www.bobsmithart.com

 

 

Andrew Hook is

wrong. Again and again,

it seems

I note Andrew Hook's preference (10 January) that four conditions be adhered to in order for the referendum to be considered valid. In the interests of balance and, dare I say it, realpolitik, might I tweak those four conditions to make them more acceptable? 
     1. The Scottish Government, having been elected, should choose a date for the referendum which most suits them. Somehow the issue of timing, which never caused a flutter of concern for anyone in preceding centuries when British governments could pick and choose the date of a general election according to opinion polls, successfully concluded wars, colonial adventures, tax cuts and opposition disarray has now become Something Of The Utmost Importance. The question will be asked at some point in the near future. Be certain in that knowledge. 
     2. Given that the issue is of such revolutionary importance, a simple majority of those who cast a vote will do. Those who can't be bothered to vote don't deserve to have their opinion registered. Just like all those other democratic votes we've had over the years.
     3. If a majority for independence is achieved, that's it. There will be no need for any further referenda. Having cited the Quebec case of a so-called 'Neverendum', I am sure that Andrew Hook and others will understand.
     4. If the initial referendum results in a 'no to independence' vote, then the issue should be off the table until such times as the Scottish people vote for a party which wants to put it back on the table, be that after 40 years or 40minutes. Enacting a law to bind one country to another for many decades in the name of...I'm not sure what...is positively oppressive.
     PS – Godwin's Law, for those who don't know, suggests that as any given online discussion progresses, the probability of invoking Hitler or the Nazis increases exponentially. A few years ago I had a letter published in the Herald, whereby I suggested a Caledonian tweak; namely, as soon as a correspondent on any Scottish issue but especially politics mentions the word 'Braveheart', their views should be instantly ignored and never read again. In recent years this tendency has thankfully diminished but, as of yesterday, I have noted transgressions from many of the chateratti whose views I will now sadly have to overlook. It's a harsh law, but a fair one. You can zip through the London papers' Scottish coverage, as well as the Scotsman, in about four minutes.
     I now declare a further tweak: 'Braveheart' is no longer the single qualifying word. As of 2012, others are 'Brigadoon', which I understand was a not-very-good film from the olden days when Scottish people spoke with Californian accents, and 'Bannockburn' which was a fight. I think we can all be better than that.

Alex Cox

 

I'm surprised that SR affords house room to the anti-democratic claptrap from Andrew Hook. Why should those who are entirely relaxed about the outcome of a constitutional referendum and as a consequence don't bother voting be counted as 'nos' – which is exactly the effect of his proposal? Do we establish who is deceased on the voters' roll – up to 12% at some points – before we do the calculations? If we don't the dead are voting 'no' as they did in 1979.
     Shouldn't a majority of the registered voters be required to validate a 'no' vote in the same way as he suggests a majority of registered voters would be required to validate a 'yes' vote?
     Why exactly in terms of basic democracy should a 'yes' vote be subjected to another referendum while a 'no' vote stands for 40 years?
     Why shouldn't referendums be held regularly?
     Which election in UK history apart from the spiked referendum of 1979 has required a majority of the registered vote to produce a result? Which referendum? Which UK government has assumed power under such a condition? 
     If the Scots vote 'yes' and move to independence, what's to prevent unionists winning an election in a Scottish parliament and holding a referendum about cancelling independence and rejoining the union? Nothing at all, except they know the game's up and that won't happen.
     If Andrew Hook's suggestions – an insult to my intelligence – is the sort of stuff we can expect from unionists, I can sleep easily tonight.

David Hill