IT is interesting how each of the most recent referendums or threatened referendums have backfired when wishful thinking has led political leaders to conflate the wishes of their own core support with the interests of a wider body politic.

In Catalonia, the illegal referendum supported only by a minority of the Catalan citizens led to a unilateral declaration of independence by President Carles Puigdemont and his nationalist supporters. This in turn led to Mr Puigdemont being charged with rebellion and sedition by the Spanish courts, while his government has been suspended and he and key members of his cabinet have fled to Brussels to avoid arrest.

In Northern Iraq, Masoud Barzani has resigned as president of Kurdistan after his bid for independence spectacularly backfired. Mr Barzani’s referendum in September saw 95 per cent of the votes in favour of independence from Iraq, despite repeated warnings from neighbouring countries in the Middle East and the West that the ballot would be deeply provocative. Clashes between the Iraqi army and the Kurdish Peshmerga, who had formerly joined forces in the fight against Islamic State, led to the re-occupation of the disputed oil-rich city of Kirkuk by the Iraqi federal government and claims of betrayal and treachery by Mr Barzani, who will left his post as President of Kurdistan this week.

We only have to look back to the controversial Brexit referendum in June 2016, where 51.9 per cent of the participating UK electorate voted to leave the EU, to see how that unexpected result forced the resignation of David Cameron. And we recall the shock result of the June 2017 General Election when incessant threats of a second independence referendum cost the SNP one-third (21) of its Westminster seats.

The instigators in each of these cases overestimated their capacity to reach beyond their core support and convince others – whether compatriots or neighbours – that things should necessarily be arranged in their own image. There is a clear pattern in each of these events, which should send a strong signal to Nicola Sturgeon that the laws of political gravity are not as easily defied as her more ardent pro-independence supporters would have her believe.

Scottish businesses and indeed the majority of Scots are crying out for a period of stability and economic growth, not for the division and uncertainty that would accompany a second independence referendum. Let us hope that the lessons of recent referendums in the Middle East and Europe have been absorbed.

Struan Stevenson,

Chief executive, Scottish Business UK,

Ballantrae, Girvan, Ayrshire.

CHRIS Deerin’s article urged those who favour Scotland’s positive place in the UK to “gain some perspective about what Scottish nationalism is and what it isn’t” (“Let us thank our lucky stars that we are all Team Scotland”, The Herald, October 31). Some independence supporters as evidenced by your Letters Pages today (November 1) might have got side-tracked by the introductory “home truths” about the 2014 referendum campaign from the perspective of those on the No side of the argument. To be fair, Mr Deerin did make the point that Yes supporters would no doubt be able to paint an equally bleak picture of some of their opponents’ tactics.

The article by Maya Tudor that Mr Deerin referenced, was entitled “The case for (inclusive) nationalism”, and sets out a carefully nuanced and balanced view of the many differing shades of nationalist ideology, and resulting advantages and disadvantages. Ms Tudor stresses the importance of celebrating inclusive nationalism, in contrast to some of the more distasteful versions that parts of the world have suffered from. Yet she also makes clear that it is critical to have a shared understanding of the “we” that are to be embraced by the inclusive brand of nationalism.

Here in Scotland, following the 2014 referendum campaign, many in our largest minority, namely those living here who originated from other parts of the UK, have encountered an unhealthy disregard for those who do not accept the view of Scottishness projected by those in power. Our leaders should take note that for “inclusive” nationalism to be genuine and open, the views of those who do not support separation cannot be ignored, or else the “inclusive” tag is rendered simply cosmetic.

Keith Howell,

White Moss, West Linton, Peeblesshire.

PETER Russell (Letters, November 1) claims that “both the 16-19 and 20-24-year-old age groups rejected independence in roughly the same proportions as the rest of the population”. However, the Ashcroft and Yougov polls, conducted in the days immediately following the referendum, both suggest otherwise.

The Ashcroft poll shows voters aged 16-24 voted 52 per cent Yes. Even more significantly 16-17-year olds, those to whom the franchise was extended for the first time, voted Yes by the large margin of 71 per cent to 29 per cent. This casts very considerable doubt on Mr Russell’s claim that “Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon granted the vote to young people in the belief that they would vote for fairy tales”. Leaving aside Mr Russell’s trademark view of our independence, the Ashcroft poll suggests very strongly that younger people did vote Yes, but in particular that those for whom the voting age was extended (16 and 17-year olds), voted for independence more strongly than any other age group.

The Ashcroft poll does show that 18-24-year olds voted No, though only by a margin of 48 per cent Yes to 52 per cent No. However, Mr Russell would do well to contemplate that in every other age group, there was a Yes majority, casting doubt on his wider claim that “both the 16-19 and 20-24-year-old age groups rejected independence in roughly the same proportions as the rest of the population”. The only other age groups who voted No were 55-64 (57 per cent No) and those aged over 65 (73 per cent No).

The Yougov poll did suggest a somewhat less stark difference, but nonetheless, John Curtice observes in his So Who Voted Yes and Who Voted No blog that “both identify a big difference between the voting preferences of older voters and the remainder of the population.”

We can of course look in different places for greater wisdom, and in that regard, there is always the adage that there are “lies, damned lies and statistics”. However, it is one of Frank Carson’s catch phrases which, I think, best describes Mr Russell’s claims – “It’s the way I tell ’em”.

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue, Dumbarton.

YOUR correspondent John Martin (Letters, November 1) suggests that Gordon Brown seeks to profit personally from the sale of his book My Life Our Times. My understanding is that all profits from the sale will go to the Jennifer Brown charitable trust which was set up by Gordon and Sarah Brown in memory of their baby daughter who died tragically days after her birth.

Mairi Gudim,

123 Peveril Avenue, Glasgow.