Letter: No mandate

Many readers must have been puzzled by Allan Massie's claim (Perspective, 6 October) that the coalition government enjoys a mandate in Scotland by virtue of the Liberal Democrats' participation, when between them the two coalition parties attracted only 36 per cent of the Scottish vote.

The coalition's stronger claim to a mandate derives instead from the Labour Party's insistence that the vote of the United Kingdom as a whole takes precedence over the Scots vote. Are Labour supporters fully aware of the increasing cost their acceptance of Westminster's supremacy imposes on Scottish democracy and society?

Prior to May's general election, Scotland had been ruled from Westminster by parties it had rejected at the polls for 27 of the 65 years since the Second World War. If the current coalition survives for a full term, Scotland will have been ruled at UK level by parties it had rejected for 32 out of 70 post-war years. On existing voting patterns, a further six years of Conservative-led government would find Scotland having spent half its post-war history under UK governments it had rejected at the polls.

Furthermore, since 1970, each of the rejected Westminster governments - Heath, Thatcher/Major, Cameron - have pursued policies progressively more hostile to Scotland's policy preferences, culminating in today's coalition aiming to cut Scottish public spending by amounts well beyond even Mrs Thatcher's ambitions.

STEPHEN MAXWELL

Findhorn Place

Edinburgh