I NOTE the First Minister’s tiresome refusal to accept the sovereign will of the people of Scotland on the year-old referendum result (“Sturgeon: The Union is living on borrowed time”, The Herald, September 18). The attitude of the SNP gives me the impression of an irritating child nagging for a stick of rock.

I believe the fact is that the winning vote was such because there are more rational thinkers in Scotland who supported the known status quo. I consider this was because no compelling imperative was presented a year ago, nor has since, as an overwhelming reason to divorce from Britannia and start up on our own. Otherwise I and many others would have certainly voted Yes.

However, I accept that believers in both camps are always going to have what is usually termed a “my-team bias”. This is self-fulfilling for a number of reasons. For example, voters as adults, have a natural tendency a filter out information presented to them in such a way as to reinforce earlier-held attitudes. We see this human trait daily in everything from religion to football supporters and why-it's-your-favourite supermarket. Indeed, very few people can leave all their luggage at the door and face without prejudice, let alone accept, the cold glaring facts before them.

Although there has been talk of a legacy in a heightened political awareness from a year ago I feel certain that many people usually mixed, both at work and socially, in the comfort zone of the company of like-minded types. I am certain that many people binned unread leaflets from the other camp and only read those newspapers which reinforced their already-embedded lifelong view of the world.

I doubt if many people who undertook such an important vote questioned their own decision-making skills, although some might now admit it was emotional and a singular perspective. I also suspect that many of the people who voted Yes took little objective advice but had a resolute belief in the sanctity of their own independent decisions in their perceived self-made lives. Personifying issues of statehood in a vote is surely a dangerous form of reductionism.

I feel that any suggestion another referendum within this century would be significantly different in outcome is total nonsense as it was not a party political vote. It was as much a survey providing a statement of national attitudes to life and more to do with voters' own dreams than Alex Salmond’s.

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive, Milngavie.

WHAT a leap of faith Nicola Sturgeon expects of the people of Scotland if she is to call another referendum (“Why I believe more than ever that we will be an independent country”, Agenda, The Herald, September 18). On the anniversary of the last vote, she tries to reassure us that being independent “would be in this nation’s best interests”. Yet there is so much evidence to the contrary.

First, the SNP’s performance in managing critical services for the last many years across health, education and police, has revealed many shortcomings. Why should we trust them to do a better job when responsible for everything?

Secondly, while economic prospects are not everything, in the last referendum the SNP’s projections used assumptions since revealed to be grossly overstated, not least of course the price of oil. Now we know the truth, and oil revenues are demonstrably a fraction of what they claimed they would be, why should we trust any figures the SNP puts before us?

Thirdly, we have the SNP’s ill-judged policies and laws. By far the worst, and something that will surely be thrown out by any future government less inclined to zealotry, is the named person legislation that brings state interference into the family. Why trust nationalists to have a free hand over every aspect of our lives?

It is indeed an incredible leap of faith that the First Minister expects of us if she is to see the clear lead she is looking for.

Keith Howell,

White Moss, West Linton, Peeblesshire.

NOW that we are anticipating the certainty that the “once in lifetime” Scotland devolution vote sanctioned by our ever so trustworthy politicians is again likely to be on the agenda in the short term, perhaps we should consider one other factor.

For considerations as significant as this surely it would be more appropriate to require a majority of say 60 per cent or 75 per cent or even 90 per cent of the voting public – majorities which are demanded by so many other major decisions in our day-to-day lives.

A democratic vote requiring a significant majority would also surely ensure greater respect rather than a simple 50 per cent plus one majority which from indications of the previous campaign would only provide for potential division in an otherwise united country.

Furthermore, Ms Sturgeon’s assertion that this matter is up to the general public to decide only arises after the party promoting the motion itself decides if there should be a vote in the first place. D’oh.

David J Samuels,

54 Newtonlea Avenue, Newton Mearns.

IT appals me to witnesses the overtly racist and sexist comments of some candidates for the US presidency and the even worse comments from supporters which all go essentially unchallenged in a race that has lost all pretence at being anything other than a stage-managed contest between candidates intent on representing the interests of corporate America to the detriment of its common people. Here it is no better as Scotland, whether one considers it a region of the UK or a sovereign country, is ultimately governed by a political party that has no popular support and can barely return a single MP to Westminster. When we have a situation that the Secretary of State for Scotland holds the position not because he is the best man for the job but the only one who could take it with any legitimacy, there is obviously a major fault in our system.

As a committed nationalist and republican I have an agenda, but it is not one that needs to be realised tomorrow. The Unionist parties are deliberately gnawing away at the independence bone and it serves the SNP badly not to be clear and concise in outlining plans it may have to re-run the referendum. Were I Ms Sturgeon I would first muzzle Alex Salmond then categorically state that the party would not seek a further vote on the subject for, say, 10 years. The country needs time to be given and evaluate detail such as future currency policy and the truth about the economy as the versions spouted by both camps were mutually incompatible. I believe the Yes campaign failed because of doubts, half-truths and downright lies about subjects such as pensions; people should not be asked to vote for a pig in a poke.

The whole independence debate deflects energy and public attention away from current social and economic problems which are being deliberately compounded by a party which only achieved power through our ridiculously undemocratic form of democracy. There is no point in theorising about a future when we need solutions now and should concentrate on working within the framework we currently have.

David J Crawford,

Flat 3/3, 131 Shuna Street, Glasgow.

I SHARE Nicola Sturgeon’s belief that Scotland will inevitably become an independent country. The only point in her Agenda contribution with which I disagree is her assertion that a wide cross-section of Scottish opinion has to be persuaded that full self-government is in the nation’s best interests.

I believe that well over half the population already believe that full self-governance is in our best interest. The 45 per cent who voted in favour of independence are surely of that view, as are the 50 per cent of the population who supported the SNP at the last General Election.

The SNP have to present the people with more than the idea that independence is good – they have to demonstrate that it can be delivered and indicate the means by which Scotland will achieve independence. Without that evidence Nicola Sturgeon will be viewed just like any other politician – who makes promises, many of which are not kept. If properly thought-out robust plans are not in place before we negotiate independence then it is quite possible that independence will not actually be achieved, or if achieved will not meet the aspirations of the people. Should that happen then the disappointment will be far more devastating than that experienced by the Yes campaigners in the early hours of September 19, 2014.

Sandy Gemmill,

40 Warriston Gardens, Edinburgh.

WHEN will it be recognised, understood and accepted that there never was a timescale limitation on any future referendum, neither as a condition when the Westminster Government reluctantly acquiesced to the public’s demand for the 2014 event, nor during campaigning by both the Yes and No camps? The only reference which I can recall, or indeed now find, to “once in a lifetime” or to “once in a generation” was contained within rallying cries for support by the Yes following and even then it was as a warning that this may be the only opportunity afforded.

The lamentable woes and claims of Unionists that there was an undertaking or a promise made in this regard is simply wishful thinking on their part since they should be well aware that the undisguised raison d’être of the SNP is to continue to fight democratically for independence and nationhood, albeit in a timescale to suit our own population and not in accordance with the scared reflexes of a deflated No body.

There also remains the hypothetical question of course, within whose lifetime or by which generation does their fanciful notion rest?

Ian Cooper,

Flat 3/3, 1 Jackson Place, Glasgow.