CONCERNING the letter by Selma Rahman in Tuesday’s National Conversation, I have to say that I agree entirely with her. Surely every democratic government has the right to consult the populace on any matter of policy when they wish to know exactly what the wishes of the voters actually are? It goes without saying that they must be allowed to consult the electorate.

We already have this with Fife Council, who send out a letter to all their tenants every year advising what they are intending doing with council tax and rent rises and seek the opinion of their tenants as to what would be the preferred course of action, usually from three choices.

READ MORE: Section 30 approach to achieving independence is fraught with risk

I am also quite sure that if the Scottish Government exercised this right in respect of the Gender Recognition Reform Act that is going through the Scottish Parliament, they would find the vast majority in support of Joanna Cherry’s opinion, namely that it is not right that a man, any man, can unilaterally declare himself to be a woman – without psychiatric or medical intervention and confirmation – and thereby be free to use ladies’ private spaces.

At this moment in time, when we have just seen that even some of the police force cannot be trusted not to abuse and even murder women, the adoption of such a nonsensical approach to the transgender situation is only asking for trouble and for more women to be abused and/or assaulted. Now, I am not suggesting that any genuine transgender person, male or female, is likely to indulge in such action, although it could happen. But a stalker might just choose to adopt that course of action.

READ MORE: Prevarication is not leadership – it’s time to set a date for indyref2

Yes! The Scottish Government must have this legal right to consult its electorate. Now let’s see them use it. First on the transgender matter, just to prove they do have the right to pose such a question to their voters; then, soon after that (I hope very soon after that), to seek the opinion of the electorate on the subject of independence. I honestly can’t see Westminster going to court to say that the elected government of Scotland doesn’t have the right to ask its electorate what they want the government to do – particularly since it has already been recognised, and passed by a vote, in the House of Commons, that the Scottish people are sovereign over parliament.

It may not yet be time, in the opinion of the First Minister, for an independence referendum, but it is time our government stood up to Westminster on its behaviour in grabbing back power. They could make a start by holding a referendum on the above issue and see what response they get from Boris.

Charlie Kerr
Glenrothes

I READ the rather rambling letter in Sunday’s Seven Days, on the lack of SNP activity, especially at governmental level, on pushing the case for independence.

The grievance appears to be the SNP is not organising any “marches or events” to promote independence during COP26. Yet the Scottish Government has made an international impression by funding the youth and ancillary event which goes with COP26, as the UK Government refused to fund it.

The letter ignores the reality that the SNP in government, by and large, are meeting or exceeding people’s expectations in areas of importance to many such as health and welfare issues. In being a government which puts people first and not corporates, support for the SNP in government has grown over the last decade to the point where it is reaching 50% vote share. The coalition with the Greens has not just ensured a pro-independence majority in Holyrood but has gathered widespread approval from all parts.

READ MORE: Joe Biden to travel to Glasgow for COP26, White House confirms

All this has been achieved by sound governance with little mention of the SNP’s raison d’être – independence – though the current Unionist opposition in Holyrood do a good job in promoting independence, on that score.

If we go back to 2014, the whole point of the Yes campaign was to avoid the political pitfalls of grievance by having an organisation at arm’s length from the Yes-supporting political parties and other organisations.

While SNP as a party and membership put a lot of funds and time into supporting the 2014 Yes campaign, it was done in a way that ensured it was the Yes campaign which was the vehicle. Until the formal announcement of the new referendum date, it makes sense to minimise any of the political parties’ involvement in All Under One Banner marches and the like, before folk in Alba, the SNP or the Greens start trying to claim one or another of the parties are hijacking the new Yes campaign for their own ends.

The time is coming for the metaphorical claymores to come out the thatch, once more, but not quite yet.

Peter Thomson
Kirkcudbright

I NOTED Christopher Bruce’s response to the letter from David Howie (Oct 8) criticising Alba politician Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh’s penchant for squeezing gratuitous, snide, anti-SNP comments into her weekly columns.

However, regarding the column in question and David’s response to it, Christopher arrived at a conclusion diametrically opposed to my own. Funny old game, politics.

Regarding his reference to Alba folks being “vilified” by “SNP hacks”, I am unsure what constitutes an “SNP hack” but on the basis of my 55 years supporting independence and the SNP, I suspect in his view I may qualify. However, on that subject of vilification, I note that Christopher considers “hacks” like myself are guilty of “blind allegiance” and “political myopia”. Having highlighted my suspect eyesight, he asserted that we need a party other than the SNP to resuscitate the (dying) independence “corpse”.

However surveying the electoral performance of the SNP and consequent rise in the Yes movement generally over the last few years, I will paraphrase part of a 1941 Winston Churchill speech: Some dying! Some corpse!

Malcolm Cordell
Dundee