actually favour it, by ringing the bell to ­herald the next lap of the race to independence – a difficult tactical call because the Yes campaign and the SNP are already committed, having spent two years extolling the benefits of full EU membership.

Fear not: I still imagine that if Scotland elects to ­remain in the EU – by a significant margin – as rUK votes to leave, an appeal to the EU by a geographically identified nation of more than 6 million EU citizens, who wish to remain EU citizens, will not go unanswered.

Will the EU, in effect, turn its back on that number of its citizens? De facto independence may well follow, not because Scotland has left the UK, but because rUK will have separated from Scotland. I knew that it was going to be fun.

David Fiddimore

Calton Road

Edinburgh