Devolved minds

I agree with the headline of you editorial in The Scotsman (29 March), but I cannot agree with your conclusion that “Now is not the time is not good enough.”

You claim that “It is impossible to argue that the democratic will of Scotland is not being denied if the Scottish Parliament votes for a referendum.” Well how about this argument; constitutional matters are not devolved and therefore the Scottish Parliament has no right to take up its valuable time in debating and voting on a matter over which it has no constitutional competence without the permission of the UK Government.

The democratic mandate given to the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish people was to conduct the business of devolved government only in respect of devolved matters, not those beyond that remit.

Those same Scottish people, along with their fellow citizens in all other parts of the UK, gave the UK Government a mandate to deal with constitutional matters and within that context, the Prime Minister’s response to the First Minister was entirely right and properly constitutional.

It really is time the media held the Scottish Government to account on the matters which the Scottish people elected it to look after, and trying to manoeuvre for another independence referendum is neither within the competence of the Scottish Government nor in the wishes or interest of the Scottish people.

ALAN THOMSON Kilcamb Paddock, Strontian In a week when the press will no doubt be full of news and analysis of the SNP’S demand for a second independence referendum, loyally supported by the Greens, it is worth reflecting upon the fact that the Scottish Parliament has passed no legislation in over a year.

The SNP slogan is Stronger For Scotland. One has to ask: Stonger for What? Stronger for Who?

ERIC CHRISTISON Craighouse Gardens, Edinburgh

I don’t think the SNP is being straightforward with us about its desire for a second referendum on independence.

It told us the last one was a once-in-a-generation opportunity. I believed this, and, after the No vote, supposed it would shut up shop for 20 years.

But it hasn’t, the SNP is continuing to fight, which inevitably means asking the question again. Since it is not going to wait a generation, it has been casting about for excuses, and has found one in Brexit.

The SNP is damaging itself by advancing justifications for Indyref2 that we all know are specious. It would at least gain Brownie points for honesty if it told us: “We think you got it wrong. Try again.”

Waiting a generation would, in fact, be the canny thing to do. It will be that long before we know how well independent Britain is doing.

It may be a roaring success – in which case, won’t we look daft if we have jumped ship prematurely?

GEORGE BYRON Comely Bank Avenue, Edinburgh

John Donald writes that, in the event of independence, he will leave and take his taxes with him to the “hated England”. (Letters, 29 March).

In that event, while sadly regretting his absence, I am sure Scotland will get on just fine, and he will be able to sell his house to one of the many English people moving north to escape the ravages of “hard Brexit”. However, hating England is a very rare thing in Scotland, and completely absent in the SNP, where many English people are welcome and key supporters.

JAMES DUNCAN Rattray Grove, Edinburgh

Reading the letter from John Donald I felt he was as guilty of assuming “moral superiority” over those taking a different stance from him as he accuses the SNP of doing. I also don’t understand his apparent assumption that independence would mean government by rabid nationalists. I would have thought that if ever independence came about it would lead, quite quickly, to the splintering of the SNP and the resumption of “normal” politics where Tweedledum, in due season, takes over from Tweedledee and vice versa.

In any case, I don’t find it at all difficult to disengage from the political argybargy and interest myself in other matters.

S BECK Craigleith Drive, Edinburgh

It is very clear that Gill Turner does not understand how economic statistics such as the GERS are assembled (Letters, 30 March). Projections for the future are indeed estimates, but they are recognised as being within the plus or minus 2 per cent range of accuracy.

Perhaps Ms Turner can tell us why she regards the GERS figures as unreliable when her party’s leaders, including Ms Sturgeon and Messrs Salmond, Swinney, Robertson, Hosie and Yousaf, are on record as treating them as, yes, authoritative?

JILL STEPHENSON Glenlockhart Valley, Edinburgh