RECENTLY, I attended a talk given by a prominent SNP MP. The talk was interesting and was followed by a Q&A session. One particular question asked was whether the SNP had yet established a realistic way of getting round Mrs May’s decision that “now is not the time”. Sifting through the response, it could be concluded that the answer was no.

A couple of possibilities were suggested. The first, as far as I could understand, was that there may be a way in which the EU might have some legislation which could be activated to allow us a binding referendum. A later questioner pointed out that the UK, including Scotland, leaves the EU in March, so shouldn’t that be sorted out now? We did not really get an answer to that.

A second suggestion was that in response to a snap election – and a normal one too I suppose – the SNP would make it clear in their manifesto that the results would determine whether Scotland was to become independent or not. It was not made clear whether the result where more than 50% of MPs elected were for the SNP would be sufficient, or if more than 50% of the votes cast needed to be for independence supporting candidates.

If the requirement was that the former criterion was to be met, then I think Yes will have a very good chance of being successful. However, I do not think the SNP has any chance of getting away with that. There is no doubt that Westminster will make it as difficult as possible, efter aa, they got a heck of a fleg last time, so I would think that the latter criterion will have to be the target.

It was pointed out that many Yes voters did not support the SNP and would have difficulty in voting for them. In the speaker’s opinion, however, not voting SNP was unlikely, but if these people voted for other parties, then it seemed to me that the speaker was suggesting that it would be their fault if indyref2 was not a success. That appears to be a bit of a “take it or leave it” attitude.At the moment, opinion polls tell us that about 50% of the population would vote Yes, while about 40% would vote SNP. Out of the 10% who do not support SNP, many of these people will leave it. I expect that in these circumstances, indyref2 is as good as lost.

We continually hear, especially from the SNP and their supporters, how incompetent the Tories have been in that after over two years on from the EU referendum, an agreement is not even near. The SNP have had almost as long to sort out a means of arranging a legitimate binding referendum and appear to be as near to that as the Tories are to finalising a Brexit deal. Some criticism is surely in order with this performance, especially when you consider that Alex Salmond had a deal agreed two years afore we voted.
Allan Anderson
Dumbarton

IT can be useful to listen to BBC News! The other day, my wife and I were in conversation with a younger friend, who, thankfully, seems to sit just on the right side of the Yes/No divide, but admitted to us that his only reaction to any news broadcast he comes across is to turn it off.

With further discussion it emerged that, as a consequence of ignoring all news media, he laboured under a completely wrong interpretation of the words “no deal”. Not knowing that Westminster has written Brexit into law, he totally misunderstood the consequence of a no-deal outcome to the negotiations. For him, no deal meant that Brexit would not proceed, and the UK would simply remain a full EU member.

Our friend could be a rare, even unique case, but the shock of learning of his mistake set us to wondering whether others who do not listen to the news are carrying such an erroneous interpretation in their minds, one which could cause them to vote for something they don’t want.

We suggest that all Yes activists who speak to voters on the doorsteps between now and the next referendum, whether it be a Scottish or a European one, would be wise to check that every citizen they talk to has got this right. Unless Westminster revokes its own legislation on the Brexit process, the UK is leaving the EU on the date stated in law.
Michael & Sylvia Troon
Fife

I HAVE close connections with the town of Amposta and the village of Sta. Barbara in Catalonia. Here are a few comparisons. Amposta has a population about the same as Musselburgh. It also has a town hall, council and mayor. It has at least double the retail opportunities of Musselburgh and a huge variety of shops. Educational and sporting facilities are roughly the same. Sta. Barbara is about the same size as Wallyford in East Lothian. It also has a town hall, home to the council, the mayor and the local radio station. Like Wallyford, it has one school and a community centre. Unlike Wallyford it has a thriving high street with a variety of small, locally owned shops and cafes.

Local democracy seems to be efficient and successful. What’s the difference between these councils and community councils? Control of budgets. Time to re-think the system, I suggest.
Rachel Martin
Musselburgh