Get independence debate back on track

A BEAM of light has been allowed to penetrate the inner workings of our SNP government. If an independent expert disagrees with you then pressurise him to change his words and offer to write the copy of a letter to the press confirming your previously held prejudices (your report, 28 October).

Alex Salmond’s original idea of two yes/no questions on the ballot table has been declared “untenable” by his previously favourite constitutional expert – the one he has relied upon to give weight to his argument that even a “consultative” referendum can legally be held under the current Scotland Act.

The semantic scrambling that has then ensued does not help his party’s aspirations, as posing a first question, major constitutional change or not, before placing devo max or independence in opposition to each other is a methodology almost guaranteed to prevent a successful vote for independence.

It would lose a large proportion of the electorate at the first hurdle and then split the vote at the next stage, with devo max probably winning out over independence, but with no overall 50 per cent mandate for any option. Result: complete confusion.

Notwithstanding the original expert advice, all of the leaders of the opposition parties have declined Mr Salmond’s offer of a second question on any future ballot, the redoubtable Margo MacDonald has declared the question as “piddling”, and many in the SNP themselves are uncomfortable with any dilution of the issue.

It is time that Mr Salmond admitted that, as in his acceptance speech in May, he does not have a monopoly on wisdom and he should commit to a single yes/no question on independence.

This is too important an issue for the citizens of Scotland to be playing games with. We need and deserve an emphatic and unambiguous outcome from this process. The method by which that can be achieved is clear.

Peter Muirhead

Duncrag

Kilmacolm

How dare Professor Qvortrup disagree with Alex Salmond!

The professor should have had the grace to change his opinion, realising that the great man is never wrong.

Even the First Minister’s “apology” was his own interpretation of the professor’s views rather than an admission of fault. It is becoming more and more clear that, even when the facts are against it, the SNP simply re-asserts its own opinions and claims it is right.

These assertions become “facts” in the SNP folklore.

Henry L Philip

Grange Loan

Edinburgh

While I disagree with some of First Minister Alex Salmond’s policies, it remains clear to me that he is head and shoulders above most politicians in the United Kingdom.

His political nous and intelligence are clear to anyone who can judge him with any degree of impartiality.

The “furore” over his misquoting Professor Matt Qvortrup, for which he apologised promptly and took all the blame himself, displayed another of his admirable qualities – a sense of honour best displayed by his, and his party’s, avoidance of negative campaigning.

Understandably, and correctly, the media hold the First Minister to account.

Oddly, the person least agitated by this “furore” is the good professor himself, who said last night that he was “very content” with the First Minister’s correction and “was delighted to offer any assistance to ministers” on “referendum proposals”.

Sadly, the use of pejorative phrases by Iain Gray, Murdo Fraser and Willie Rennie illustrate clearly their catastrophic lack of judgment, policies and qualities required by decent opposition.

Could “sense of honour” be applied to such politicians as Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Blunkett, John Prescott, Peter Mandelson, Nick Clegg, Liam Fox, Jim Devine, Henry McLeish, David McLetchie, Wendy Alexander, Johann Lamont, Ian Davidson and many others in the Unionist cabal?

The opposition really needs to grasp reality soon if it is not to slip further into oblivion – it owes all of us some reasoned policies, not the childishness it seems to have inherited from its “betters” at Westminster!

Bill McLean

Newmills

Dunfermline

Professor Trewavas (Letters, 26 October) says it is “better to be part of a great liner… than awash in a dinghy”.

The sentiment is understandable and was shared by those passengers who felt safer sitting on the big, comfortable Titanic than taking to one of those little open boats bobbing about on the cold sea.

They drowned.

S Beck

Craigleith Drive

Edinburgh