I watched Nicola Sturgeon’s press conference with great interest (Report, 14 March). I was impressed with the clear case that she put for Scotland making its own democratic choice on its future. At a time when we are being dragged out of Europe against our will, and being governed at Westminster by a party that only has one MP in Scotland, independence is the only way Scotland can decide its own future.
With Labour in disarray, the alternative to independence is another 10 or more years of Tory rule over Scotland. Faced with that choice I think that many people who voted no in 2014 will change their minds and vote yes this time: the latest STV poll shows a 50-50 split in voting intentions. Two years before the last referendum, the support for independence was running at 28%. I am confident a clear majority can be won for independence.
I know many of my friends in England will be sad if Scotland leaves the UK, but maybe this will shock people in England to demand another vote on Brexit. If not, I’m sure Scotland will offer a welcome home to Guardian readers horrified at indefinite Tory rule in Brexitland.
Hugh Kerr
Edinburgh
• Theresa May allegedly wishes to delay a second Scottish independence referendum until after Brexit. Is not the obvious way to justify such a deferral to promise the whole UK electorate a vote on the outcome of her Brexit negotiations? The fact that she appears unwilling even to contemplate that possibility demonstrates that she cares more about holding the Conservative party together than preserving the union.
John Thomson
Castle Douglas, Dumfries and Galloway
• It would be a mistake to view a second referendum through London eyes. Those of us in Scotland at the time of the first referendum remember that most of the heavy lifting for a no vote was done by the Labour party, in particular Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown. The only heavyweight Scottish politicians now left in the Commons are SNP, and it would be inconceivable for a referendum on the union to be fought on both sides by members of the Scottish Parliament.
Phil Horsley
Pwllheli, Gwynedd
• I like the way that Nicola Sturgeon seems to have some subtle effect on Theresa May which makes the prime minister come out with her true feelings about the stupidity of Brexit. May accuses Sturgeon of creating huge uncertainty for the next few years, on the eve of her having to do exactly the same thing on a wider scale by triggering article 50; just as last week May suggested that it would be madness for Scotland wilfully to break away from its closest economic partners.
Jem Whiteley
Oxford
• I did not want either the Scottish independence referendum or the Brexit referendum. As it happened, I was pleased by the result of the first and dismayed by the outcome of the latter, but still regard government by referendums as a negation of parliamentary democracy. If, however, there is to be another referendum on Scottish independence, then I believe most strongly that people like myself – native-born Scots living else where in the UK – should be allowed to vote. We care, and we will be affected by the result, and I see these two simple and straightforward reasons as being sufficient to justify setting up the necessary administrative arrangements.
Gordon Robbie
Ashwellthorpe, Norfolk
• The SNP attempt at a second independence referendum underlines the fact that no referendum is ever final, and a second Brexit vote is inevitable. The bigger picture is that the UK as a whole has to decide on Brexit, not just Scotland. Theresa May accuses the SNP of “playing politics with the future of our country”. This is a politician belonging to a party that went into the 2015 election claiming that Brexit would be disastrous for Britain, but then adopted the Ukip manifesto and the politics of the hard right of the Tory party without turning a hair. Playing politics with the future is now what all parties do. There is no alternative but to kick the whole charade into touch with a second EU referendum and winning it for remain.
Trevor Fisher
Stafford
• The only surprise about the timing of Nicola Sturgeon’s Scottish independence referendum announcement is that political commentators seem surprised. If the Scottish people are to gain their independence it is imperative that they do not have to apply for EU membership. But the Brexit vote was based on the whole of the UK. An independent Scotland outside the EU would be suicidal. Yet there is no certainty that the Scots would get membership (even after a projected four-year membership-seeking process). It is likely that Spain would oppose their joining. Given the importance of this referendum request, it is only right that the prime minister offers a vote once Brexit terms have been negotiated. And with 4 million Scottish voters deciding the fate of 65 million UK citizens, any referendum held should require a 60% majority.
Martin Haigh
Kings Lynn, Norfolk
• There is a simple way Theresa May could avoid a Scottish referendum: abandon her insistence that the UK should become the only country within 1,000 miles to be outside the single market. This would remove the SNP’s excuse for a referendum, would be in line with the Tory election pledge and would minimise the economic hit. Is May big enough to do the right thing?
Alan Pavelin
Chislehurst, Kent
• It is inexcusable of Theresa May to ignore the view of her predecessor, who in a debate on ITV in June 2016 said: “Frankly I do worry about a second Scottish referendum if we vote to leave, and you don’t strengthen your country by leading to its breakup. I think this is a case for a bigger Britain inside a European Union.” Nicola Sturgeon and David Cameron were right and consistent in their views on a second Scottish referendum; May is neither.
Paul Hewitson
Berlin
• I disagree that Nicola Sturgeon had no choice but to call for a second independence referendum. She could have decided to stand by Britain in its hour of need. She could have decided that with liberal democracy under threat from far-right parties in Holland, France and Germany and the threat to democratic institutions in the US, she would refrain from sowing the seeds of more anguish. She could have reflected that both the Scottish and the Brexit referendums have been divisive and destabilising, and that the last thing we need now is another referendum tearing us apart. She could have suppressed her messianic vision of an independent Scotland in favour of a 300-year friendship.
Stan Labovitch
Windsor
• It was only a game of rugby – no need to take it so badly.
Peter Donnellan
Arrochar, Argyll
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
