THERE has been a great deal of debate in indy circles about whether a Westminster or a Holyrood election is the best vehicle for a de facto referendum. Ash Regan’s suggestion that every election should be considered a de facto referendum is a beautifully simple and attractive proposal which cuts right through the Gordian Knot.

If independence-supporting parties gain 50%+1 of the vote at any election in the future, then this is to be taken as a mandate to enter into negotiations with Westminster for Scottish independence. It has so many advantages that, in hindsight, it is difficult to see why it was not put forward earlier.

It would end the debate about which election was more favourable. It would guarantee that if we fell short, we would have another go in a couple of years. The Unionists would be put on the back foot because we would be setting the agenda, fighting on our ground, and being proactive rather than reactive. We could just ignore their howls of protest because there is nothing they could do to stop the SNP, Greens and Alba declaring this as a manifesto commitment.

Gone would be the unfounded assertion that we can only hold a referendum once in a generation – they can’t limit elections using that spurious line.

Finally, and deliciously, we could enlist Margaret Thatcher’s words in support of this strategy. She said that when a majority of independence-supporting MPs were elected in Scotland, it would be time to open negotiations on independence. Can you imagine the Daily Mail running the headline “Thatcher was wrong”?

It was Alex Salmond who changed the route map and declared a referendum to be the new method. However, there is absolutely nothing sacred in this approach, and it would be an act of national self-assertion to tell London that this is what we are doing and you’ll just have to suck it up.

It’s about time we became a bit bolder, about time we frightened the horses instead of meekly accepting whatever our colonial overlords deem to be the rules. We know that whatever route we take, even the most accommodating one, we’ll be met with malicious hostility, so why not go for this? As the saying goes, as well hung for a sheep as a lamb.

If the other SNP leadership candidates were to adopt this policy, they’d be in the running for my vote. At present, it’s only Ash Regan advocating this bold but simple strategy, so at the moment she has my vote because other policy statements on gender recognition, economic growth or energy, while important, are secondary to making independence a tangible reality.

David White

Galashiels

ALL this talk about de facto referendums. But what would it actually achieve? Whether a Holyrood election (which is a more representative vote of those affected) or a Westminster election, we are on a hiding to nothing. If we lose, Unionists will use this to claim the topic is dead and buried. Forever. If we win, they will simply say, once more, that the time is not right.

Anyone with a head on their shoulders needs to ask the NEXT question. What happens AFTER a Yes vote in any referendum that is not S30 enabled? Until there is a credible answer to this, any talk of a “de facto” referendum is simply playing into the hands of Unionists.

Wake up, Scotland!

David Cairns

Finavon

I AM not a supporter of the Free Kirk – or indeed any church – but I feel sure there has been a concerted attempt to use Kate Forbes’s open membership of it as a lever to destabilise her political position.

She clearly set out that she would NOT allow her personal religious convictions to attempt to thwart conflicting majority decisions. She cited the crystal-clear example of Angela Merkel who voted against same-sex marriage on grounds similar to Kate’s – but as chancellor, implemented the majority decision.

As expected, this has been almost totally ignored by the media and Unionist politicians – but not as expected also ignored by several nationalists. It is unrealistic to expect ANY politician to agree with every decision their party takes – and it is a hypocritical and dishonest politician who pretends to.

We have too few honest politicians. This sorry saga has all the hallmarks of a tactic cooked up by Unionist spin doctors terrified of the thought of the independence cause being led by a young, intelligent, capable and charismatic female. How sad that people who should know better have swallowed the bait hook line and sinker!

Jim Hunter

via email

KATE Forbes has shown herself ill-equipped to be First Minister as much by her lack of judgement as what she has said. When asked about GRR she said her constituents were “normal people” who were not concerned with such matters. That says it all.

Good luck then to her LGBTQ+ constituents when they need support. Her casual linguistic construction of anyone concerned with gender reform issues as not normal, different or “other”, plays right back into the Thatcherite hate-filled Section 28 playbook of the 1980s.

As an SNP member and lesbian who taught in state schools throughout that period, I really hope – and know – that an independent Scotland, which is after all where we all want to be, can do better than that. We need a first minister whose values, rather than having to be put aside, actually underpin their political commitment to that better fairer Scotland.

C Dixon

via email

THE furore over Kate Forbes and her honest answers, and the way she has been attacked by politicians supposed towho should have independence at the core of their beliefs, shows clearly that the SNP leadership cannot tolerate dissent when it comes to politically correct issues.

Sad to see a party I’ve voted for all my life being so in thrall to tiny minorities whose aggressive demands trump the need to work for independence. Forbes has been the victim of a witch hunt.

Very disappointing and it looks as though Kevin McKenna’s doubts over the commitment of certain SNP politicians to the cause of independence are well founded.

Jim Butchart

via email