Lessons learned

Your editorial in favour of a second referendum got me thinking about what we have learned in the last few years about referendums. What both the 2014 referendum and the Brexit vote have taught us is that referendums don’t work if the side that loses does not accept the result. In both cases, no-one knew what they were voting for really, and any hint of trouble ahead was dismissed, often in very aggressive and intimidating terms.

It seems like we have learned three things. Firstly, any vote has to be on the final negotiated outcome, so that people know what they are getting. That implies a two stage process, in which Stage One, be that a preparatory referendum or an election vote, is required to achieve a mandate for a negotiation, and Stage Two is a public vote on the agreed outcome. In life, you get what you negotiate, and anything else is merely daydreaming.

Secondly ,50 percent plus one is not a suitable majority for change if the balance of argument is close on how best to proceed. In almost any organisation you care to mention, a super majority is required to make changes to the constitution. The SNP themselves require a two thirds majority to change their own constitution. We need to ask for this as well.

Finally, as the Brexit process demonstrated, a Yes option gives a significant advantage to the side arguing for this. The Leave/ Remain options are fair to both sides.

If, knowing what we now know, another referendum arises in Scotland, we need to change the question, increase the mandate required for change, and above all, we need a two-stage process. Anything else will mean that we have learned nothing at all from our recent experiences. VICTOR CLEMENTS

Aberfeldy, Perthshire