Letters: We need in-depth analysis of why we lost in 2014

First of all can I assure her that unlike some of my SNP colleagues I would not question her right to comment on the SNP’s internal affairs even though she is not a party member? She was an enthusiastic Yes activist during the last campaign who recognises that the SNP, for all its faults and flaws, is (and will remain) “the largest chunk” of “the independence movement”.

I also agree with her appeal to SNP activists to recognise “the vital importance of broad alliances”, and in this respect would pay tribute to the hugely constructive role of the Labour for Independence group in the last campaign. I personally do not believe Yes would have won such traditional Labour strongholds as Glasgow, North Lanarkshire and West Dunbartonshire without their efforts.

Nevertheless I still think she is putting the cart before the horse in her advice to the SNP to set a date for indyref, then focus on unity, and prefer the views of her local SNP MP, the much (unfairly) maligned Pete Wishart, who argues that another defeat in a premature referendum would be a calamitous outcome for the Yes cause as it would run the risk of taking the independence issue off the Scottish agenda for another generation – ie, at least 20 years.

We still have to carry out an in-depth analysis of why we lost last time and start to plan how we can win next time before we will be in a position to call the next referendum.

In this respect, Carolyn’s advice to us to contemplate the difference in the turnout at the 2014 referendum and the 2016 Scottish election, which she seems to attribute exclusively to the enthusiasm of Yessers as opposed to the boredom of a normal party political election campaign, is only half-right as it fails to take account of the at least equal enthusiasm of No voters in 2014 – which also boosted the turnout. After all, at the end of the day they made a better job of getting their residual vote out than our side – the “good guys (and gals)” – did. How can we make sure that doesn’t happen again?

Ian O Bayne
Glasgow

CAROLYN Leckie is once again spot on in her column this week that the SNP “is by far the largest chunk [of the independence movement], in terms of both activists and voters”, but not it all. At its strongest, Yes was an often loose coalition in which the SNP was critical, but which involved others from other parties and no party.

However, I do not share two other aspects of her argument. First that “we should, before the end of this year, set a date – and then focus on uniting the disparate independence movement”. Certainly, the Yes movement must be united (reunited?) into a “respectful coalition”. But it also must also be effective, requiring a narrative to convince the 45 per cent who voted Yes last time to do so again, but also bring across the necessary additional votes to get us over the line.

Here, Pete Wishart is correct that the notion that just initiating another vote will create such a groundswell that we will secure victory is misplaced, for it ignores “just how hard it is going to be to secure a majority. That last five per cent we need to win over in a renewed referendum will be the hardest five per cent we have ever had to convert.” Carolyn Leckie suggests, we “set a date for indyref then focus on unity” but this gets the cart before the horse. We need a unified Yes, but we need to provide an argument for it to present, which leads to my second point.

Leckie’s emphasis on “people who had never voted in their lives [who] turned out in colossal numbers to back independence” is also flawed, as it assumes those who registered to vote for the first time in 2014 all voted Yes. Just before the vote, an elderly lady in Shettleston told Jon Snow on Channel 4 News she was voting No, because “they want to take our Queen from us”. Totally groundless of course, but nonetheless we must appreciate that most social groups have a conservative element.

At the same time, some who voted No last time, given another chance and now horrified by the prospect of being pulled out of Europe, and by the present Westminster government’s utter ineptitude and insensitivity to Scottish opinion, might vote Yes. This emphasises the importance of an effective narrative. Surely, to win independence a unified Yes movement will seek to bring over every shade of opinion who can be persuaded to vote Yes?

Of course, this can cause problems of inconsistencies in the proposal. Yet, do we need anything as detailed as the 2014 White Paper, which made proposals that in fact were decisions for an early independent Scottish Government? Surely, what we need is a proposition that points to the disadvantages Scotland faces within the Union, and the possibilities if we free ourselves from these. What Scotland becomes after independence is a decision the Scottish electorate can freely make then, but cannot make freely as part of the present Union.

Alasdair Galloway
​Dumbarton

I AM very pleased to see the various contributions regarding the next indy vote and how we might win it. This good going correspondence is very healthy and all those who favour an independent Scotland, and certainly all parties which do so, ought to be following it with great interest.

I would add a couple of points. Firstly, I agree with Selma Rahman (Letters, April 24) that we should meet, organise and get out to talk to doubters. For me that means knocking on doors, talking to people and, as election day approaches, flying the Yes banners as widely as possible, in conspicuous sites. Apart from the 2014 indyref, certainly in Perth, electioneering seems to have disappeared. I defy anyone, walking about or driving through Perth on recent voting days, to tell that an election was taking place. It’s been like an embarrassing secret. I think this is due to a decision by a small “elite” at the top of the SNP to restrict electioneering to social media and it is a decision I think they should revisit. The Conservatives and LibDems came knocking, and look how successful they’ve been.

Secondly, the Yes teams should be making it clear, despite John Curtice’s advice, that if we want independence we should give those standing for it every one of our votes. I don’t care what number crunching he’s done. His advice lost us votes. The SNP did voice their opposition to this but far too timidly.

And, obviously, I was delighted to read Bobby Irvine’s letter from Barcelona (also April 24) expressing the view that the Madrid government’s increasingly hysterical response to the Catalan independence vote is not being supported by other European countries. Whilst this is encouraging, there is still a long way to go before Spain can be described as a democratic country and the EU can be described as an organisation which upholds democracy.

Lovina Roe
Perth

GEORGE Kerevan’s article will, I am sure, have met with a sympathetic response from most in the SNP on both headline messages (Forget about the LibDems – we could call a new EU vote of our own, April 23).

Nonetheless I am sure that the same SNP supporters will also agree that “the European Union is in desperate need of democratic reform”. Surely it is now time for the SNP to spell out what reforms we wish to see in the EU? Of course the EU presents itself as a centralising take-it-or-leave-it institution but that should not deter the SNP from stating what type of Europe we want Scotland to belong to.

Already we have committed ourselves to supporting membership of the European single market and customs union. Might I now suggest the following ideas for consideration and debate:

1) Remove the power of legislative initiative from the Commission, which would then become more of a European civil service with less central authority other than power to amend, revise and delay legislation, similar to the House of Lords.

2) No increase in EU powers of exclusive competence.

3) Control of marine biological resources to be a shared competence between EU and littoral states.

4) Common Fisheries Policy to be a shared competence with local management devolved to regional committees.

5) Migration both within the EU and from third countries to be a shared competence with financial support from the EU to individual countries based on the number of migrants settled in each country.

6) An agreed formula for internal enlargement by creation of new member states.

I am certain that there will be other ideas for reform, but what binds all reformers together is a common desire to make European democratic cooperation an example to the world. If reform fails in Europe it will be a tragedy of lost opportunity. Scotland’s choice would lie with the single market and membership of the European Economic Area – an unsatisfactory second best.

George Leslie
Fenwick