SWITZERLAND is often considered the oldest extant democracy in Europe.

Today, the Swiss will be advised of the results of the most recent series of votes and referendums. This time, on a federal scale, they voted on an adaptation of medical insurance, an investment of five billion francs for motorway infrastructure, and two adaptations of the federal rent law.

Past federal votations have included subjects as varied as the acquisition of 15 Swedish Grippen jet fighters, the attribution to pensioners of a 13th-month salary and limiting medical insurance costs to 10% of people’s gross salary. Usually, vote papers also include votes on cantonal or communal referendums.

For example, the commune of Geneva City votes on the project and budget for a new pedestrian bridge over the lake in the centre of the city.

This is the fourth time in 2024 that Swiss citizens have been called to the urns for a very diverse range of referendums. Whatever the result, the people’s vote is considered sovereign and is respected by all political parties.

In some cases, if the vote is refused, the initiators may come back to the urns with a modified project which removes or changes the contentious aspects of the previous projects.

When the vote is the result of a popular initiative, parliament usually comes up with a counter project, which takes into account more moderate aspects of the initiative. Sometimes the initiative is dropped, sometimes citizens have to vote to choose between the two options.

Sometimes a subsidiary question is asked “if both the initiative and the counter project are accepted, which do you prefer?”.

The fear in parliament from popular initiatives is that the project is too radical or the content is not legally practicable. For example, the anti-burqa initiative will come into force in January 2025 and will attempt to halt people dissimulating their face in public. There are so many exceptions to the regulations that the law is void of any real content.

Referendums can be launched at communal, cantonal or federal level. The number of required signatures to obtain a referendum varies according to the level of population concerned by the vote. Federal and cantonal votations are preceded with considerable debate on radio, television and other media.

In comparison, and as the UK pretends to be a constitutional democracy, why is it so difficult to ask the populations’ opinion on important subjects by referendum?

The much-talked-about second referendum on Scottish independence requires the agreement of the central UK Government to be legally binding throughout the UK. It very much appears that no matter which party is in power, the UK Government is little inclined to agree to this demand.

Recently, when the Conservatives were in power and the SNP had an overwhelming majority of representatives both in Edinburgh and in London, the UK Government decided that it was too soon after the 2014 referendum.

Now that SNP numbers in London have seriously declined, the response from London is that the popular support for a second referendum is no longer demonstrated.

Holding another referendum based on the sole decision of the Scottish Parliament would not be legally binding and probably technically not possible.

However, it is surely within the powers of the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum which asks the question “do you want another referendum on Scottish independence?”. If the answer is clearly yes, then how could any government in London disrespect this clear opinion of the Scottish people?

If the answer is no, then at least the situation is clarified. If the answer is yes, it would also be possible to have a secondary question within the same vote such as “if you agree that a referendum should be held, should this be within two years of the current vote or within five years of the current vote?”.

Perhaps this is a way forward out of the current stalemate.

Ricki McAllister

Geneva, Switzerland

I THINK the route Scots have to take is this. We ask Westminster to agree a referendum but add that if they refuse, we will go ahead anyway. The Scotland Act was written by English parties so it can and should be ignored. It should be made clear that the harder Westminster make our journey, the more chance of us trading with the EU .

Good deals for Westminster will only come with co-operation. For this to work, the SNP need to step up, and that is our biggest problem. They are still acting like they run a region.

We can’t wait for 2026 only to find the SNP making empty promises again. If the party wants to survive, it has to know Scots are not going to let it continue to run a region. It’s independence or bust for this “version” of the SNP.

They still regard the Union parties who want the SNP crushed into the dust as “colleagues” so I’m sadly not hopeful.

Bill Robertson

via email

AS Scotland shivered under the first heavy frost and snow of winter, First Minister John Swinney visited the site of Sumitomo Electric’s subsea cable factory at the Port of Nigg.

The factory build is being supported by the Scottish Government to the tune of £24.5 million.

Apparently, it will be the first of its kind in the UK and, in the words of the Scottish Government’s PR machine, will “support the growth of Scotland’s world-leading offshore wind sector”.

My alternative interpretation would be “the Scottish taxpayer is subsidising a Japanese multinational company to build a factory which produce cables to extract Scottish wind and wave generated electricity.

This electricity will either power homes in England or be sold back to the selfsame Scottish taxpayers at a sizeable profit”.

This farcical, almost comical, situation is a repeat of the 1970s’ oil and gas boom. Many, including pensioners with or without a Winter Heating Payment, who have paid tax all their lives, will not be able to afford the electricity soon to be passing through these cables made in a factory they helped to finance.

Our Scottish Government should be ashamed of itself for this policy madness.

Glenda Burns

Glasgow