MAGGIE Milne (Letters, February 16) has a point on the “mandates” delivered to the Scottish Government by the electorate in a seriously flawed voting system. But she should have a care in flinging around the phrase “cognitive dissonance” because it could well work two ways.
If a “mandate” is delivered by winning an election with the support of less than 50% of those who voted, and indeed, much less than the same percentage of those who were entitled to vote, only a very short-sighted individual would immediately act upon that mandate. Simple arithmetic dictates that unless the outcome of a non-proportional voting system represents the approval of an absolute majority, any attempt to proceed with the mandate in a straightforward Yes/No contest is almost certain to lose.
READ MORE: Unionists have a real nerve to accuse us of causing ‘division’
The return of Scotland’s independence is far too precious a goal for anybody to be daft enough to think that putting it to a vote without reasonable certainty that it will receive majority support is a good idea.
The objective in May is not just a majority of seats, it is the largest possible majority of votes, which is also a reason to vote SNP 1 and 2.
Les Hunter
Lanark
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel