FROM his critique of Carolyn Leckie’s article (Letters, April 17), it is unclear to me how Peter Bell imagines the Yes movement will win another referendum.

He is right that Westminster intends “to strip powers from the Scottish Parliament and roll back devolution”. The present dispute about “agree” or “consult” is little more than an overture. However, faced with the dismantling of devolution, what does Bell consider will be the reaction of its architects?

One instance is Henry McLeish, who was reported last weekend as saying that “I fear it may be too late for federalism”, leaving independence as “the only show in town”. The act of diminishing devolution will create its own reaction, or does Peter Bell think we will all stand idly by?

I agree too that no SNP Holyrood administration means no referendum, and that the SNP is critical to the success of the Yes movement. However, arguing the SNP is the “de facto political arm of the Yes movement” is disproportionate, for some who believe in independence are not members. Some are in other parties, others in no party at all.

Even in 2015, the SNP didn’t secure 50 per cent of the vote (though it came very close). Therefore it must reach out to others, so perhaps such as a commitment to a “multi-choice referendum on our relationship to Europe” should be considered?

Peter Bell talks of “realpolitik”, but he would be more convincing if he recognised the need for it. His “our way or the highway” stance could leave our independence movement just tantalisingly short of winning the next referendum, if it is so unprepared to make the necessary compromises to win.

It is, of course, to our advantage that support has held up since 2014 and that the Yes vote increased by more than 50 per cent last time, but most “soft” converts have come over already, and it will be more convinced Unionists who have to be persuaded this time. Therefore, first and more important than anything, we need to campaign for independence, deaf to the siren cries of Ruth Davidson to “get back to the day job”.

While we need to “get the show back on the road”, we need to know what is in the show. Leckie therefore is completely right that “We need to be clear on what we are asking people to support, while avoiding a detailed manifesto”. We also, to continue the theatrical metaphor, need to give the audience the time to be convinced.

Taking all this together, Leckie’s estimates of a date for another referendum are not only a great deal more realistic, but more likely to result in success than Peter Bell’s “up and at ‘em” suggestion, as long as we use the time wisely and effectively to bring more over to independence.

My late mother would sometimes caution her impatient son: “Act in haste, repent at leisure”. Right now, we would do well to contemplate those wise words.

Alasdair Galloway
Dumbarton

THE ongoing debate in these pages regarding the wording in the updated Declaration of Arbroath (Letters, April 17 and Letters, April18), could surely be easily solved to the satisfaction of all parties concerned by the simple action of adding “or choice” right after the statement: “This sovereignty is mine by birth.”

It would thus encompass the heartfelt wishes of all of us for the future of Scotland, whether we had inhabited these hills and glens for generations or were a relatively new addition to our society with, of course, the kind permission of our renowned Westminster immigration department!

George M Mitchell
Dunblane