MARK McGeoghegan’s article ("Can’t the parties get together and do a deal on the constitution?", The Herald, September 27) misses the point of what is important to the majority of voters.

While it is true that a fractured parliament would be chaotic, perhaps such a vote is what we need to focus the minds of politicians and for them to start listening to the electorate. A recent Survation poll carried out on behalf of Scotland in Union reported that of all the issues affecting Scotland, independence came in 13th with only seven per cent seeing it as an issue the current Scottish Government should prioritise. The NHS, cost of living, economy, housing and education all came above this: real issues that impact on our daily lives and that can be improved now if only the SNP Government would actually act instead of blaming Westminster for all its failures.

We don’t need further powers. We need whatever party is in power to focus on making our lives better. Reducing NHS waiting lists, cutting drug and alcohol deaths, improving school attainment and providing housing for those who are homeless would do for starters.

As long as we have continual debates in Holyrood on the constitution, we are not being served well. We’ve had 17 years of this and it has not improved our lives one iota.

Jane Lax, Aberlour.

The absence of consent

A COUPLE of simple points on Mark McGeoghegan’s article on cooperation between (mainly) Scottish Labour and the SNP at Holyrood. Westminster would require to pass a bill on a Northern Ireland-style deal for Scotland before 2026 for it to make electoral sense for the SNP; it would do better politically to let Labour stew in a coalition with its ideological foes. And I don’t see Labour hurrying to support a minority SNP government, before we get bleating about the “good of the country”.

But assume it happens. Trust would be essential, and so there must be an outside “honest broker” to judge the Scottish mood, rather than partisan UK nationalists like Alister Jack or Ian Murray. Why? Because we have already had a parliamentary majority for a second independence referendum and it was ignored by Westminster, in spite of major party figures (Keir Starmer, Ruth Davidson, the aforementioned Mr Jack et al) previously asserting such a majority would constitute a referendum mandate (contrast that with the PM’s 33.7% UK “mandate”). As Ciaran Martin has argued, “ whether a pro-independence majority is a single party or multiple parties is of zero constitutional or legal significance”. By ignoring that pro-independence majority the British have advanced the Union as one upheld by force of law rather than of consent. Isn’t consent of the governed a “Good Thing”, and wasn’t the absence of that one of the drivers for the Troubles just a few miles away?

GR Weir, Ochiltree.

Read more letters

A matter of mandates

JILL Stephenson (Letters, September 27) suggests that to demonstrate the “settled will” of the electorate in important matters the winner should gain 66 per cent of the vote. Brilliant idea. I assume she means 66% of those who are eligible to vote, not just the fraction of society that actually voted. It certainly would mean the country would get what it wants.

It would be interesting to hear her thoughts on currently being directly and indirectly governed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party. That party gained a scant 33.7% of votes cast in an election where barely 60% of those enfranchised to vote did so, yet has an insurmountable majority in the House of Commons. Because of this Westminster can choose to ignore what appears to be “the settled will” of the country on matters such as Gaza, Lebanon and deliberately endangering the lives of pensioners by cutting their heating allowance. We are certainly getting what we deserve if not what we need.

David J Crawford, Glasgow.

• JILL Stephenson is again spinning the facts to serve her own unionist cause.

When she asks why the SNP rules for changing its constitution shouldn't apply to a referendum on Scottish independence, she appears to not have read Kezia Dugdale's and Stephen Noon's justification ("Labour ‘should strike indy deal’", The Herald, September 26). Namely, that under their scheme it would be a UK Government-sanctioned referendum, and as they point out the UK standard is 50 per cent plus one. The UK Scottish Secretary would be legally bound if polls and election results suggest that there would be a majority for independence "in the best interest of the Scottish people".

This is where their report is wrong, because only the sovereign Scottish people can decide what is best for them. The UK Government will always look out for the English interest to the detriment of Scots.

Peter Glissov, Edinburgh.

Indy is not going away

IT is almost 700 years since the Scottish patriot William Wallace was brutally executed in London, for treason.

Several years later, the Declaration of Arbroath was sent to the Pope appealing to him to recognise Scottish independence, using some unforgettable words which have echoed through the ages.

Despite the military successes of Robert Bruce, in today's world few in Scotland would claim to be really free. Devolution is proving to be just a sop to Scottish aspirations.

More than half of us in Scotland clearly appeared to want to remain in Europe, but the impossibility to make this happen shows the profound weakness of devolution. We are out of Europe despite an emphatic vote here to stay.

So, what do I tell my grandchildren? To merely accept the British world I grew up in and not to consider alternatives?

The present constitutional arrangements make real change most unlikely. The recent General Election has revealed that independence-supporting political parties in Scotland have gone backwards, leaving independence-minded voters without a choice to reflect the polls which suggest a substantial proportion of us are still in favour of a break from the UK.

Accepting our constitutional arrangements is frustrating but for some of us it generates a desire to push for change before so many of us are dead and gone like so many patriots in our history. We urgently require a new plan to force change or meekly accept the status quo ignoring the efforts of so many in our past over hundreds of years.

Scottish independence is clearly a contentious issue but it is not going away.

Jim Stirling, Newton Mearns.

Keir Starmer became PM on 33.7% per cent of the voteKeir Starmer became PM on 33.7% per cent of the vote (Image: PA)

We must support negotiations

EVERY time I read another attack in this newspaper referring to Israel the rogue state, I despair.

Doug Maughan and Leah Gunn Barratt (Letters, September 25) have managed to compile a range of atrocities, worldwide and ranging over 100 years, in an attempt to exemplify the accusation of genocide conducted by Israel.

I can assure you that, unlike the two correspondents, I do not support any side, or country, in the Middle East. I do, however, support any negotiations that can lead to a ceasefire and the cessation of bombing and killing and the waste and destruction of innocent lives.

I would like your correspondents to name any wars where innocents have not been killed and I include Lebanon, Palestine and Israel in this.

I feel desperately sorry for the Palestinians but I'm afraid that as long as churches, schools, hospitals and community centres are used by Hamas, as cover for rocket launching sites, innocents will continue to be victims.

I do, however, have some queries about the overall situation. 1) Am I right in saying that Hamas and Hezbollah are totally committed to the obliteration of Israel and the Jews? 2) Am I also right in thinking that in recent events the initial aggressors have been Hamas and Hezbollah with a few attacks by Iran and Yemen for good measure, Iran also being a sworn hater dedicated to the removal of Israel?

I'm not sure about Mr Maughan's description of the killing of perhaps 1,000 civilians in Amritsar in 1919 by British forces, or the relevance, but I would like to state clearly that I abhor all killing. I should point out that four million Jewish people were massacred in the Holocaust and the UK took in, helped and supported many thousands of Jewish victims, as we still do now with many thousands from the Middle East, Africa and India.

There is no doubt Israel is despised and hated by many of its neighbours but that does not mean it should not be supported.

I believe our role must be to try to influence the meetings of the decision makers, provide conditions acceptable for a ceasefire, enforce it and stop the senseless killing. This applies to all sides.

John Kennedy, Stirling.