Referendums should be tool of last resort – and only if result is likely to be clear

Wherever you stand on the political spectrum, it is surely difficult to argue with Ruth Davidson’s assessment of how divisive referendums have proved to be (“Referendums have made people ‘bitter and angry’ says Davidson”, 4 May).

The after-shocks of both the European Union and the Scottish independence referendums have arguably been worse than the heated campaigns themselves.

It is perhaps human nature that many amongst the substantial minorities that did not get the outcome they wanted have since looked for ways of overturning the result.

Any of our political leaders tempted to go down the route of another referendum on either the EU or Scottish independence need to have a long, hard look at their motivations. Pure political ambition might argue for reruns until you get what you want, no matter the damage done to society in the process.

Yet those placing a greater priority on avoiding dividing people unnecessarily will hopefully conclude that a referendum should only be a tool of last resort, and even then only if the outcome is likely to be clear and unarguable.

As such, referendums would be best avoided unless polling suggests a significant majority, in excess of 60 per cent, is the likely credible outcome.

KEITH HOWELL

West Linton, Peeblesshire

So Ruth Davidson thinks that recent referendums have left people bitter and angry. Well, who would have known that?

And who was responsible for allowing these referendums? She doesn’t mention this, but it was, of course, her former Conservative party leader David Cameron. He bowed to pressure from Ukip and the right-wing zealots of his Tory party to grant the Brexit referendum, and the country and its citizens are going to be all the poorer as a result. And he almost split the Union in allowing the Scottish referendum, only being saved at the last minute by Gordon Brown.

A bit of mea culpa from Ruth Davidson would not go amiss.

PHIL TATE

Craiglockhart Road, Edinburgh

Joyce Mcmillan (4 May) declares that Brexit will be a “peril” and those who wish to proceed in a Brexit direction are “Brexit extremists”.

Brexit is Brexit and she should remember that the referendum result was for Brexit, not against it. She says “every economic assessment” indicated that Brexit would cause economic damage. Yet the assessments were decided first and the reports were written to reflect that outcome.

Clearly, her ideal outcome would be for the UK to remain in the single market, paying our dues, having no say in any decisions the EU make, slavishly following their rules yet unable to make trade agreements with any other country.

As Brexit goes, that would be like being “a little pregnant”.

She ignores the fact that the referendum was held to decide on UK membership of the EU and the decision has been made. “Brexit extremists” are doing what the British public decided and refusing to let Brexit be undermined.

On the positive side, Ms Mcmillan has suddenly discovered that Britain is “we” and the British economy is “our economy and society”. Brexit is “letting the rights and well-being of ordinary British citizens go hang in pursuit of their ideological project”.

How strange that someone who actively supports the break-up of the UK is suddenly so concerned with the rights of British citizens. I thought that she and her “ideological project” wanted to stop Scots being British citizens at all. It seems that she just cannot make her mind up.

ANDREW HN GRAY

Craiglea Drive, Edinburgh