John Major's two-referendums plan was a nice try, but Scots are not daft

Good try, Mr Major, but this would be like getting first shot in Russian roulette, letting your opponent load the weapon and him loading all the chambers with bullets.

Major also claims that in law, Scotland requires the consent of Westminster in order to to hold a referendum.

READ MORE: John Major tells Boris Johnson not to rule out a second independence referendum

Firstly, it just doesn’t. It can test the will of the people as it chooses. In any case, the forthcoming Scottish elections will prove a more than adequate test of that, and hopefully will clear the decks of more Unionist MSPs.

Secondly, it may behove Major and his unionist ilk to ignore both history and democracy, but Scotland is a sovereign nation that entered into a Treaty of Union (albeit under dubious and undemocratic circumstances) and agreed to share sovereignty as a partner within the new United Kingdom; which we were specifically reminded of by Unionists during the 2014 referendum.

We are also supposed to live in a democracy where the will of the people is sovereign.

READ MORE: Unionist sources claim Tories could agree to indyref2 in November 2021

Logic dictates that if the will of the Scottish people is to be independent and choose to resile from that Treaty of Union and therefore from partnership of the UK, then that is their fundamental democratic right.

So, when Unionists like Alister Jack unilaterally dictate that another referendum will not happen for up to 40 years, the questions are who gave him the right to impose such a condition, and when did he cease to support democracy?

While perhaps having some merit in its understanding of the imperative of Scotland’s independence, isn’t John Major’s proposition of a two-referendum process little more than the ludicrous born of the preposterous?

We Scots are nae sae daft!

Jim Taylor
Edinburgh

I NEARLY fell over laughing when I read about John Major’s suggestion that there should be two referenda on Scotland leaving the so-called Union. Here we have another past Prime Minister crawling out of the woodwork with “a cunning plan” to keep Scotland roped to Westminster should there be a clear Yes vote to leave the Union.

He knows full well that a second vote on the “outcome” would require the citizens of Scotland to endure the equivalent of Brexit negotiations, which would give the Unionist lot unlimited scope to thwart this nation breaking free from the clutches of untrustworthy Westminster.

This an example of perfidious Albion at its best and, in my humble opinion, it would be shameful of any pro-independence Scottish Government to even acknowledge his warped suggestion let alone contemplate going along with it.

Bill Bryan
Inverness

I WOULD like any representative of any of the breakaway indy groups to justify the claim that the SNP don’t want indy. It is a mere six years since the referendum and we have had six elections/referendums. Had we at any time gone onto the doorsteps and asked people to come out and vote, yet again, we would have got short shrift! There was huge disappointment, despair and voter apathy around.

Who, in the aftermath of 2014, would have put any money on the remote possibility of a second indyref2 within 10 years? But here we are!

The SNP government has spent the time running the country under very difficult circumstances, and as a result is slowly building confidence, and a solid acceptance throughout the country that Scotland can, and will, be a successful independent country. Stick with the only party who can deliver, stick with the SNP.

Joanna McKenzie
Bridge of Earn

THERE is a steir going on at the moment anent the independence referendum. What comes from the mouths of mendacious English Government ministers is no more than froth, there has been no refusal of a Section 30 because one has not been asked for.

Given a substantial independence majority in the Scottish Parliament in May, a Section 30 will be requested and I suspect agreed. The English Government is stupid but not, I believe, that stupid. It must be made clear though at the time of asking that refusal is not an option. There will be wrangling, and that must demonstrate to the international community the intransigence of the the English Government. If there is then continued opposition, or gerrymandering of the question, it must be made clear that a referendum will take place with or without Section 30.

R Mill Irving
Gifford, East Lothian

I WON’T hold my breath for the Plan B authors asking for a referendum date. My take on this is that once the Covid situation eases slightly and poll figures keep rising to above 60% (hopefully early 2021) we will see the FM and SNP push the full throttle pedal on Plan A, B, C & D.

A massive SNP/independence-supporting majority in the May election would surely mean a referendum later next year. Timing has never been a strong point for Scots in history, however just maybe the stars are beginning to align for 2021.

C Tait
Largs

SINCE Boris Johnson refers to the SNP as the “Scottish Nationalist Party”, can I suggest the we start to refer to him as the “English First Minister”? This has the added advantage of placing England on an equal footing with the three other nations presently within the UK.

Frances Bell
Edinburgh