WITH opinion polls all suggesting the SNP will lose a number of seats at the General Election, it is perhaps time to look at why this might happen and what can be done about it. In the first place, losing some seats should not be a surprise given the freak result of two years ago. Much of this sweeping victory can be accounted for by the close result of the independence referendum and the strong reaction of those who vote Yes.

At the same time, it is clear the Tories are gathering the anti-independence/anti-indyref2 vote, with many Labour, or left-wing, No voters now (maybe) deciding to vote Tory in order to keep the SNP out where they can (shame on them). If the No side is so confident, why would they vote to prevent a referendum they believe they would win?

So, how can the SNP keep the seat loss to a minimum? Retaining a high percentage of the vote is vital but so is holding as many seats as possible.

A failure to do both will result in a loss of momentum and strengthen any UK Prime Minister’s hand in refusing indyref2.

However, I fear Nicola Sturgeon’s stance on full EU membership is a major stumbling block in this. She, and the SNP, seem fixated on the high Scottish Remain vote, but many of those voters would prefer remaining part of the UK over leaving the UK to stay in the EU. In addition, many who voted Yes in the Scottish referendum voted Leave in the EU referendum I voted Yes/Leave. I voted Leave not because of immigration, or the free movement of people, but because I seriously dislike the way the EU has developed over recent decades. Here lies Nicola’s (and the SNP’s) problem: many who voted Remain were not SNP voters to begin with and will not vote for the SNP now or for Yes at indyref2 – and many who voted Yes will not vote SNP now, or Yes next time because they don’t want to rejoin or remain in the EU.

Soon after the General Election was announced, Nicola and several of her senior colleagues were asked about the possibility of EFTA membership rather than full EU membership. It was painful listening to all of them refuse to give a straight answer to a straight question. A couple of weeks ago, Nicola finally admitted, on the Andrew Marr Show, that a phased rejoining of the EU might be required.

I don’t believe that will be sufficient for many Yes/Leave voters but what might be would be for her to say that, while still arguing full EU membership was best, she would consult with the Scottish people before seeking to fully rejoin the EU. This stance might also persuade some Remain voters to support the SNP, and independence.

This would not, of course, sway staunch Unionists who would rather see Scotland sink than countenance breaking up the UK, but I believe even some of them might be persuaded otherwise. How? I believe the SNP need to emphasise that, in some respects, the UK will not be broken up by Scottish independence; that it will continue but just in a different guise. That, for example, the monarchy will continue with the Queen as head of state, although as a republican I have some misgivings about that.

I also think the SNP should make it clear that, on achieving independence, Scotland would seek to work with all the nations of rUK to create a council which would seek to agree on aspects of mutual interest for mutual benefit on issues such as transport, security, defence, energy provision and trade.

Such a commitment might persuade some Unionists that Scottish independence is not the threat they fear. I am not suggesting that this will involve great numbers, but a few votes here and there might make a difference.

Dave McCartney
Inverclyde

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraq should be included on this list of ‘toxic misdeeds’

THERESA May, as Home Secretary, addressed the Police Federation annual conference in Bournemouth last year and said: “We must never underestimate how the poison of decades-old misdeeds seeps down through the years and is just as toxic today as it was then.

“That’s why difficult truths, however unpalatable they may be, must be confronted head on ... so we must not let the lessons of Hillsborough and other past injustices go unheeded, and we must not be afraid to face up to the challenges of today.”

Wasn’t the invasion of Iraq another past injustice, which, to their credit, Jeremy Corbyn and Labour party members have faced up to and confronted head-on, however unheeded and unpalatable this difficult truth is to her and some members of the Tory Party?

Geoff Naylor
Winchester, Hampshire

CAROLYN Leckie (Empathy and reason both have a role to play, The National, May 29) wrongly links the burning of witches in Christian Europe with the misogyny of Islamic State and their murderous attacks on Manchester and elsewhere. The misogyny of IS is a direct consequence of Arab slave traders who, over many centuries, forcibly transported millions of black African women to service the sexual needs of millions of men in the harems and brothels of Cairo, Baghdad and Damascus.

Astonishingly, for someone who claims to be a feminist and socialist, Ms Leckie offers no intellectual critique of Islam, but prefers to blame Blair and Bush for all the troubles in the Middle East and attacks on Europe.

Atheists take the view that Islam, like thousands of dead religions or those currently extant, are manmade ideologies and can be subject to intellectual scrutiny and repudiated regardless of how many millions of people venerate their particular god, prophets or holy books. If Ms Leckie cared to read any of the Islamic histories of Mohammed, she would see that he was a merchant who became the leader of the merchant classes in Mecca and Medina.

Mohammed’s army conquered many tribes of non-believers and pagans and by his conquest of Arabia consolidated the rule and interests of the merchant classes over that of the peasants and workers. Ms Leckie will continue to attack Blair and Bush in her columns in The National, but I doubt she will ever write a critique of Mohammed from a socialist or feminist perspective.

Ian Stewart
Convener, Atheist Scotland

SO, Scotland is not attractive to immigrants, according to the Tories. I suppose that wouldn’t have anything to do with the regular efforts by the Home Office to deport those hardworking and enterprising immigrants who already live here?

It is clear that Scotland must increase its population in order to grow its economy, so it is time for the Scottish Government to play a more positive and a less defensive role in this issue.

In particular I would like to see a government programme to encourage the return of some of our huge Scottish diaspora, focused on the most economically active and entrepreneurial. Volumes of research have been written on where around the world our diaspora is located. If official records fail, we have only to ask the Scottish people – most of them know where their relatives live! It’s time for the Scottish Government to be more proactive.

Peter Craigie
Edinburgh

THE National’s story on mobile phone use while driving (200 UK drivers caught using mobile phones every day, May 29) is a sad and shocking reflection on the behaviour of many drivers.

We are told that 22 people were killed and 99 seriously injured in 2015 where a motorist using a mobile phone was a factor. In addition, almost 6000 drivers were penalised for breaking the law on phone use behind the wheel.

Would be possible, or feasible, to legally force mobile phone providers to use satellite technology to automatically block calls and texts (with a relevant message) on phones that are travelling at more than a certain speed, say 5mph? Also, could such technology use altitude to exclude air travel use and mapping to exclude rail travel and sea travel use from such an arrangement?

If so, many lives and much police time would be saved.

Dennis White
Blackwood, Lanark