Let’s talk and then vote

PETER A Russell (Letters, August 31) makes an excellent point regarding the idea of a postlegislative referendum following the Norwegian model. Thrashing out the details of crucial matters like Scotland’s share of the UK national debt, dispersal of nuclear weapons from Scotland, the relationship of Scotland to the UK currency post-independence or the establishment of a Scottish pound are central to the decisionmaking process for voters.

It would allow the Westminster Parliament to fully (and patiently no doubt) explain to the Scottish people why, after 300 years of union, the Scottish economy is too weak to stand on its own, and the Scottish people are, for whatever reason, inferior in their moral and intellectual make-up to small neighbouring northern

European neighbouring states. Conversely, it would allow the SNP and other independencesupporting MPS to explain the process and path to independence, and how a new Scottish currency and economy would be established and operated. It would also allow the Scottish Government to initiate contacts with neighbouring EU states to scope the relationship we might expect with them.

A debate in Westminster, concluding with an agreed pre-referendum agreement and a legal path to an independence referendum would tell us all that we, the voters, need to know.

Let’s get on with it.

John Jamieson, Ayr.

PETER A Russell (Letters, August 31) is spouting nonsense when he claims that the referendum which established devolution in Scotland was post-legislative.

The referendum to which he refers was held on September 11, 1997 and the resultant Scotland Act followed in 1998. I should know because I was one of the legislators.

If the 1997 precedent is followed, then Indyref2 should also be pre-legislative.

Dennis Canavan, Bannockburn.