THE juxtaposition of exhortations in favour of a referendum on independence, by John McAllion, MP, to Donald Dewar, and by your columnist Michael Fry to the Tory hierarchy in Scotland, is striking. Considering that their respective pleas are already mirrored by elements within the Scottish Lib-Dems, it is clear that the ground of Scotland's political landscape continues to shift. A very significant new fault line is emerging and it runs right through all of the three ''British'' political parties.
What we see is that committed Scottish members of these three parties, all of them professed Unionists, believe that it is right for the people of Scotland to be consulted on this matter. At the same time, the leadership of each of the Unionist parties has set its face firmly against giving the people of Scotland such an opportunity to express their collective will.
The reason for this situation arising is the same for New Labour, Tories, and Lib Dems alike. The leadership focuses on a Westminster agenda, whereas the ''dissidents'' focus on a Scottish one.
Unless Donald Dewar, Jim Wallace, and whoever their equivalent is for the Tories change their focus, the fault line between them and their members like John McAllion will develop into a rift. When that happens, those same members may realise that their respective leaderships are also on the opposite side from the people of Scotland!
George Gebbie
47 Camphill Avenue, Glasgow.
May 20.
JOHN McAllion, MP, Labour's perennial dissident, is at it once again, according to Murray Ritchie's report (May 20). This time he is proposing that, as a tactical move, the Government should agree to the Scottish Parliament being given the powers to hold an independence referendum very soon after its inauguration.
This appears to have been a reaction to the news that the SNP have retreated from their commitment that such a referendum would be a priority, if they won power in the new parliament; now of course, they have changed their tune, and it has to be sometime during the first four-year term!
All this kind of manoeuvring seems likely to add to the confusion of the electors in the run-up to next year's elections. Supporters of devolution, like John McAllion, should really be challenging the SNP on the weaknesses of their arguments in favour of Scotland separating itself from the rest of the United Kingdom rather than plugging the idea of an early referendum.
The elections themselves will be a much better test of the opinions of the Scottish people on all the issues which will confront our new MSPs rather than simply the question of so-called independence.
Tom Fulton,
21 Main Street, Dalrymple, Ayr.
May 20.
WHY is there any need for a referendum on Scottish independence?
If the SNP were to stand in the election for the Scottish Parliament as ''the party of independence'' then, if it won by a big majority, the decision of the people would be clear. The same would be true if it were to be clearly defeated.
Use of a referendum is simply a device to enable politicians to unload responsibility for decisions by making them ''the will of the people''. What is the purpose of an election if not to establish ''the will of the people''? The politicians who win an election should have the intestinal fortitude to get on with the job for which they were elected - governing the country.
Bill Scott,
23 Lynn Drive, Eaglesham. May 19.
AS the question of a referendum of Scotland's constitutional future seems to be a current hot topic, I would like to state the position of the Scottish Green Party on this issue. We could after all end up holding the balance of power in Edinburgh, as this first opportunity for people to vote under a proportional system should result in the smaller parties gaining several seats.
The Scottish Green Party has always advocated independence for Scotland, and as such we would have no trouble supporting the call for a referendum - provided it asked all the questions, including whether Scotland should be in or out of the European Union.
At the last election we advocated a multi-option referendum (and not the limited-option referendum put forward by others who would only trust the electorate with certain questions). Our position hasn't changed.
Dr Eleanor Scott,
Social Affairs Speaker,
Scottish Green Party,
8 Culcairn Road, Evanton, Dingwall.
May 19.
ACCORDING to Andrew Baird (Letters, May 20), I have warned Scots not to vote for an independent Parliament.
May I respectfully point out that this was not what I said, nor what I am reported to have said, at a conference in Ayrshire on Monday? What I did say was that under a devolved Scottish Parliament we must be careful of the signals we send to our neighbours, given the economic importance of our relationship with them.
A Scottish Parliament does not mean that we are turning our backs on England, but merely removing a piece of grit in the machinery that was in danger of impairing, possibly permanently, our relationship with the English.
This is especially so in tourism, now one of Scotland's largest industries and worth #2500m annually to the local economy. It is a fact that 68% of leisure tourism spending in Scotland comes from the English market and it is an important part of the Scottish Tourist Board's role to ensure that this continues into the future.
It seems to me that this is not a political mesage of any kind, but represents sound economic sense.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane,
Chairman, Scottish Tourist Board,
23 Ravelston Terrace, Edinburgh.
May 20.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article