Bashing the Nats has sold voters short

Judith Gillespie (Letters, 15 September) berates those who have arrived late at
the independence debate for not paying more attention sooner.

Had she herself done so, she would have known it is perfectly possible to obtain a clear mandate for one option when three well-supported options are on the table.

Several contributors to The Scotsman (myself included) explained how this could be done, long before the “one question only” approach was enshrined in the Edinburgh Agreement. (The details are publicly available in the responses to the consultations held by the Scottish Government and by the UK Government.)

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

It had long been known that there was significant support among electors in Scotland for three of the possible constitutional options: “no change”, “more devolution”, “independence”.

But the Westminster political parties were not interested in determining the views of the electors in Scotland.

Their prime objective at that time was to “bash the Nats”.

They thought they could do that most effectively by insisting on “one question only”, for and against independence.

It should be a cause for real concern that those many who wanted neither “no change” nor “independence” will be forced on Thursday to vote for an option they did not want.

(Dr) James Gilmour

East Parkside

Edinburgh

Judith Gillespie is right in suggesting that putting 
devo-max on the ballot paper could have led to an inconclusive result. But that is only true if voters could have selected only one option from the three available.

The way to get a conclusive result was to ask voters to rank the options in order (1, 2, 3), a single-transferable-vote system, as now used for the Scottish local elections.

Transferring votes until one option reached 50 per cent would be conclusive. Why was this system not selected?

Steuart Campbell

Dovecot Loan

Edinburgh

Judith Gillespie, as ever, makes important points about the referendum.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Yes, it’s a big risk that this time next year, we see 
changes that are to no-one’s advantage, and unlikely to improve soon. But campaigns that once appeared as the glib gabbing to the gullible and the cautious comforting the cosy have now dispelled the boredom with politics that produced results based mainly on extremist or protest voting.

Perhaps most importantly of all, young people have been engaged, and their comments on the recent debate in Glasgow suggest that they are more sussed, sensible and positive than those who have become used to thinking their vote doesn’t matter.

Other nations in the Union have also woken up to the reality of devolution or dissolution.

As an erstwhile independence supporter, fed up with UK governments, I see now that the beneficial legacies of the referendum campaigns can best be built on by 
voting No. Firstly, Scotland has already won the power 
and respect to create a more socially just society, while continuing to influence and benefit from the larger Union.

This is far more certain than by a lengthy struggle within financial interdependency with another country which is likely to diverge increasingly to the right without the Scottish Labour vote.

And secondly, this gives the best chance of developing our new people-power to influence how we can live our lives more locally, rather than be controlled by the centralising measures already demonstrated by our Nationalist government in Scotland.

Jane Griffiths

Middleby Street

Edinburgh