IT is demonstrated once again that Scotland is broadly evenly split on independence. The opposition parties exploit this by maintaining that division.
Their problem is that they fail to understand that a split of opinion like this can never be resolved while fact-based reasonable opinion remains untested.
What they are promoting instead is that because the split exists, we are going to impose the status quo regardless. If that split was more polarised there is a case for that position, but it isn’t, and all the while the perceived injustices and constraints continue, then there will always be a demand for radical change.
The division will not go away or be “healed” without a resolution to the reasons why that division exists.
“Do as you’re told” no longer works, and merely entrenches views. Under the D’Hondt PR system, such divisions are more likely to remain unresolved, so while retaining the benefits of PR the only way of resolving significant differences is for informed debates and public referendums as and when they occur.
It should be well noted that comparing election results based on the way that Westminster works, by constituencies, the SNP won 62 of the 73 seats. The opposition, by relying on the advantages of PR, are in effect denying that majority position their chosen way forward.
Nick Cole
Meigle
TAKING a long-term view of Unionist tactical voting, it could be argued that it gives a series of constituency snapshots of the size of the popular vote for and against independence at the moment, before an indyref2 campaign starts. A voter so wedded to Unionism as to switch allegiance is likely to be a lost cause.
On a lighter note, Unionist MSPs who clearly benefited from tactical voting can and should be reminded of their status by frequent “mistaken” references such as “Jackie Baillie, the Tory member for Dumbarton”.
Derek Ball
Bearsden
IT has not taken long for the more demented support of Unionism to hit social media. Already crazy and demented arithmetic is being used to show that there is no mandate for a second referendum; that in fact, the people did not vote for that!
It is of course stuff and nonsense produced by a servile few, those that will not get up from bended knee and shake off the shackles of Oxbridge overlordship.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Johnson has asked for a summit with Nicola, presumably to discuss the way forward and probably would not have felt obligated to do so if there was no mandate in place.
For any party to win 62 constituent seats on the back of three consecutive terms of government should be recognised as a great success – but then again, those doing the demented arithmetic have no place in their set up for the Scottish Parliament, nor I guess for the two independence-supporting parties that will bring the independence referendum to fruition.
So my post-election message to the deniers of reality is to switch off your IT kit, climb out of your cellar, remove the tin foil hat, get some fresh air and join in with that reality you so easily dismiss.
Finally, I need to give credit where credit is due. I was watching the BBC news channel for about 40 minutes, starting just after 5pm on Saturday night. It sounded a balanced series of Q&A sessions which is all I have ever asked for from the MSM.
Our future is bright, Scotland’s independence is right.
Cliff Purvis
Veterans For Scottish Independence 2.0
LOOKING at the results, even without the Greens support, the SNP have achieved a clear and inarguable majority over the Unionist parties combined.
Don’t let anyone try to spin there is no clear mandate for indyref2 based on this result!
It is perverse and bizarre logic to count Green MSPs in the Unionist tally when assessing our mandate, given their clear manifesto commitment to supporting indyref2. Yet by focusing on simple overall majority, this is precisely the nonsensical spin being peddled.
The Greens could all nip out for a pint on this debate, and the SNP would still hold a comfortable parliamentary majority!
Glenn Stuart
Renfrewshire
THERE are plenty examples of Labour and LibDem MSPs who have rode into Holyrood on the backs of Tory voters. But one particular MSP, as he is often so successful at doing, leaves a particularly sour taste in the mouth.
Alex Cole-Hamilton is generally known for his abrasiveness, so we shouldn’t be entirely surprised when another example of his crass behaviour springs up.
But this particular example came just minutes after the polls had closed on Thursday.
Mr Hamilton took to Twitter to announce, with clear underlying joy, that those communities who backed Yes in 2014 from Edinburgh West had not showed up at polling stations, whilst No-voting communities had turned up in their numbers.
The oblique message here, which Mr Hamilton was clearly ecstatic about, was that those from the most deprived and marginalised communities had not exercised their democratic right.
He may take comfort in this fact but I implore those from communities that didn’t vote in Edinburgh West to find their voice and ensure they are never again supressed by the likes of Alex Cole-Hamilton.
Gary Hogarth
via email
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