I WRITE regarding a number of disturbing contributions from correspondents and columnists regarding the so-called Euroref2. Tony Martin of East Lothian4Europe (Letters, May 11) argues that what millions of Leave voters really did on June 23 2016 was to protest against austerity. The poor stupid people of Darlington and Doncaster and Dingwall just did not understand that when parliament decided to ask them to decide whether to leave or stay in the EU, this would have real constitutional significance. In other words, these people should be humoured and asked to get things right a second time. Just like the Irish, and the Danes and the Greek...
Mr Martin must be a brilliant man. Why bother with this democracy rubbish? Mr Martin, it seems, is running a “cross-party” campaign for his beloved EU. I wonder if he is campaigning with the Red Tories? Better Together EU?
Then we have Mr Eric Gillies (Letters, May 11), who is actually the most jaw-dropping of all. Being a veteran of the 1979 referendum for a Scottish Assembly I cannot actually believe that any nationalist would attempt to invoke the infamous undemocratic 40% rule introduced by George Cunningham. This rule poisoned Scottish politics for 20 years and arguably prevented Scottish independence. Yet Mr Gillies would use it to protect his beloved EU!
Thirdly, we have the whiny contribution by Kirsty Strickland (Another EU vote isn’t the referendum Scots need, May 12). Her article is a shining example of someone who reaches a sound conclusion (SNP should not support Euroref2) for all the wrong reasons. She states that Brexit is: “A shrine, where the clergy of ‘The Democratic will of the People’ lay gifts to show their devotion”. This is a fairly odd way to portray the result of the greatest democratic campaign in British history. Kirsty’s argument is essentially that “we wis robbed” and that though Nicola Sturgeon is a brilliant person, she cannot win on her own, and why should she be bothered anyway?
Nicola, it may be added, is showing terrible leadership on this. She says that another EU poll may become “irresistible”? What does that mean? Is she for such a poll or not?
The Leave vote was and is a vote for the UK to become an independent sovereign country and take back control of our laws, money and borders. Any politician who attempts to frustrate the clear decision of the electorate is “sowing the wind”. But for nationalists whose cause can ONLY be advanced though a valid positive vote for constitutional change through a referendum, the arguments cited by the contributors above are mad. When Yes wins indyref2 by 52% to 48% you can be sure that Unionists will come out shrieking that the poor stupid people of Dundee and Glasgow weren’t really voting for a Scottish navy and embassies. No, they just wanted higher benefits... Or what if we face a new 40% rule? How would you like that, Mr Gillies? Or worst of all, Unionists will argue that a Yes vote will have to be revalidated by a second vote when, years later, Scotland’s independence deal is clear.
Desperate SNP europhiles, seeking to disqualify a valid referendum result, will find their sword is double-edged. Do they fight for Edinburgh or Brussels?
William Ross
Address supplied
YES, independent Scotland should have a written constitution. Let’s get independence before deciding on what kind of head of state we have. Scottish monarchs were “of Scots”, of the people. England’s were “of England”, of the land (with which the people came). One option is that we remain “The Kingdom of the Scots”, declare the throne vacant (possibly after the death or abdication of the present holder) and choose a Guardian (on the precedent of Wallace and others) from the extended royal family of everyone living in Scotland. Or we might just let the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament act as head of state when we need one.
David Stevenson
Edinburgh
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here