Poll precedent

In a parallel universe Nicola Sturgeon honours signing the Edinburgh agreement and accepts the clear result of the Scottish independence referendum. The First Minister then accepts the result of the Uk-wide EU referendum and, while noting her disappointment, pledges to help the UK government obtain the best deal possible: with one caveat – if Brexit is as disastrous as she fears then she will be back in ten years’ time for a second vote on Scottish independence.

Democratic credentials intact, a long-term strategy deployed, in such a scenario the nationalists would probably win.

However, back in the real world, the SNP having failed to respect the two referendum results, we now have Nicola Sturgeon stating “loudly and clearly” that the SNP would support, in the House of Commons, a people’s vote for a further referendum on the exit deal reached with the EU, with

an option for the UK to remain in the EU.

In the event of a second Scottish independence referendum, therefore, the precedent has been set: if Scotland voted to leave the UK there will then be a follow-up people’s vote on the exit terms agreed with the rest of the UK, with an option for Scotland to remain in the

UK. This will have been duly noted by the UK political parties.

BRUCE HALLIDAY Dalbeattie Road, Dumfries

I refer to Alexander Mckay’s announcement (Letters, 19 October) that although he voted Remain he accepts the 2016 referendum result as

being the “democratic will of the people”.

I submit, as justification for my total disagreement with him, two quotes from John Major’s Michael Quinlan Lecture (16 October): “No form of Brexit will remotely match up to the promises made by the leave campaign in the referendum: they were vote-gathering fantasies, not serious politics” and “they persuaded a deceived population to vote to be weaker and poorer. That will never be forgotten – nor forgiven” .

How can Mr Mckay accept such a scandalous and selfserving subversion of the processes of democracy? In spite of the lies, of the breaking of election law, 65 per cent of the electorate did not vote for Brexit, my point being, in the words of the philosopher AC Grayling: “There is scarcely any civilised state in the world where a simple majority, let alone a small one, would permit this: for such a change, a supermajority would be required, of 60 per cent or 66 per cent either of votes cast or the entire electorate.”

I shall never accept the legitimacy of the outcome of the 2016 Referendum.

JOHN MILNE Ardgowan Drive, Uddingston