WHETHER or not our great mover and shaker, Elaine C Smith, was right some weeks ago in saying that nothing was happening on the Yes campaign front, it is heartening to see that work for the future Yes campaign is now really taking shape, activity which is essential preparation for official campaigning whenever that eventually gets going. I refer to events like the SIC Build Conference in Glasgow, but also to occasional papers from stalwarts like Common Weal, ideas from the Greens and the work of the SNP.

I call it heartening because, as Mhairi Black infers (Unhealthy confusion is being constructed around our NHS, The National, January 14), Better Together 2 and its hangers-on have long since kicked off their campaign: everything the UK Government has said and done since the Smith Commission has been a form of anti-independence campaigning, making it urgent that we get similarly into gear, irrespective of when our First Minister fires the official starting gun. The lead-up to indyref1 was a long process of educating those voters who possessed little or no understanding of the way the UK is governed, voters who badly needed information about how poor that governance is and how it puts the development of Scotland at a serious disadvantage. That campaign was a long business and it went remarkably well, but it was not completed.

It has to restart – now.

While heartened by signs of strong activity, there is one element missing. We hear much talk about the Scottish economy and foreign trade, of course; about oil specifically; about currency; about financing our government; about parliament and local governance. We hear about relations with the rUK and the EU; about equality, environment, democracy, and many other independence-related issues. But too often there remains unspoken one matter which I believe to be the linchpin for all these areas of concern. A device without which they could all go to pieces (as seems to be happening to the UK). It is in effect a design for the new sovereign state. It is a written constitution.

Why do I think it is vital to look at this now? Why not leave it until independence? I have three reasons. The first is that if we do not have even plans for a draft constitution, we could dangerously slow down the formalities of setting up our new state due to confusion and disagreement. My second reason is that a written constitution is like a design for the new state, and even if it is not finalised, it will give our concept of a new, improved Scotland at least some identifiable shape.

My third reason is its immediate usefulness as a campaigning tool. Aside from their fears about currency, pensions, the economy etc, I believe many of our doubting compatriots remain in the No-voting sector because they cannot imagine a sovereign Scottish state, how it would be structured, what its founding principles should be. There is no wonder they cannot imagine this: living in a state with no written constitution in which the Prime Minister of the day can make it up as they go along. A “sample” Scottish constitution, perhaps in abbreviated form to present to voters, would give a better picture, enable them to their heads round the idea of a sovereign Scotland, and, together with whatever updated White Paper, gives them a little more confidence to vote Yes.

Over the decades, such provisional constitutions have been produced by thinkers both inside and outside the SNP. I believe it is an important thing to do without delay. Although no indication of a referendum date is yet clear, the campaign has, effectively, already begun.

Michael F Troon, Gauldry, Fife

I WAS slightly surprised at the prominence you give to the letter from Carole Ford (Scotland has its form of identity politics, The National, January 18) attacking the use and teaching of the Gaelic and Scots languages.

In an international career in health services I found a basic knowledge of Gaelic [I regret not being fluent] helpful when I lived in Kathmandu and wished to learn some Nepali. When treating a child in Malawi her mother remarked that I could pronounce the child’s name because I am Scottish [it included the “ch” sound used in “loch” – which occurs in many languages].

Our multi-lingual background has practical as well as sentimental value.

David Stevenson, Edinburgh

I READ with some confusion Carole Ford’s letter as to her vision and thoughts on her identity.

She starts by stating we are all the product of many identities, that is true for most, and then goes on to state that the Gaelic and Scots languages are of no benefit to us or our children. She also states she has no pride in any of her identities, how sad.

Identity is not only about your ancestors, it encompasses many vital components such as culture. Scottish culture, like all others, has developed over many years, continues to develop and does not recognise borders. Hence why we have much in common with our Irish and Welsh cousins who rejoice in their language, culture and identity.

Most of the place names throughout Scotland are Gaelic or Scots or are derived from Gaelic or Scots. Does Carole ever wonder what they mean or how they became called as such?

Identity and culture generic to your own particular area or country is something to celebrate with people from other countries and their language and culture.

Finally, Carole states she has no pride in the languages but values them well. Carole, I value my identity, my culture and its languages. I rejoice in them but do not think that makes me better than others or less inclusive.

The government is quite correct to promote Scottish identity, culture and language. Its our own particular little story and, let’s be honest, it is extremely good for the tourist industry and the thousands that are employed in it throughout our our cities and, more importantly, our delicate rural economies which are not blessed with riches. Learning about your culture customs and languages is never bad as long as it remains inclusive and I think we are getting the balance right.

Bryan Auchterlonie, Perthshire

CAROLE Ford can’t have lived long in her “own” Glasgow if she imagines “identity politics” came about as a result of the “rise of the SNP”. Polling has always indicated that Scots, including most Unionists, consider themselves Scots first – not exceptional, just Scots.

Does the rise of the SNP explain the identity politics currently being pushed to extremes by Westminster? We may, of course, always consider ourselves British as we live in an archipelago, named the British Isles by a Greek geographer. Ms Ford’s case is clearly political and anti-SNP, so why not regale us with the policies of Unionist parties in Scotland which will enhance life in Scotland, Britain and Europe and explain how her European identity is enhanced by the recent about turn on membership of the EU, exhibited by the “leaders” of the Unionist parties?

Given valuing all identities, it is a great pity that Ms Ford sees no value in preserving one of the oldest languages in Europe and dialects many people were raised speaking. Tell Belfast, Yorkshire, Cornwall and Midlanders to forget their own way of talking! Fortunately, many can read Gaelic and more are learning, including Glaswegians, Scots and Europeans!

Oddly, Ms Ford claims to value divergence only on her terms and not to be “proud of any of my identities” but considers herself “very lucky” to be a Glaswegian Scot. That implies that the rest of us Scots, Britons and Europeans are unlucky. Imagine, Ms Ford, that when we restore our independence we will be equal with every other country in the world, not subject to the class-ridden, banker funded, war-mongering nonsense that inhabits Westminster!

Bill McLean, Dunfermline