SO who will get your vote after independence?

It seems many are still a little confused about the political landscape after THE DAY.

Contrary to popular belief, the SNP will not be given a free rein to govern ad infinitum.

This needs be hammered home to wavering Yes/No voters: “After Scotland is an independent nation, there will be a new election ASAP, where every party will be on the ballot paper as usual, but standing on purely Scottish policies. If the Scottish people vote Labour, they get Labour etc etc.”

Our votes have counted for so little for so long under the UK regime, I am not sure everyone quite grasps that?

READ MORE: Debates on many topics can wait until after independence

By definition, the SNP will have to refocus their policies, as their main reason for existence will be achieved. I would imagine they will have to change name as well and come up with reasons for the populace to pick them ahead of Labour, Greens, LibDems and Tories etc.

The current stramash about “woke” Gender Recognition Act reforms etc can be picked up after independence is achieved, and those parties wishing to stand for election on those tickets can do so. At the moment the SNP is trying to be all things to all people and the strain is showing in areas of its support.

Get independence done, then in the first round of elections after independence each party can set out their ideas and let the electorate decide. It is unfair to expect one party to fight for independence and try and cover all the social issues at the same time, like the SNP are doing. The “all things to all people” ideal is very hard to pull off and might be something the Unionists are using to chip away at the wavering voters.

Personally I have a great deal of respect for Nicola Sturgeon, and would be very interested to hear her ideas for a new party, after indy, but I would be open to a Scottish Labour or Green party too. Imagine the possibility of holding elections that actually matter! If that is not a good reason for independence then what is?

Would it be an idea to publish a timetable showing a timeline to free elections after independence to enlighten the population and maybe, just maybe, convince a few Labour, LibDem and Tory supporters that there will be life after indy for them, a very good healthy life in fact where they can stand on an equal platform untethered from Westminster puppet masters.

Charlie Ambrose

THE proposal suggested by James T Ormiston (Letters, July 30), of a public takeover of Alexander Dennis Ltd and First Bus to set up publicly owned transport infrastructure and increasing the proportion of electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles, is a very good one.

What is also required in parallel with this is to progress the infrastructure of publicly owned hydrogen production from renewable energy and set up hydrogen fuelling stations. All of this would be ideal for the Scottish National Infrastructure Committee (SNIC) to work on and lead.

READ MORE: Here's a way to both save jobs and provide better bus services

With all the consequences of the pandemic and the environmental emergency it is so obvious that such a coordinating body is desirable and necessary. It is incomprehensible that the Infrastructure Commission for Scotland (CfS) set up by the Scottish Government to consider SNIC have concluded it is not required.

What reasons can those participating in CfS have to instead propose it is best to stay with existing infrastructure procurement systems which are not achieving best value nor achieving what is in the best public interest and which are not set up for such co-ordinated major publicly owned infrastructure factors?

Apart from the point of respecting the democratic decision of the 2018 conference, where the creation of SNIC was voted for by a large majority, it is very obvious for practical reasons that MSPs must vote against accepting the conclusions of the CfS and insist that SNIC be progressed.

Jim Stamper

I ALWAYS read Michael Fry’s articles, not because we agree politically, but because often we don’t! He puts his points forward articulately and I am fairly certain that the thoughts of a significant proportion of my fellow Scots will chime in broad agreement with his.

READ MORE: Michael Fry: Can we avoid the social calamities of past crises? I remain a sceptic

“Fast forward” to an independent Scotland – I hope that we as a nation will learn not only to tolerate the views of those with whom we don’t necessarily agree, but to welcome them, to listen carefully and to learn. It is our duty to appreciate how all of our country is thinking – not just our own circle of like-minded people.

Congratulations to The National and to Michael Fry for all the help they give in helping us to develop as a listening nation.

Alex Leggatt

I HEARTILY agree with Charlie Bent’s Long Letter (August 4). One other thing: on independence, the Scottish Government should bring in a constitutional law that all major decisions should be by referendum of the sovereign people of Scotland.

William Purves