SNP only party to reject democracy in Scotland after 2014 referendum

Sir, – Ian Wallace suggested in The Courier (November 29) that the UK is not a voluntary union – a phrase picked up by many in the last few weeks and quickly dismissed as nonsense, historically and politically.

He further suggests democracy in Scotland is similar to the march of fascism. As a former RAF serviceman and son of a Royal Navy serviceman, a brother also an RAF serviceman, I take great exception to this slur. As Mr Wallace knows, the United Kingdom stood alone in Europe against real fascism.

The rest is history and we still speak English because of it.

He goes further and suggests we in Scotland are being denied the chance to test our will. All I can say is Scotland’s will was tested in 2014 and the only people to reject democracy were the SNP.

Approximately 33% of the electorate vote SNP. One third. In any referendum, votes count, seats in a skewed system do not.

Your correspondent claims the Scotland Act can be changed. By whom? The SNP seemed happy to sign up to the Scotland Act which laid out devolved issues and non-devolved issues.

As they know full well, constitutional matters are not a devolved issue. Perhaps Ms Sturgeon forgot.

Why does Mr Wallace, in his opinion, suggest the Supreme Court judges thought that a second referendum would have a real world impact and so deny the vote because of the effect on the Union?

The judges merely reviewed the Scotland Act as was their remit and quickly and unanimously concluded that the terms of the act, signed by all parties, were conclusive.

As for his statement about international law suggesting it has never said oppression and subject to violence is dependent on these matters.

Well, these cases involved were tested in regard to potential separation matters involving Quebec and Kosovo.

Any pretendy and illegal referendum in the next election would be merely a gesture and cannot achieve anything legally. How would the SNP review the result of such an election?

Our elections are fought on a first past the post system with added list MSPs, the seat being won by the candidate with the greater number of votes.

A referendum would be fought on total votes won across the entire country.

How would they square that conundrum? Would they claim victory on the number of seats won or would victory go to the party winning the greatest number of votes?

After the Supreme Court ruling, may I suggest the ball is not in the Unionist court but having been in the Supreme Court, is now well and truly in the SNP court where match point is looming against the one-trick party.

Little wonder they can’t even run a party in a brewery let alone their own party without the additional taxpayers’ money to finance SNP coffers, assisted by the supposedly politically neutral civil service in order to fund something outwith their remit. Refund now.