Like death and taxes, the issue of Scottish independence will, it seems, always be with us.
Earlier this week, one of our readers looked across the sea to Northern Ireland and cast envious eyes over that country’s constitutional options.
Read more: Why do they deny us the same rights as Northern Ireland?
Today, however, one of our correspondents argues that Scotland is actually in a more favourable position.
Peter A Russell of Glasgow writes:
"Eric Melvin (Letters, February 13) is quite wrong when he tells us that the people of Ireland 'have the constitutional right to hold a referendum on whether there should be a united Ireland'.
"In truth, the right to hold such a referendum is solely in the hands of the UK Secretary of State and only if and when he is confident that it would succeed. (And to be precise, that responsibility is not a UK constitutional provision, but one which is conferred by an international treaty.)
"Mr Melvin is also wrong when he unfavourably compares the Northern Ireland situation with that of Scotland. For Scotland to have a referendum, all that is needed is to secure the agreement of our Westminster Government (which we elect with the other UK home nations) with Scotland's devolved parliament at Holyrood.
Sign up to our daily Letter of the Day newsletter
"To put the decision into the hands of elected bodies rather than in those of a single individual (who in the case of Northern Ireland is not accountable to single voter who would be affected) is surely a much better arrangement.
"And while some may argue that it is not possible to hold a referendum in Scotland while our Westminster Government is in the hands of a party or parties which oppose Scottish independence, the evidence is the opposite: this was exactly what happened in 2014.
"On that occasion, a Tory-led government opposed to independence agreed that a referendum should be held, and it was left to the nationalists to determine its date, its wording and its franchise. (And they still lost.)"
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel