Letters: Why is Sturgeon running scared of the 60% indy rule?

So why is Nicola Sturgeon not happy? It seems, as with most things, she wants her own way on Indyref2. She wants to decide when it is held, what question is asked, and what its terms and conditions will be. The UK Government, and indeed the rest of Scotland, are meant to go along with what Ms Sturgeon wants, like it or not.

To convince 60% of Scots that Indyref2 is what we need, our First Minister knows she would need to start revealing her hand on all manner of contentious issues, from currency, to the border with the UK, from the steps required to make our economy sustainable, to the terms and timing of EU membership. Instead, on all these and more, Ms Sturgeon wants to bide her time, springing the whole thing on Scotland on her terms and timetable, hoping to catch out those who do not agree with her.

Keith Howell, West Linton.

* NICOLA Sturgeon and her party are outraged by the suggestion made by Alister Jack that a referendum might be held if opinion polls consistently showed 60% support for such a thing over a lengthy period. The SNP has changed its tune. Ms Sturgeon pronounced in 2015 that 60% support for independence would have to be evident for a year before she would call a referendum.

There is nothing outrageous about requiring 60% support for separatism as a hurdle for holding a referendum, or, for that matter, for winning a referendum. Momentous constitutional change requires overwhelming support. Why, the SNP itself requires a more stringent two-thirds majority for any change to its own constitution. Why is what is good enough for the SNP too good for the people of Scotland?

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh.

* MARK Smith's admission that Alister Jack's version of the 60% rule "may be a little devious and unacceptable" ("Even nationalists must accept the 60% independence rule", The Herald, August 30) must be a contender for the understatement of the year. Mr Smith is quite correct when he points out that the SNP won 85% of the constituency seats last May, but he is quite wrong if he assumes that because the SNP and the Greens' combined vote in the constituencies was 49% and the vote for the Tories, Labour and LibDems lumped together was 50%, that the unionist parties would win an independence referendum; there are people who vote for these parties at elections, but who also believe in independence (including some Tories) and will vote accordingly at a referendum.

Furthermore, I very much doubt if 60% of voters would recognise the devious and unacceptable Mr Jack if they fell over him.

Ruth Marr, Stirling.

FOLLOW DEVOLUTION BALLOT EXAMPLE

IT was interesting to read the letter from Peter Dryburgh (August 30) regarding the process by which Norway became independent from Sweden in 1905. What is especially germane is that by the time the referendum took place that year, the Swedish Parliament had already decided that Norway should be able to secede, subject to the agreement of the Norwegian people.

In other words, the Norwegian model is based on a post-legislative referendum, as indeed was the most successful referendum held in the UK – that which established the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales. This is hardly surprising as in such a process, people know what exactly they are voting for and against.

Conversely we know what a pre-legislative referendum brings us – we only need to look at Brexit to see the chaos that ensues. Moreover, a prominent figure in the campaign to add a post-legislative referendum to the Brexit process was none other than Nicola Sturgeon. Let us hope that when she finally gets round to her long-promised Indyref2 bill, it proposes a post-legislative referendum as she has advocated and as illustrated in Mr Dryburgh’s Norwegian parallel.

Peter A Russell, Glasgow.

IT'S TIME TO CUT THE CORD

WHY does anyone listen to Gordon Brown ("Brown claims independence has become a ‘more extreme’ project", The Herald, August 30)? His case against Scottish independence and for the Union is as flaccid as ever.

Since 2014, Scotland has been ejected from the EU Single Market, has endured English Votes for English Laws, the Internal Market Act that is eviscerating the powers of our Scottish Parliament, the cratering of our export-driven economy, and labour and food shortages. The social safety net is being further shredded and the UK is increasing the number of nuclear weapons and the likelihood of an accident just outside our largest city. After all of that, it’s surprising Scotland isn’t already independent. What other nation would put up with this level of incompetence and bullying from another?

And yes, Mr Brown, Scotland will of course have its own currency and central bank, just like any normal country, so we can set our own spending priorities and interest rates to eliminate poverty and create a fairer and greener economy. We will forge new trading links with Europe, join EFTA, rid ourselves of English nukes, control our own resources and keep our money here in Scotland.

The SNP Government complains it has one hand tied behind its back. It’s time to cut the cord and with both hands, fight for Scotland.

Leah Gunn Barrett, Edinburgh.

STRANGLEHOLD BECKONS

DOES the SNP-Scottish Greens agreement ("Conservatives vow to lead opposition against ‘reckless’ SNP-Green deal", The Herald, August 30) send an ominous signal on the future of Scottish politics?

The difficulty is this: if the Scottish Greens survive public scrutiny given their new high profile, how will they fare at the next Scottish General election?

If they emerge healthy, will the electorate be emboldened to vote more Scottish Greens into power, the general direction among younger voters, hence cementing another coalition, and emboldening them to be ever more radical?

Both parties, I'm sure, would welcome that super-majority stranglehold over the country.

A Halliday, Newton Mearns.

COME CLEAN ON SHORTAGES

IN the past few weeks I have been going out for my weekly shop and noticing that shelves are emptier than they usually are and that I have been unable to get some items that I would have hoped for. This situation is becoming ever more serious as we see reports of shortages in supply in our health service too, empty shelves we can cope with, but the NHS being without the supplies it needs is downright dangerous.

We have heard the UK Government blame this development on the so-called "pingdemic", however I have not seen one single other country experience shortages in food or medical supplies. Unless it has slipped under the radar, as far as I am aware, these countries are still in the grips of the pandemic, but still I have seen no reports of similar problems.

This leads us to conclude that Brexit is holding up goods at the border. Some are not even getting as far as that, as the exodus of European workers means there is a shortage of warehouse operatives, lorry drivers and other key workers.

The Tories need to come clean and admit that their obsession with Brexit means we cannot get the vital supplies we need.

Stephen Sime, Stirling.

PM PUTS DANCING GOVE TO SHAME

THE sight of an "over-refreshed" Michael Gove dancing wildly to techno music at an Aberdeen's nightclub is not for the lily-livered ("Gove gets into the groove at nightclub", The Herald August 30). It was not a surprise to me that this loon apparently tried to avoid the £5 entry fee by telling the bouncers he was the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He has a long way to go to catch up with Boris Johnson's reluctance to pay for his Downing Street flat improvements and foreign holidays.

David G Will, Milngavie.

Read more: We must have a lockdown until all over-12s are jabbed