Readers' letters: Any future referendum must have an 'undeniable' result

Both the 2014 (Scottish Independence) and 2016 (Brexit) referenda allowed a “50 per cent plus one” vote to be considered determinant. In each case the outcomes were rather close to that (in Scotland for independence, 45:55 and in the UK for Brexit, 52:48). The likelihood that such major constitutional change might be decided on such close margins and not be expected to leave legacies of sourness and division (and even regret; witness Brexit) is small. Major organisations do not make dramatic constitutional changes without requiring a significant majority of constituents (for example, shareholders) to vote in favour of change. That way the outcome is much closer to “undeniable” – and much less likely to leave a legacy of dissatisfaction.

So, as a first step in learning from our own experiences and addressing Mr Flynn’s proposal I would ask the proposed “assembly of grown-ups” to look hard at what might be a realistic majority outcome that could be called truly decisive for change; a reliable measure of “the will of the people”. A toss of a coin to get today’s version of a 50:50 majority (which may well change tomorrow) is not it. I would suggest that an undeniable measure of the true will of a group of people for a major constitutional change that is likely to stand the test of time is much closer to 2:1. I hope that Mr Flynn is sufficiently grown-up to consider that.

John D Oldham, Loanhead, Midlothian

Defensive tactics

Whether Russia chooses to retaliate against the West or not as a result of supplying long-range missiles it is clear that what is needed most are defensive anti-missile missiles (AMMs) to protect people in hospitals, schools and homes. Experts do not consider long-range cruise missiles like the Storm Shadow to be a game-changer in the war.

The Gaza war has shown how effective the Israeli Iron Dome missiles systems have become against missiles and drones. Iran and its proxies have hardly managed to get any through. Ukraine has to defend itself against longer-range missiles, including those flying at hypersonic speeds. Supply of long-range Ballistic Missile Defence such as Aegis Ashore, deployed in Poland and Romania, is critical to the outcome of the war. If Russia’s missiles can no longer get through to Ukrainian cities it puts Ukraine in a much stronger position at the negotiating table.

Meanwhile Putin continues to act like a Bond villain, controlling opposition to the war by crushing any hint of dissent. On the BBC’s Zelensky documentary he was seen dressing down his foreign intelligence minister for suggesting discussions with the West. “…open negotiations?” said an agitated Putin. As the man hesitated and ministers looked on fear-stricken I expected a lever to be pulled and a cat to leap on to Putin’s lap!

It is not apparent whether Putin’s threats of retaliation to Western supplied long-range missiles are real. It’s clear, however, it’s too late for Storm Shadow as critical Russian assets have been moved out of range. A better alternative is more effective AMM defences to save lives and nullify the terror threat from Putin, giving Ukraine a fighting chance in any peace settlement.

Neil Anderson, Edinburgh

The right to protest

I’m very far from being any political leftist, and I quite like tanking up the car for a trip, but sentencing anti-petroleum activists as if they were dangerous criminals infuriates me close to actual violence.

Should people be treated severely for opposing things I like? The idea is complete nonsense and no better than the imprisonment of suffragettes 120 years ago. There is no respect for the citizen, just as there is none when courts allow energy firms to humiliate perfectly orderly customers with pre-pay meters.

There may some danger to individuals in an effective protest. Police are there to thwart danger to the public and have resources to assist people placed in danger by events. It would be no different in a flood or a train strike.

We’ve all skirted round city centres getting from A to B while folk halted the place in protest at something. We didn’t want the protestors banged up for it. What’s the matter with these judges? Were some of them made late for sherry?

Tim Cox, Bern, Switzerland

Rebus a plod

I am surprised at Joyce McMillan’s favourable criticism of A Game Called Malice at Edinburgh’s Festival Theatre (Scotsman, September 14).

We four were not entertained, nor did we feel light relief watching this play. There appeared no action except actors getting up, pouring drinks and sitting down.

Next to us a couple agreed. Like us, they could hear almost nothing as the sound was so bad. Another couple left at the interval.

Ian Rankin should stick to novels.

Rhona Gordon, Edinburgh

Nuclear ‘subsidies’

Mary Thomas's claim that the nuclear power industry is subsidised (Letters, September 14) is false. At least it’s not subsidised by UK taxpayers, if that is what she means.

All the UK’s nuclear power stations are owned and run by EDF Energy, a British integrated energy company, wholly owned by the French state-owned EDF (Électricité de France). Of course one could argue that the latter, being owned by the French Government, is subsidised by French taxpayers. But is everything owner by governments “subsidised”?

Steuart Campbell, Edinburgh

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid ‘Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters’ or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.