Letter: Time not ripe for independence vote

Mr Salmond and the SNP clearly stated that any referendum would be held later in the life of this parliament. That's what many Scots voted for, that's what gave Mr Salmond his majority and that's the mandate which the SNP has.

Mr Salmond has been criticised in the past for breaking his promises.

It's absurd now to ask him to break one of his flagship promises the minute the Scottish Parliament reconvenes just because it might be politically convenient for those who oppose independence.

Labour should recognise that Scots voted overwhelmingly against the policies being pursued by the Tory/Lib Dem coalition.

When the Scottish Parliament reconvenes MSPs need to pull together where there is common agreement.

Our priority should be to defend the people who elected us. Short-term arguments about independence are not what Scotland voted for.

Hugh Henry MSP (Labour)

Renfrewshire South

Douglas Wynn (Letters, 9 May) and the many others calling for London to implement an immediate referendum on independence have not grasped the implications of the changed mood in Scotland - the Scottish Spring.

The political parties seen as London puppets were drubbed and a referendum set up by London with the obvious intention of bouncing us into a "no" vote would get exactly the opposite result.

In that circumstance the case for or against independence would never be considered; it would be a side issue.

There is a properly elected government in Edinburgh. Let us judge it after three or four years and then take a mature, considered decision on independence for Scotland.

In the meantime the three drubbed and discredited political parties have huge internal problems to resolve without muddying the waters on this historic matter for their own grubby ends.

Irvine Inglis

Reston

Berwickshire

Now that we have a Scottish Government with a democratic mandate to legislate in the national interest, it is important that the question of whether EU regulations have any legal validity in Scotland should be addressed.

The people of Scotland have never had an opportunity to vote on whether we want to belong to the European Union as a member state.

At present, European regulations without reference to our national interest have no democratic foundation in Scots law.

Another important question now at issue is whether Scotland should be party to an immoral, so-called "defence policy", based on targeting the civilian populations of a number of unspecified countries for bombardment with nuclear weapons located in submarines.

(Dr) David Purves

Strathalmond Road

Edinburgh Considering that the Treaty of Union declares that Scotland and England shall be "forever after United into One kingdom …", how can they be separated (Perspective, 9 May)?

"Forever" implies no time limit.

Steuart Campbell

Dovecot Loan

Edinburgh

A referendum in Scotland on Scottish independence seems now to be all but inevitable. That is probably a good thing.

However, I fear that it will more likely see Scotland being torn apart than the United Kingdom.

Lawrence Marshall

King's Road

Portobello, Edinburgh

In the upcoming debate about independence, could SNP politicians be quizzed about what would happen in relation to the delicate balance that is Northern Ireland post the Good Friday agreement?

English and Welsh culture is so far apart from that of Ulster that a new Union of Scotland and Northern Ireland might seem more palatable than a united Ireland if bloodshed is to be avoided.

And would areas of Scotland that voted against independence in the context of an overall "yes" victory be allowed to remain in the UK, particularly if they were contiguous to England?

Bill Marshall

Buccleuch Street

Glasgow

In the post-election heat of when we should hold a referendum, the options of status quo, improved powers via the Scotland Bill, or independence seem to be the ones on offer.

I agree with Tim Flinn, whose letter (9 May) advocates consideration of a federal solution for Great Britain.

No government can be truly accountable to the people for its policies if it does not have full fiscal responsibility to raise taxes to pay for those policies.

At present the four countries within the union enjoy different levels of devolution, and England ostensibly has no parliament of its own. A federal structure would of course require a federal parliament, presumably in London, responsible for foreign affairs, defence and national security.

Would it not be a novelty to have block grants flowing in the reverse direction? With polls showing support for Scottish independence at under 30 per cent, surely federation is worthy of consideration.

David Stobie

Venturefair Avenue

Dunfermline, Fife