Readers' Opinion: UK is being undermined by a constant and undemocratic demand to ignore the settled will of the Scottish people

I consider the two key points of the agreement were that the referendum - which took place on September 18, 2014 should be legally based and that it should “deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of the people and a result that everyone will respect”.

Furthermore, the then First Minister Alex Salmond was quoted immediately after the signing of the 2012 agreement as saying : “Importantly , it will ensure that the biggest decision the people of our country will make for many generations is made here in Scotland for the benefit of all of those that live and work here”.

I believe it is now time, under duress, for No voters to consider seeking a restraining order against the SNP in civil court invoking the Freedom from Harassment Act 1997 Section 8, citing the terms of the 2012 legal agreement as being openly disregarded by the party. I feel, as I know many do, that the stability of the UK is being undermined by a constant and undemocratic demand to ignore the settled will of the Scottish people by the SNP.

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive, Milngavie.

NICOLA Sturgeon states that her devotion to the prospect of a neverendum is based on democracy.

My idea of democracy is that if you ask people to cast a vote in a process which you freely define as "once in a lifetime," you should abide by its outcome for a lifetime. Likewise, if you freely sign up to that vote in a public document as "decisive", you should accept that its outcome was decisive.

In short, my idea of democracy is respecting the votes of two million Scots cast in good faith but now betrayed. But I guess that is just me being picky.

Peter A Russell,

87 Munro Road, Jordanhill, Glasgow.

WHAT is it that the SNP doesn't understand about majority voting? We recently went through an exciting, if very divisive, referendum campaign, the democratic result of which was that the people of Scotland have chosen to remain as part of the UK. No one likes to lose on such an emotive issue, but we all subscribed to accepting the result of the vote. Now Ms Sturgeon is suggesting another possible bite at the party's coveted cherry, because, she proudly claims, politicians do not have the right to ignore the wishes of the people.

How, one wonders, will she determine these wishes, if not from the referendum result? Opinion polls? Heaven help us. Or perhaps another referendum to determine whether we want another referendum? I despair of escaping from this idiocy with a voting system in which the anti-independence vote is split between at least three unionist parties.

David Warden,

24 Kilmardinny Avenue,

Bearsden.

IF there is a second referendum and the vote is 55 per cent-45 per cent in favour of independence, will there be an option for a third referendum and hopefully a final referendum "for a generation" before the final bill for independence is passed?

This would only be democratically fair in case subsequently a series of opinion polls show a majority in favour of remaining in the United Kingdom.

After all, what is it that gives them the right to stand in way of the majority?

I am sure the many floating voters would appreciate the opportunity to change their mind again.

Ian MacRae,

24 Buchlyvie Road, Paisley.

NICOLA Sturgeon was absolutely right to accuse her opponents of seeking to thwart the democratic wishes of Scots during the BBC's televised Leaders' Debate. Ms Sturgeon has on innumerable occasions spoken of her respect for the result of the 2014 referendum; however, respect has been conspicuously absent from the three political parties which campaigned together for a No vote, towards the 45 per cent of voters who voted for an independent Scotland; and the latest poll shows that support for independence is growing.

You report Scots Tory leader Ruth Davidson, and Liberal Democrat Willie Rennie rounding on Ms Sturgeon's pledge to hold a referendum "if a series of opinion polls show a majority in favour of independence", and that Mr Rennie got the biggest cheer of the night when he described Ms Sturgeon's position as “anti-democratic”. Well, of course. The audience was apparently made up to reflect the opinions of the political parties represented on the platform, and out of the five parties, three were Unionists. But it ill becomes Mr Rennie and Ms Davidson to accuse anyone of being "anti-democratic", considering that Mr Rennie's party was in coalition with the Tories at Westminster for five years with no mandate from the voters, and Ms Davidson's party governs Scotland from Westminster in spite of having only one Scottish MP. Ms Sturgeon has given a cast-iron guarantee to voters that there will only be a second referendum if the people of Scotland want one, and that truly reflects the spirit of democracy.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road,

Stirling.

I GET much joyous satisfaction from listening to the noisy alarm of our nervous Unionists whenever a second referendum is suggested. As there is no more democratic method of identifying the will of the people, do they understand that their vociferous fright has entirely the opposite effect to what is intended? It tells us all they know they will lose the next one – and that in the meantime they will do all they can to resist giving us the democratic right to determine how we govern ourselves.

As a confirmed democratic I will readily concede the right of the Unionists after we gain independence to hold as many referendums as they can gain popular support for in favour of reverting to the Union as soon as they win an election that puts them back in government.

Dave McEwan Hill,

1 Tom Nan Ragh, Dalinlongart, Sandbank, Argyll.

IN the resplendent setting of Hopetoun House, far removed from the areas of Scotland's social problems, the main party political leaders met to debate key election issues. Was this achieved? Perhaps not as the constitutional issue so beloved by politicians, academics and the media once again achieved much time and input. The real issues of poverty, addiction, mental health and zero hour contracts became secondary to the “deferendum” issue.

One questioner raised the point "what are all the parties doing to pull together?" By their collective reaction the answer would seem to be "not a lot ". The continuing self-indulgence of the political class, the constitutional issue, detracts from the urgency in addressing our blatant social problems.

Allan C Steele,

22 Forres Avenue, Giffnock.

STANLEY Baldwin's denunciation of those who hold power without responsibility, the prerogative as he put it of the harlot through the ages, could well apply, with a slight nuance of meaning, to the members of the present Scottish Government. Having been in power for more than eight years, it has, it tells us, not been responsible for any of the negative events of that time. Increasing poverty, declining performance in education and in the health service, reduced council services – the responsibility for all these is laid squarely at the door of the London government. This despite the fact that the SNP has not only refused to use its tax raising powers to combat austerity, but has actually in real terms reduced taxation by its iniquitous council tax freeze which has undeniably and disproportionately benefitted the wealthy.

How anyone claiming to be a socialist can support the SNP, now the guardians of the economic interests of the middle class, I cannot fathom. Hearing Nicola Sturgeon repeat almost verbatim the arguments of George Osborne against taxing the rich should surely have opened many eyes, and will hopefully influence voting intentions on Thursday.

One thing I will agree the SNP is not responsible for is the catastrophic fall in the price of oil, realising tax revenues last year at a 40 year low. Yet despite this, it appears that every time the price of a barrel of oil falls, support for the SNP juggernaut rises, indicating that emotional irrationality rather than political logic now guides the choices of large sections of the Scottish population. Had Scotland voted for independence last year it would be undergoing a variant of the economic waterboarding the EU inflicted on Greece. The SNP argument for independence was based on the foundation of the then oil price; its current attempt to now deny that was the case would be deemed perjury in any court of law. If anyone thinks North Sea oil will recover, they should go to West Texas where forests of fracking towers on an oilfield bigger than Saudi Arabia's are pumping out oil at $30 a barrel, and will do so for many decades to come.

Sadly, by the time the SNP is able to be held responsible for its use of power there may well be independence. A little-lamented German politician stated that the Pied Piper of Hamlin trick only worked once. The SNP's Tartan Piper appears to be capable of proving him wrong. But be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

Ian R Mitchell,

21 Woodside Terrace, Glasgow.