Fortunately for the rest of us, the electorate is not as gullible as Messrs Lewis and McKay (Letters 23 and 21 February) seem to believe.
While the raison d’être of both of these gentlemen appears to be to stop the SNP at all costs, many have already concluded that the devo-max or quasi home rule for Scotland that the majority of the electorate appeared to desire before the referendum is more likely to be achieved with a greater number of SNP MPs at Westminster.
Of course, what both of these gentlemen seemingly fear is that the closer Scotland moves towards true “home rule” the closer Scotland moves to independence, when in fact the more they try to frustrate the wishes of the Scottish people the faster Scotland will move towards independence, as evidenced since Scotland’s first devolution vote was undemocratically rejected in 1979.
The real challenge for those who voted No in the referendum is to set aside the daily political claims and counter-claims and before they vote in May consider whether, unlike Calman, the Smith Commission proposals when finally enacted will deliver the range of powers that can be coherently applied to deliver the society they wish for both themselves and their fellow citizens across Scotland.
The survival of that undemocratic institution that is the House of Lords and further reports of the buying of political influence at Westminster should convince most rational thinkers that politicians in the main UK parties whose careers rely on sustaining the “London establishment” are unlikely to suddenly see the light and progress the fundamental change that appropriately reflects the ambitions and aspirations of the people they are supposed to represent.
Unless content with “devo-min”, those not ready to vote for Scotland’s independence should vote for the party most likely to bring about the real change they desire.