THERE is one significant factor that Dave Llewellyn (Letters, April 19) and many others miss when making comparison with the vibrant public Catalonian response to their independence campaign and the less evident Scottish one.

Virtually all the Catalonian media, broadcast and printed, supports Catalonian independence and makes the case for it continually. Thus the Catalonians are very aware that they are a prosperous and very evidently self-supporting community.

That is the lesson. Once a majority of Scots understand that we are comfortably self-supporting, we will readily win independence. That is actually the only battle we have to win. And that is exactly what our enemy understands.

Of course the people of Catalonia, by virtue of their independence-supporting media, see the images of their gatherings in all the outlets all the time.

Contrast this with Scotland. Not very long ago around 25,000 people marched through Glasgow, bringing the city to a standstill, in support of independence. Apart from the demonstration in George Square in 1919 and the march against the Iraq War, this was probably the biggest ever political gathering in Scotland. Our media including the BBC more or less missed it.

Let’s make sure they can’t miss our march on May 5.

David McEwan Hill
Sandbank, Argyll

GIVEN that most agree, and independent polls consistently confirm, that around half of the population support self-determination, why, apart from The National (with an impressive but relatively small circulation), are all the nationally distributed newspapers and our two primary TV broadcasters in Scotland apparently fighting each other, subjectively and seemingly unprofessionally, to represent the political views of the other half of the population?

The contrived condemnation of the SNP in relation to their alleged involvement with Cambridge Analytica (CA), which appeared to amount to no more than an unsuccessful attempt by CA to secure business from the SNP via an “external consultant”, appears to have been blown out of all sensible proportion while the “real story” of the actual involvement of the Tory Party, and perhaps the Labour Party, in exploiting CA data seems to have been irresponsibly or scurrilously avoided.

It was embarrassing to listen to the slanted perspective of Gordon Brewer on the BBC’s Politics Scotland programme attempting to justify his persistence with knock-about fun centred on that condemnation rather than exploring the serious issues around what is already known about the Tory Party involvement, especially given the implication that involvement may have corrupted referendum voting and undermined democracy throughout the UK.

Is it too idealistic to hope that, unlike the apparent outcome of the EU battle within the Tory party, objective, professional and non-extreme views will prevail within the editorial leadership of Scottish newspapers and TV channels, with the result that the Scottish public will soon enjoy the considerable benefits of fair and equitable political reporting overall?

Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian

YOUR article (BBC slammed after selling Scotland short, April 19) is based on outdated information and is significantly misleading.

The report is based on one submission to the Scottish Parliament’s Culture Committee, submitted over five months ago. A lot has changed since November 2017. Had you incorporated the comment you asked us to supply on April 18, your readers would have been informed that the channel will not be delivered in Standard Definition (SD) as you reported, but in High Definition (HD).

And to suggest that the channel will fail as a result of funding levels is a contention that is without any foundation. The commissioning process on which we have already embarked has already started to produce exciting and innovative programme ideas and we are confident that our planning for the channel will deliver a high-quality service for our audiences in Scotland.

Ian Small
Head of Public Policy & Corporate Affairs,BBC Scotland

I AGREE with Alastair Gibb (Letters, April 19) about the futility of relying on the Supreme Court. In any event the UK legal system is not part of the democratic system in its origin – it comes from the feudal system, and is the establishment’s voice.

The idea that such a court can be “fair” or “just” is naive. The best that can be said on behalf of courts is that they are a longstanding part of our cultural establishment, but even that is not correct about the Supreme Court. It is a new court, recently established by the Westminster Parliament.

Now the one part of the UK constitution which is written down is the Treaty of Union, which confirms that the Scottish legal system remains separate from the Westminster Parliament.

Since Scotland has a different, separate legal system, and also has a different view of sovereignty, this new Supreme Court established by Westminster has nothing to say constitutionally about Scotland. Its pronouncement can only relate to the Westminster Parliament.

Andy Anderson
Saltcoats

I TOO am troubled by an new version of the Declaration of Arbroath concentrating on “birth” and “birthright”. A better qualification would at least include “domicile”. I born here, but through work was absent for most of my life and my wife is English. However, we have lived here since retirement 14 years ago and we both consider ourselves “sovereign Scots.”

Hugh Dunnachie
Sanqhuar