Readers' Letters: SNP is to blame for referendum change idea

As Liz Truss becomes Prime Minister there is speculation that changes may be made to the vote threshold, should there be a second vote on separation. The SNP is unhappy – quelle surprise.

And yet the direct reason for any change is the SNP itself. Democracy only works if the losing side respects and accepts the result – losers’ consent. Unfortunately, here in Scotland we have a prime example of where losers’ consent has been withheld. Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond signed the Edinburgh Agreement, setting out the ground rules for the referendum in 2014. The document stated that the referendum would deliver “a result that everyone will respect”. But as soon as the nationalists had lost the vote Sturgeon and Salmond tossed the Edinburgh Agreement in the rubbish bin – their signatures were worthless, they would not respect the votes of over two million people in Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom, their fight to break up Britain would go on.

As we have seen after the independence and EU votes, the SNP cannot be trusted to respect the result of referendums. So what we now need from our new Prime Minister is a Clarity Act to make the rules in Scotland crystal clear – to include as a minimum: the threshold for when a referendum can be called, the franchise, the wording of the referendum, turnout required, authoritative economic prospectuses from both sides required, the threshold for change, the time gap between subsequent referendums, a second confirmatory referendum post negotiations.The SNP has brought all this on itself. Once you cannot trust the losers you have to have everything set out in a tight legal framework. A Clarity Act is in the interests of everyone in Scotland.

Bruce Halliday, Dumfries

Then First Minister Alex Salmond holds up the Edinburgh agreement he signed with then Prime Minister David Cameron in Edinburgh in 2012. (Picture Ian Rutherford)

Changing rules

So, whenever the Tories appear likely to win a constitutional plebiscite, via a referendum or conventional democratic process, 50 per cent plus one vote is sufficient to determine the outcome. When Scottish independence was apparently only desired by around 25 per cent of the population, the Edinburgh Agreement was drafted and agreed to by all parties. Even Brexit, which committed all four nations of the United Kingdom to a single outcome determined independently by a UK Government,was advanced on this basis, although the arrogance of the Tory Prime Minister did not produce the outcome he naively had anticipated.

But, typically of what we have learned about dictatorial Tory government regimes over the years, when defeat looks likely they are not concerned in the least with democratic principles, past conventions or even international laws to which they have recently signed up – they imperiously seek to change the rules. While the UK Government continues to refuse to comply with legal judgements that the pre-2019 taxpayer funded research on public attitudes to the Union should be published, the polls are clear that around 50 per cent of the electorate, and perhaps significantly more, now support the right of the people of Scotland to determine their own future. Disingenuously simplistic comparisons with the current internal machinations of political parties are not only desperate but are further attempts to trivialise discussion around the constitution and the fundamental rights of Scotland’s people, as endorsed by the United Nations, to independently determine their own future.

The past scurrilous attempts to frustrate devolution and the re-establishment of a Scottish Parliament by rigging the democratic process failed, as will duplicitous attempts to prevent the people of Scotland claiming their historic and enduring right to self-determination.

Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian

Safeguarding

Conor Matchett's column of 5 September makes me wonder if he is an SNP member. His protest at the idea of demanding a higher standard for a second Scottish referendum echoes that of the First Minister.He calls it “all the [Tories] have to offer” when in fact it is a radical step forward in making constitutional changes more democratic.

I have been calling for a two-thirds majority for any attempt to break up the UK and am pleased to see a change in that direction. Major changes should not be made on an almost even split; that's a recipe for ongoing conflict.Mr Matchett thinks there would have been uproar if these standards had been set for the Brexit referendum, but I suspect there would have been general agreement that it is a sensible safeguard. Leaving (or joining) the EU is a major constitutional step for any state.Far from this proposal exhibiting “intellectual bankruptcy within the Conservative Party” (I am not a member), it shows uncharacteristic imagination and sense in dealing with a major problem. I wish there was more of it.

Steuart Campbell, Edinburgh

Value democracy

Nicola Sturgeon reckons the UK Government "fear(s) the democratic outcome” of indyref2, but surely there is some mistake?

There will be no second referendum, because the 2014 referendum is the settled will of the Scottish people and woe betide anyone who seeks to undermine a decision made by the people. Woe betide, too, any politician who signs an agreement to honour a decision made by the people in a free and fair vote and then tries to overturn it.

Let's not forget that the SNP were allowed to decide on who could vote (and who could not) in the referendum in 2014; when the referendum would be held and what the referendum question would be .

Children were allowed the vote because the separatists hoped for some electoral benefit arising from that. But it was also the SNP who tried to make those same children have a “guardian” up until the age of 18. So children when they wanted and adults when they wanted, but which is it?

Unlike the people of Russia who had democracy stolen from under their noses, we in the United Kingdom created democracy in our nation. We defended it when it was all but wiped out in Europe and we fought and bled to see that freedom restored across Europe. It ill behoves any leader of a political party to suggest that there is anything undemocratic about the way we run our country and to try ignore the very clear decision of the Scottish people.

Peter Hopkins, Edinburgh

Earn trust

I can't understand why Nicola Sturgeon is becoming all hot and bothered over proposals for a second independence referendum to have 60 per cent of the electorate voting for it etc before it is considered valid. Surely the ball is in Ms Sturgeon's court? Currently we have a union which has endured for 300 years and a Yes vote which has wavered above and below 50 per cent. For a future independence vote to be decided on a simple majority would only prolong the division and bitterness existing in Scotland and would not bring about the stability craved.

It's up to Ms Sturgeon and her party to present a credible plan covering finance, trade, currency etc. and persuade the Scottish people of the benefits of separation before any decision on independence; if done convincingly it could gain the 60 per cent support needed. As it stands, she is asking the public to trust her without revealing her independence blueprint, if it exists, and ”trust” is something I would not countenance in respect of any politician.

Bob MacDougall, Kippen, Stirlingshire

Drink to that?

Smoking within 15 metres of a hospital is now banned as part of the Scottish Government’s intent to ban smoking completely by 2034. Next on the social engineering agenda must surely be Prohibition, as unit pricing of alcohol has not worked.

Malcolm Parkin, Kinnesswood, Kinross

Sinking feeling

You really couldn’t make it up. Not only have the much needed new ferries for Scottish western islands been delayed – with the Glen Sannox spuriously and prematurely “launched” by Nicola Sturgeon in 2017, but now scheduled to have its maiden voyage in 2023 – but it has turned out that it and its equally delayed counterpart, Hull 802, cannot be accommodated by ports such as Ardrossan, for whose adaptation the contract has yet to be put out to tender.

This is a fable for our times, a sorry commentary on the stewardship of Scotland and its essential, devolved affairs by the SNP administration. I’d like to say that at least they can’t blame Westminster for this, but you can bet they will have a jolly good try.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh

Blind to reality

Being a calculating populist, the First Minister was always going to bide her time at the Edinburgh Fringe, let rubbish pile up and then wade in as a saviour standing up for “the workers.”By brokering this pay deal, the Scottish Government has effectively caved in to council, police and railway employees’ wage demands in quick succession. They will undoubtedly do likewise if teachers, nurses or any other group take industrial action.Hardly surprising behaviour, given that today’s SNP are mainly defectors from Scottish Labour’s hard left, repackaged in a Saltire. Surrendering to union pressure for unaffordable pay increases inevitably fuels inflation, soon making these higher salaries meaningless in real terms.And the First Minister herself acknowledges further cuts to services will be necessary to finance this latest capitulation. Higher wages, higher taxes and a government which instinctively gives in to strikers further undermines Scotland’s reputation as an attractive business environment. But separatists remain wilfully blind to the gloomy science of economics if it contradicts their own unworkable doctrines.

Martin O’Gorman, Edinburgh

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line. Do not send letters submitted elsewhere. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.

Subscribe

Subscribe at www.scotsman.com/subscriptions