Sturgeon has a problem with democracy

YOU report that Nicola Sturgeon has “reset” the SNP’s demand for a second referendum on independence (“Sturgeon puts her plan for Union vote on back burner”, The Herald, June 28). This puts Ms Sturgeon in a strange and contradictory position.

In September, 2014 the Scottish people voted against so-called independence. Ms Sturgeon rejected the vote. In 2017 she demanded that the Scottish Parliament support a second referendum. The Parliament duly voted in support of her demand. But now Ms Sturgeon has rejected that vote as well.

These events prompt two questions. Does our First Minister have a problem agreeing with democratic votes? And has Ms Sturgeon been taking secret lessons from Theresa May on “strong and stable” leadership?

Alex Gallagher,

Labour Councillor,

North Ayrshire Council, 12 Phillips Avenue, Largs.

NICOLA Sturgeon once liked to reassure us that a second independence referendum would only happen when the people of Scotland wanted it. Now it is clear that the decision will be hers, and hers alone. Our First Minister has reserved the right in the years leading up to the 2021 Holyrood election, to call a referendum rerun when she decides the time is advantageous. This will be based on the evolving deal on Brexit and the SNP’s prospects in that next election.

Ms Sturgeon is determined to protect the SNP’s interests, particularly when political momentum is with her opponents and after 2021 could mean she would lose the ability to impose her will on Scotland.

Keith Howell,

White Moss,

West Linton, Peebleshire.

I HAVE listened to Nicola Sturgeon’s speech to the Scottish Parliament on the outcome of her reflections upon the results of the General Election and the holding of another independence referendum.

She said that she had consulted much in arriving at her conclusions and that, in no longer pressing for a second referendum soon, she would spend time making the case for an independent Scotland in order to win more people over. She will make the case that it is better for decisions to be made by us and not for us.

There was no reference to the fact that SNP governments have been making decisions for us in many areas for an appreciable time involving devolved powers and not exactly covering themselves in glory in the process. Anyone looking for the hint of a “mea culpa” from our First Minister was to be disappointed. She was singularly unrepentant over lack of performance in relation to matters such as education, police, NHS, and payments to farmers. She is “proud” of the SNP’s record.

She will ensure that the Government she leads will pursue “bold and radical” policies. That, at least, will be a dramatic change. What was unspoken was the fact that after the results of the recent General Election, she realised that she would not win another independence referendum if she insisted upon one and the Prime Minister conceded to such a request. She would have us believe that such a consideration played no part in her conclusions expressed in her speech at Holyrood. It was indeed a less than convincing performance by our First Minister.

Ian W Thomson, 38 Kirkintilloch Road, Lenzie.

IN his analysis piece (“Decision to delay referendum bill was failure dressed up as virtue”, The Herald, June 28) Tom Gordon advises us that “the Unionist parties had been expecting something far more substantial” from the First Minister’s statement to the Scottish Parliament. It does though seem clear that to be “substantial” in a way to satisfy the opposition, it would have had to amount to “we surrender”.

The First Minister pointed out in her speech: “We have now won two elections with that explicit commitment (a referendum if Scotland was to be taken out of the EU against its will) in our manifesto, and the Scottish Parliament has already endorsed the position”, going on to observe, “by any normal standard of democracy that mandate is beyond question”. Not, though, in the present condition of democracy in Scotland, where winning a majority of members, or being able to assemble a majority of members for your proposition – the normal lingua franca of UK democracy – is undermined and subordinated to any criterion that can be used to question holding a referendum. One wonders how they justify “Ms Sturgeon was in denial, about the depth of people’s opposition to a referendum” when the SNP still has a majority of Scottish MPs, and more MSPs and local councillors than any other party?

One reason given by Mr Gordon in your front page article is that the June 8 outcome was the worst “reverse” for the SNP for more than 40 years, which was the 1979 general election. Then the SNP was reduced to a single MP, having previously held 11 seats. Going from 11 to one is one thing, but going from 56 to 35 in each case is a majority, though from comment in the media one might not realise this.

However, much the most significant part of the First Minister’s statement is her commitment not only to work on and develop the case for independence beyond Brexit (important though that is), but to “engage openly and inclusively with, and work as part of, the wider independence movement”. Whatever the date of the referendum, that case must be effectively convincing with no room for the doubts that existed last time, or for the scare stories of Project Fear, peddled by whatever succeeds Better Together. The campaign itself must be at least as inspirational as last time when support rose from around 28 per cent to almost 45 per cent. What is needed next are details of how the SNP will work with the wider Yes movement to achieve our mutual aim of independence, by growing support from the grass roots of the Scottish community.

This will though only be aided by further cases like the venal agreement with the DUP, and the disaster of the unfolding Brexit process. In that regard, it becomes easier to understand why the Unionist parties, and their bag carriers in the media, have focused on preventing another referendum at all costs, for all of this makes it increasingly likely they would lose.

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue, Dumbarton.

NOW that a second independence referendum has been put to bed if not to sleep, could someone please ask Ruth Davidson and Kezia Dugdale to stop trying to foster their own political careers by banging on about independence and tell the electorate what they are actually going to do for Scotland?

Unfortunately, one suspects that they haven’t a clue.

Martin Davidson,

The Studio, 2 Stradling Close, Chilton Polden, Somerset.

I NOTE the Rev Dr John Cameron’s astonishing statement that the post1945 SNP “struggled to shake off its association with the nationalist parties of Europe in the 1930s” (Letters, June 27). The SNP was founded in 1934 and operated as a democratic party seeking national independence. During the Second World War Labour-Tory-Liberal political truce, the SNP received 38 per cent of the vote in the Argyll by-election (1940), 41 per cent in Kirkcaldy Burghs (1944) and won the Motherwell by-election with 51 per cent of the vote in 1945.

Fascism, to which I presume the Rev Dr is referring, was the preserve of British nationalism – as in Moseley’s Blackshirts and, later, the National Front and BNP. The only Scottish politician interned during the war for extreme right-wing, Hitlerite sympathies was a Tory MP for the Borders. Scottish independence has a long and honourable pre-war history, supported by Jimmy Maxton, Tom Johnston, the Rev James Barr and John MacLean.

Tom Johnston,

SNP councillor, North Lanarkshire Council, 5 Burn View, Cumbernauld.