Herald letter: Blame Sturgeon for division and strife.

THE parting message of Sarah Smith speaks volumes about the state of public discourse in Scotland today, as does your editorial on the same subject (“It is time to clamp down on the abuse on all sides”, The Herald, February 19).

It is deplorable that some SNP politicians and cheerleaders amongst your correspondents on these pages have chosen to double down on the abuse that she received, but ultimately this reaction was to be expected. At the same time, it worth remembering that a different Scotland is possible and indeed in 2014 was within reach.

What was needed was for the losing side to accept the outcome of the referendum as a Once In A Generation event and for the Scottish Government to set out on a path of governance based on achieving a Scotland at ease with that outcome and with itself. It would not have been easy and would have required real leadership from the First Minister and the co-operation of other parties, but as a national mission that work would have been well worth it. A good start might have been the sort of cross-party Team Scotland arrangements that Alex Salmond proposed in the event of a Yes vote. In addition the SNP leadership could have proposed that their party suspend Clause 2a of its constitution (the bit about independence) and declared its commitment to Clause 2b (“the furtherance of all Scottish interests”). Who could disagree that national unity and harmony based on the outcome of a free and fair referendum is ultimately in the greater Scottish interest?

Instead, Nicola Sturgeon deliberately turned her face against the outcome of her government’s referendum and chose the path of ever deeper and ever more bitter division and strife. Far from seeking national unity, she could not even be bothered to attend a church service organised to promote reconciliation. One only needs to see the the denigration of commentators such as Sarah Smith and the partisan dismissal of the best available evidence (for example, the Scottish Government’s GERS publication or the recent Fraser of Allander report on pensions) to witness the results of that decision.

The Scotland that we have today was created by Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. We can only dream of what could be achieved if they worked as hard at creating unity as they have at creating division. They should never be forgiven for what they have inflicted on us.

Peter A Russell, Glasgow.

Herald letters – Electoral Reform

THE CASE FOR PR FOR WESTMINSTER

CATRIONA C Clark (Letters, January 29) gives us a list of the places where the SNP has total dominance in the election of MPs. In doing so, she makes an excellent case for electoral reform at Westminster: it cannot be right that in 2019 the SNP took 80 per cent of the seats on the basis of 45% [edit] of the vote.

Proportional representation would also have other wholly beneficial effects. It would stop the votes of non-nationalists being wasted and would indeed demonstrate that independence is only supported by a minority of Scottish voters. And at Westminster it would stop the SNP from taking its bogus position as the third party and its accompanying procedural and financial privileges. The only surprising thing is that the Tories and the Labour Party do not support electoral reform (although more than 80% of UK constituency Labour parties do.)

And before anyone asks, yes, I did support PR when first past the post disproportionately favoured the Labour Party.

Peter A Russell, Glasgow.

* WHETHER wilfully or out of carelessness, as well as confusing Alternative Vote (AV) with Proportional Representation (PR), Alasdair Galloway ignores my statement that I supported PR when first past the Post (FPTP) favoured Labour in Scotland. I can specifically point to my signing of Charter 88 to refute this.

Above all, I was convinced of PR by the late Robin Cook, and can recall very clearly his typically waspish comments: “If FPTP is said to give us strong government, I am sick to the back teeth of [Thatcher’s] strong government. And if Labour wants to transform British society, we need to have a majority of the electorate behind us in that aim.”

Mr Galloway also insists once again that there is no need for the nationalists to give us a detailed prospectus and that 50 per cent+1 is adequate mandate for major constitutional change. These did not bring about an optimal outcome in the case of leaving the EU – why cannot we learn from that? We should learn from the Brexit debacle that the British way to which he and his fellow nationalists are so attached may not be the best way to proceed in constitutional affairs.

Peter A Russell, Glasgow.