If we must have another indyref, follow the SNP's own rules
The prospect of another independence referendum was back on the news agenda this week.
On Wednesday ex-Scottish Labour leader Kez Dugdale and former Yes Scotland strategist Stephen Noon co-authored a report in which they argued that the Scottish Secretary should be mandated to assess public opinion and permit another vote if it looks likely independence will secure majority support.
Today one of our readers argues that if there is to be an indyref2, then a two-thirds majority should be required.
Jill Stephenson of Edinburgh writes:
"Kezia Dugdale and Stephen Noon have proposed rules that would allow another secession referendum if it seemed likely that such a vote would produce a majority for secession. How is that to be judged? Opinion polling and election results would be the indicators used, and the result would be decided by a simple majority.
In most cases where such constitutional reform is decided, the margin of victory has been a lot more than 50 per cent plus one vote. Not all have been as decisive as Norway’s, in 1905, which produced over 99 per cent in favour of leaving the 90 year-old union with Sweden. But surely major constitutional change deserves overwhelming public support? The Brexit result has shown how unsatisfactory it is when the 50 per cent barrier is narrowly breached. On another day, the result might well have been different.
What is wrong with following the SNP’s own stipulation that changing its constitution requires a two-thirds majority? That is a decisive measure that seems likely to reflect a 'settled will'. Why is what is good enough for the SNP too good for Scotland?"
Get the Letter of the Day straight to your inbox.
Read more in our Letters page
Letters should not exceed 500 words. We reserve the right to edit submissions.
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