Sir, A simple point should be made about parliamentary procedure at Westminster.
If you are elected to the House of Commons, you should be entitled to vote about all proposed laws placed before it.
Prime Minister David Cameron has raised the subject of “English votes for English laws”(Courier September 22).
But why should the 59 Scottish MPs (and the MPs from Wales and Northern Ireland) be excluded from voting on matters which might appear to affect England only? After all, it is a United Kingdom parliament.
Of course, years ago Tam Dalyell raised the famous “West Lothian question”. Why should Scottish MPs be allowed to vote on matters in England which English MPs cannot vote on in Scotland (because these matters are devolved)? But remember, it was the United Kingdom parliament that voted to create parliaments and assemblies in three different parts of the United Kingdom (four if you include London).
It could, of course, vote to create an English parliament or regional parliaments south of the border. Until it is prepared to do so, the MPs we elect should be able to exercise their full rights in the existing legislature.
Bob Taylor, 24 Shiel Court, Glenrothes.
The economic argument won
Sir, On the weekend that the majority of Scots should have been viewing media coverage of such a historic vote that decided we remain an integral part of the UK for the foreseeable future, instead we have to put up with the other news that’s dominated the referendum coverage Alex Salmond’s resignation.
In addition, we find the political chattering classes within the Yes camp are still gurning, griping and grousing about Westminster politicians as the MPs set the wheels in motion for Scotland’s enhanced powers allied to considering now-necessary devolution for England.
I’ve seen reported the reflective comments of the SNP MSP for Banffshire and Buchan Coast, Stewart Stevenson, who correctly summarised: “Across Scotland there’s a tight correlation between the votes for No and the economic income in areas not doing so well they’ve been voting Yes.”
This chimes with Bill Clinton’s remark in 1992 “It’s the economy, stupid.”
Ultimately, as canny Scots the majority voted No Thanks with our heads.
Galen Milne, Ochiltree, Dunblane.
Honour your promises
Sir, With regard to Mr Soutar’s letter, September 22, if my understanding is correct his anger was directed at the Yes campaign for expecting the leaders of the three other parties to deliver on their promises.
Can I remind him that during the campaign no one in the Yes campaign asked them to take this vow of more powers.
They made it, put it on the front page of just about every newspaper and signed it.
I don’t think it is asking too much for them to be honourable and deliver it.
I would also point out that in a healthy democracy, it is incumbent on the majority to look after at least some of the minorities’ interests, if not all of them. The only regimes that I can think of that don’t are North Korea and some of the extreme Muslim states.
If I have misunderstood his letter then I apologise in advance.
Bryan Auchterlonie, Bluebell Cottage, Perth.
Shared history of oppression
Sir, “Don’t forget our three hundred years of shared history.” That was David Cameron’s slogan. Three hundred years of perpetuating inequality and suppressing the masses.
Look at some of the realities of those 300 years of history.
What was happening in rural Scotland after the union? We had land reforms, the enclosures and the clearances. All of these “reforms” drove the population off the land.
Some people emigrated and some moved to the towns and cities, where they were able to become indentured slaves to factory and mine owners, living in slum housing and poverty.
These workers had no representation in parliament. If they dared to form a union the activists were branded radically dangerous and executed or deported to Australia.
During these 300 years we had the dubious privilege of fighting in innumerable wars and conflicts all over the world, enforcing slavery on countless people and committing other atrocities at home and abroad.
The Westminster government has changed little in these 300 years. We are living in the 21st Century being governed by a body firmly embedded in the18th Century.
An encapsulated summary perhaps but is our 300 years of history something to be proud of? Perhaps it is if you move in the same circles as David Cameron and Ed Miliband.
D Milroy, Angus.
No wish for reconciliation
Sir, Some disappointment, even disapproval, has been expressed at the absences of both Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon from what was designated the service of reconciliation held at the High Kirk of St Giles.
It should come as no surprise to anybody, however, as firstly, attendance was not compulsory and secondly, from his conduct after the event, it is obvious that Mr Salmond does not wish to be reconciled.
John McNab, Balgeddie Court, Glenrothes.
Sour grapes from Salmond
Sir So what is irking Alex Salmond now?
We are all fully aware that he was thrashed at the polls last Thursday.
The 55% vote for No against his bid for independence was quite convincing it represented the views of more than two million voters.
How can a person like Mr Salmond seriously believe that he can represent the views and aspirations of all the people of Scotland when he shows so little dignity in defeat in the aftermath of the referendum. Scotland deserves better.
Let us hope that gradually we can return to a position of normality, where our elected members can present us with their political agendas without the dogged influence of the aspirations of a nationalist cause.
It will, assuredly, be a healthy scene in which “left” and “right” can put forward their political cases for consideration by us, the electorate.
Nationalism has always caused chaos in the civilised world. Democracy is the only answer, Scotland is not and never will be, Mr Salmond’s personal fiefdom.
His latest assertion that Scotland can get “independence” without a referendum is simply “sour grapes”. The Scottish people have spoken Mr Salmond it is time to bow out.
It was noted by many folks that neither he nor Nicola Sturgeon had the grace to attend the service of reconciliation at St Giles Cathedral on Sunday. It was left to dear old John Swinney to represent the separatists at this post-referendum service.
We Scots are resilient. I truly believe that we can shake off the unpleasantness of the recent political campaign for independence. Surely it is within our “mither wit” to set our differences aside and get on with life.
Robert I G Scott, Northfield, Ceres, Fife.
It was a clear No, so accept it
Sir, A referendum on Scottish independence, where every conceivable aspect even including the positive word Yes, as opposed to the negative word No played to the support of the separatist SNP, was held on September 18.
The result was 55% No/45% Yes. There was nothing debatable or unclear about this result.
The SNP now question the result but if it had been 49.9% No /50.1% Yes, they would have accepted it as a decisive victory and a clear demonstration of the will of the Scottish people to be independent.
Malcolm Parkin, Gamekeeper’s Road Kinnesswood, Kinross.