FURTHER delays in revealing the latest plans for a second independence referendum are surely more about information management rather than enabling time for decision making (“Independence referendum plans statement ‘likely’ before Holyrood recess”, The Herald, June 21).

By revealing her plans on a second independence referendum just before the Scottish Parliament summer recess, the First Minister perhaps hopes to minimise the amount of public debate on the matter. She might decide to stick with her original plan of pushing for a rerun in the autumn 2018 to spring 2019 period, or to leave the issue until the 2021 Holyrood elections.

Equally, a major rebranding exercise might be planned, reimagining the whole thing as an EU or UK ultimatum, effectively merging the 2014 and 2016 referendum exercises in the hope that the combination somehow delivers the result she wants. Yet the SNP’s opponents and people generally will not forget about this over the summer. The First Minister owes Scotland not only clarity on what she intends but also a proper explanation of why.

Keith Howell, White Moss, West Linton, Peeblesshire.

I AM rather confused by the call from the Unionist party leaders at Holyrood for the SNP to recant on a second referendum timetable after the General Election result. They unashamedly made the election in Scotland a proxy vote on independence and they lost .

If the country was inclined to their viewpoint then it was a simple matter for the electorate , in a first-past-th-epost poll, to elect a Unionist candidate in each constituency. They did not. Indeed, they did so in only 24 out of 59 constituencies.

This raises the question as to what voters in Scotland thought that they were voting for in the election. If it was fought, as the Unionists contend, solely on independence, they clearly lost. Had the feeling been in the country that the people were sick of talk of another referendum, the Unionists’ mantra throughout, the voters would have coalesced around the leading Unionist candidate in each constituency.

It was clear from the results of some constituencies that some form of unofficial pact had been in operation to oust the SNP yet this was an isolated phenomenon and did not reflect voting intentions across the country. People were not so disgusted with the SNP’s independence stance that they would set aside party affiliations and work to defeat it wholesale.

If, on the other hand, the electorate voted on party policies, as the election was supposed to be about, again the Unionists lost since they were unable to secure a majority of seats in Scotland. Having heard so little of the Unionist parties’ policies during the campaign perhaps the voters had too little information to support them and they didn’t .

As democrats they must accept the decision of the electorate and not spin it to suit an end voters did not support .

Considering the result of the election, SNP leaders could quite legitimately ask that the Unionist parties in Scotland withdraw their objections to another independence referendum as they pinned all their electoral hopes on this issue and it has been rejected at the ballot box. They may not like it but, as one losing US politician put it: ‘’ The people have spoken, the b******s .’’

James Mills, 29 Armour Square , Johnstone.

IN speeches at the Mansion House this week, both the Chancellor of The Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England rang an alarm bell on the economy (“Brexit will make workers worse off and stifle growth, Carney warns”, The Herald, June 21). Both are concerned that the economy, which has already suffered at the suggestion of Brexit, will take a nosedive due to Brexit taking place.

Phrases such as “the workers did not vote to become poorer” and “investment decisions on hold” highlight the vulnerability and lack of empowerment of the general public. They both stopped short of saying “This is crazy” but that’s obviously what they believe. Why are they allowing it to happen? Why, when we have multiple general elections in a short space of time and are allowed to change our minds and vote out governments, press ahead with Brexit if it will be detrimental to most UK citizens.

If the will of the people must be implemented and if the general public makes such well-informed decisions, why don’t we have a plebiscite on every major decision such as Trident or selling arms to Saudi Arabia?

The speeches reinforced that there are three main groups in society: those with more money than they need, those with just enough and those who need more. What happens to all of us will be dictated by the rich group as they are conducting the negotiations and they will shuffle their wealth about after the negotiations to areas where it will grow fastest, based on self-interest. The middle group will find they are not as well-off as they thought and many will fall into the third and poorest category.

What will happen to the third group, the poorest, as prices rise, wages drop and borrowing becomes more expensive? Who cares?

If they could, the rich would care less and the recent General Election demonstrated that many in the middle live by the principle of “I’m all right Jack”. What a rotten society we live in.

David J Crawford, Flat 3/3, 131 Shuna Street, Glasgow.

HAS it escaped the politicians’ notice that the Brexit talks began on the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo?

Are they ready to meet ours?

Ian Lyell, 9 East Park Avenue, Mauchline.

A HEADLINE on your Business Pages proclaims: “Window firm buys English peer” (June 20). It has long been suspected that some of our politicians were for sale but I did not expect to see it publicly announced.

Kenneth Fraser, 24 Winram Place, St Andrews.

KEN Smith (“When the electorate didn’t think it was rubbish to vote”, Pictures from the Archive, The Herald, June 21) wrote that “The election was one by Labour but with their majority slashed ...”

A majority of won, perhaps?

The photograph relates to 1950, and I no spelling changes over the years, so perhaps wone shouldn’t complain.

Helen Ross, 10 Allan Walk Court, Bridge of Allan.