Sir, Watching the Westminster debate in the hope rather than expectation of some concrete proposals which would uphold the much vaunted pledge to transfer powers to Holyrood, I was less than surprised at the lack of any progress.
Devo-Max was promised by all three main Westminster party leaders if Scots voted “no” in the independence referendum, and their absence from the debate was significant indeed.
We were assured at the time that David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband had “signed” a joint proposal to guarantee such an outcome.
The desperation to do so has now evidently subsided since Scots chose to remain within the union.
It’s a bit late now, but would it be possible for Scottish voters to see this signed pledge? Or are we to take on trust the word of a parliament which has now resumed its default position of putting Scottish affairs at the bottom of its agenda?
Sadly, it seems that Scotland has been conned yet again by our Better Together partners.
The contract Scots bought into on September 18 wasn’t worth the newspaper front page it was printed on.
As Gordon Wilson put it: “It’s bad enough buying a pig in a poke, but even worse to buy a poke without even a pig in it!” It now looks as though we’re not even going to get the poke.
Ken Clark. 335 King Street, Broughty Ferry, Dundee.
Time to face the reality
Sir, It is time to face the reality that independence is off the agenda and if it is to make a credible contribution to the Smith Commission the SNP must accept the “settled will of the people”. The commission should discuss more devolution for Scotland as well as devolution within Scotland after the excessive centralisation which was the hallmark of the Salmond era.
The macro-economy in general and particularly fiscal and banking policy, pensions and the welfare state as well as foreign and security affairs must remain at a UK level.
Dr John Cameron. 10 Howard Place, St Andrews.
Unreasonable submission
Sir, Nicola Sturgeon is hardly in a strong position to dictate to the Smith Commission. She should pay heed to the fact that the Yes campaign was unsuccessful in its quest to break up the UK.
Indeed, if one takes into account that 15% of the populace entitled to vote did not bother to do so, then the ratio of no /yes probably becomes 62% / 38% as I am fairly sure that had the non-voters been SNP supporters they would certainly have turned out to vote.
The answer to the referendum question was a clear “no”. In the Edinburgh Agreement document, to which Sturgeon was party, all signatories agreed that the referendum would deliver “a fair test and decisive expression of the views of the people of Scotland and a result that everyone would respect”.
It is therefore totally unreasonable for the SNP to make a submission to the Smith Commission, per Nicola Sturgeon, with a proposal that all matters should be devolved except defence and foreign affairs.
It is time now to be realistic and to accept that certain powers should not be devolved not just to the Scottish Parliament, but also not to the assemblies of Wales and Northern Ireland; and indeed in future years to the regions of England.
Also, the organisation of any future referendum must be by mutual agreement between the UK and Scottish Parliaments.
Robert I Scott. Northfield, Ceres.
A successful economy
Sir, K J MacDougall suggested (letters, October 15), that as a logical thinker he had to assume that as the SNP had stated a preference to remain part of Europe had its bid for independence been successful, it would prefer to be governed by Germany as some unnamed commentator had recorded that nothing happened in Europe without the say so of Angela Merkel.
It is accepted that the lady in question is a powerful voice on the continent perhaps because she is running Europe’s most successful economy.
Unlike the UK where, due to the activities of the city of London, British firms are more prone to the adverse effects of short-termism driven by profit taking based on quarterly financial reports which, at the slightest hint of current downturn force panic measures such as job losses and the introduction of zero hours contracts.
Both measures are counter productive, the first leading to unemployment and the second hiding the real impact of lost jobs by being used to massage the unemployment figures by not being counted as out of work.
By way of contrast, the German companies are not primarily shareholder orientated and the banks there are willing to encourage longer term investment rather than the short-term profit driven greed fostered by the city of London.
It would be foolish to deny that life for the ordinary German public is better than it is in Britain and as Westminster is currently run by English leaders it is little wonder that team Scotland stated a preference not to play in the same league as team England.
Allan A MacDougall. 37 Forth Park, Bridge of Allan.
A clever move by Mr Cameron
Sir, I never imagined I could say this but I take my hat off to David Cameron for his genius in political manoeuvring. He used the Labour Party stalwarts Brown , Darling , Murphy etc as his faithful sheepdogs to successfully round up and pen the unruly sheep north of the border.
Now they are penned and awaiting slaughter and not one Tory minister is to blame.
He then looks at his sheepdogs and realises they can still bite although a lot less in Scotland and decides to covers his back by pulling their teeth. Scottish MPs will not be allowed to vote on English policies such as taxes etc. This is a master stroke against the Labour Party in
England who having backed Gordon Brown in his “Scottish Vow” would seem anti-English to go against his proposals for England.
So the referendum has dealt a deadly blow north and south of the border to the party who bullied the Scots into surrender. He has literally guaranteed a Tory Party in Westminster for the foreseeable future. My grandmother used to say: “Be careful what you wish for . . .”
Bill Duthie. 25 St Fillans Road, Dundee.
We were right all along . . .
Sir, “Hope over Fear”. What an insult to the “no” majority in the referendum! Why do these people try to argue that fear was the motive behind the “no” vote?
To set the matter straight, I, and many like me, are Scots to the backbone and are totally in support of everything advantageous to Scotland.
Long before the Yes and No campaigns began, with their electioneering attempts many of us were already convinced that Scotland’s interests were best served within our United Kingdom.
So, to the “Hope Over Fear” minority, I would say this: “You lost, so either go away and weep quietly, or consider the possibility that you may have been wrong and that we, the majority, were right all along.”
James Thomson. 14 Vardon Drive, Glenrothes.
Undemocratic to silence us
Sir, Bob Skelligan (letters, October 13), doesn’t seem to realise we are all living on the same planet. He also has a strange perception about democracy on Earth.
Sure, I am disappointed that the Yes campaign failed to win the independence for Scotland that so many of us had hoped for. However in true democratic fashion the referendum decision does not prevent us “yes” voters retaining our aspiration to eventually gain independence.
What Bob and many other “no” voters have to understand is that we are in it for the long haul. We have no intention of going away. Neither do we have any intention of being silenced by “no” voters. That is such an undemocratic thing for them to expect.
Lastly I’m pleased that Bob wasn’t so “worried by other more important things” that he was unable to devote some time to answering my “absolutely nonsensical” tongue-in-cheek question.
Harry Key. 20 Mid Street, Largoward.