Seeking harmony on independence

Mr Martin Payne (Letters, 29 May) takes issue with the scenario in which Scottish independence is gained on 51 per cent of the vote.

In his view, a proper mandate would be represented by around 70 per cent in favour. One consequence of this, however, is that, in the event of the final vote being 69 per cent for and 31 per cent against, he is advocating that a minority of voters is able to dictate to the rest. How does he equate this to democracy?

Mr Payne mentions major change as the outcome of a Yes vote and uses this as a justification for a skewed poll. He seems to consider only that major change is a bad thing.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

If a majority of voters wants independence then he has failed to see that they may have the opposite viewpoint to his, and feel their country would be better off with the people of Scotland making the decisions that affect their country, rather than politicians in London who run Britain for the benefit of the south-east of England.

Rose McAulay

Torridon Walk

Livingston

Martin Payne asks some crucial questions. Agreed, a 51 per cent (or a “majority of one”) is quite insufficient in such a vote where resulting independence could almost certainly never be reversed.

He also raises Mr Salmond’s suggestion of votes for 16- and 17-year-olds.

The reason for that is obvious: the SNP is essentially a one-man band, raucous and cacophonous, with the characteristics of that other one-man-band, the Pied Piper who also tried to seduce the youth with the promise of a better land.

However, we know that it ended in oblivion. Remember what Oscar Wilde said: “The young are always ready to give those who are older the full benefit of their inexperience.” I will be voting No.

(Dr) Andrew Gunn

Letham

Angus

The Unionist parties only started talking about improved devolution when they began to realise that Scotland might indeed choose independence.

We have been here three times before – in the 1945 general election after Robert McIntyre won Motherwell, under Ted Heath and Lord Home, and in the Wilson/Callaghan Labour government, whose promise was sabotaged by his own MPs.

If they really wanted to improve devolution they could have done so in the recent lame-duck Scotland Act. If they now want to offer more, now is the time to do so.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The line that they can only consider further devolution after the threat of independence has been removed is the exact opposite of the truth.

Only while the “threat” of independence hangs over them will the Unionists even talk about extending Holyrood’s powers to any significant extent.

The solution is simple. If they are sincere, the coalition – with the support of the Labour Party, which leads the Unionist cause in Scotland – should enact their best offer. We can then have a straight choice between the Unionist offer and independence.

If Scotland votes No we will hear no more of improved devolution. We are more likely to find proposals to reduce the powers of the Scottish Government.

John Smart

Kinneddar Street

Lossiemouth

It WAS with stunned disbelief that I read the letter from the SNP’s Alex Orr (29 May). Now we know. It is not the economic argument, nor is it any historical case, nor anything “self-evident” that propels those who want to break up the UK. It is the fact that some in the SNP think a broken-off Scotland would do better in the Eurovision Song Contest. I had to check the date to make sure it was not the first of April.

Alexander McKay

New Cut Rigg

Edinburgh

That’s it then: I have to vote Yes in the independence referendum because Alex Orr tells us that an independent Scotland will spur its English neighbour on to win the Eurovision Song Contest.

Seriously, if this, and a celebrity bingo afternoon at Fountainbridge leisure complex, is the best the SNP can come up with after years of planning, the Yes campaign is in trouble already, isn’t it?

Two years of this sort of nonsense is going to become very wearisome.

David Fiddimore

Calton Road

Edinburgh