SNP should seize the chance offered by Alexander's referendum 'gimmick'

Published on Wednesday 7 May 2008 21:39

Wendy Alexander clearly hoped to divert the nation from Labour's poor election and poll results by her U-turn on the referendum. She also hoped she would wrong-foot the SNP by calling for an early referendum rather than wait until 2010. One could clearly dismiss her reversal as a cheap political gimmick and wait until 2010 before laying a bill for a referendum and wait to see if she supports it, if she is still there.

However, this would be a mistake. It takes a year to get a bill through the parliament, so if the SNP places a bill before the parliament in the autumn it would become law by June 2009 and the referendum could be held in autumn 2009 or spring 2010. In either case, there is sufficient time for the SNP government to prove itself and to prepare for a proper debate. I also think that having one simple question for or against independence would clarify the debate, and we have seen from recent elections that simplicity in ballots is a benefit.

On the debate itself, I think there is a real prospect of victory for independence. According to recent polls, opinion is evenly divided, and a well-argued campaign, led by Alex Salmond but supported by many others in Scotland, would easily defeat continued Westminster rule (soon to be exercised by a Tory government) led by Ms Alexander and Gordon Brown, whose combined poll ratings are lower than Mr Salmond's. It may accelerate the SNP timetable to have the referendum in 2009, but it is a unique chance to have one, with a real chance of winning it.

HUGH KERR

Braehead Avenue

Edinburgh

Independence is neither the sole nor the best solution to any problems Scotland may be having with the Union.

It runs the risk associated with babies and used bath water.

It is possible to reject both the Union and independence in favour of a con/federal solution. There are many successful con/federations around the world. Such a solution would enable one to be proudly Scottish and British, whilst recognising that, for better or worse, we must share this small island in the North Atlantic.

This avenue deserves to be followed, with independence an alternative only if con/federalism fails.

TIM FLINN

Garvald

East Lothian

The popular series of "Horrible History" books for children famously describes the 1979 referendum as a vote for "independence" (Bloody Scotland, Terry Deary, Scholastic Hippo 1998). Like your "Key questions on the road to a vote on independence" (6 May), this is, of course, inaccurate.

In 1979, the people of Scotland were given the chance to vote for an assembly, more akin to the modern Welsh Assembly than today's Scottish Parliament. Although a majority voted in favour, as this was less than 40 per cent of the total electorate, the assembly was not established. It may be wise for your reporters to consult a range of sources if their memories or understanding of Scotland's past do not extend beyond what they may have read in a child's history book.

PATRICK GRADY

Dunchattan Street

Glasgow

Before deciding to relaunch herself as the Kirsten Dunst character from Bring It On, as suggested by Stephen McGinty, perhaps Wendy Alexander ought to have watched the film. At the end of it, Ms Dunst leads her cheerleading squad to national defeat at the hands of their nicer and smarter rivals.

GAVIN FLEMING

Grassmarket

Edinburgh