Bound­ary dis­pute

The Scotsman - - Perspective / Letters To The Editor -

So un­der pro­posed con­stituency bound­ary changes, Scot­land would lose six MPS out of the pro­posed cull of 50 Westminster seats (Brian Mon­teith, 12 Septem­ber). The pri­mary ob­jec­tive of the changes would in­clude at­tempt­ing to even out voter num­bers per con­stituency across the UK while re­duc­ing the fi­nan­cial bur­den of MPS upon the tax­payer.

Com­mon sense? Of course, but not to the SNP, who seize on the chance of man­u­fac­tur­ing yet an­other anti-westminster grievance. Stewart Hosie, one of the many SNP MPS com­plain­ing, just doesn’t get it, does he?

MARTIN RED­FERN Wood­croft Road, Ed­in­burgh

Dur­ing First Min­is­ter’s Ques­tions I was amused to hear Ni­cola Stur­geon’s re­ac­tion to the EIS teach­ing union by de­scrib­ing their con­dem­na­tion of test­ing of P1 chil­dren as “a dif­fer­ence of opin­ion”.

This re­flects well on her lawyer’s train­ing in how to han­dle se­vere crit­i­cism of her cur­rent ed­u­ca­tion pol­icy which is now in tat­ters and un­der­lines her po­si­tion with all the unions as “a dif­fer­ence of opin­ion”

DEN­NIS FORBES GRAT­TAN Mugiemoss Road, Bucks­burn

Vince Ca­ble makes a per­fectly log­i­cal point. Those in the SNP de­mand­ing a sec­ond Brexit “di­vorce terms’’ ref­er­en­dum can­not com­plain if should an­other in­de­pen­dence ref­er­en­dum be held and – I accept it is most un­likely – won by the sep­a­ratists, a sec­ond ref­er­en­dum would have to fol­low to val­i­date the di­vorce terms.

All this quag­mire proves is that un­less a two-thirds or three-quar­ters ma­jor­ity is set, ref­er­en­dums set­tle noth­ing and in fact worsen mat­ters in any con­sti­tu­tional de­bate.

ALEXAN­DER MCKAY New Cut Rigg, Ed­in­burgh

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.