THANKS to Jim Sillars for his reply (Letters, June 29), although mightn’t it have benefitted by not denigrating to the point of insulting both myself and the Yes movement in general?

Also thanks to him for revealing to us that Scotland is NOT a devolved nation after all, based on his assertion that S28(7) of the Scotland Act allows Westminster to retain full law-making powers – including in devolved areas.

So, Scots were sold a pup and should allow Westminster’s political abuse? Or should we test Mr Sillars’s view and ask the Supreme Court whether it was parliament’s intent at the time to autocratically intervene in devolved matters, and whether that intent was fully and openly described to Scots during the devolution process? Tell you what, let’s go for it.

Mr Sillars relies on 64% of our trade being with rUK to justify staying in the UK Union. Yet 54% of the UK’s trade being with the EU doesn’t have the same weight to encourage remaining in the EU? If the UK thinks it can still trade successfully with the EU after Brexit, why couldn’t independent Scotland continue to trade with rUK?

I don’t accept plebiscites like Brexit, legally only advisory, have any legitimacy other than to “guide” elected representatives. My democratic standards are higher than those of Mr Sillars. When a majority in the Scottish nation vote for parties advocating independence which form a Scottish government, then Scotland should declare independence, rescind the infamous 1707 Act of Union, negotiate a “deal” with rUK and leave with the “best deal possible, no deal if necessary” (seem familiar?).

Westminster has no intention of voluntarily allowing such a vital national resource as Scotland to leave the UK; every former dominion or territory seeking to break away from Westminster was forced to struggle for it, none of which have ever returned to Westminster’s sovereignty over them.

Just as Scottish independence is a matter for Scots, so must Shetlanders determine their own future. I’d hope they’d consider an independent Scotland superior to Westminster sovereignty and remain with us. Wouldn’t that be their choice?

Does Mr Sillars know how the EU operates? The UK is the EU member, which is all the EU is empowered to deal with. It also has a duty not to become politically involved in its members’ internal affairs, which Scottish independence is to it, just like Spain and Catalonia. However, we know the EU will welcome an independent Scotland applying for membership, should Scots vote for it.

The EU places capital above labour? Yet it’s the EU that’s delivered the better working conditions Westminster singularly failed to.

Mr Sillars mentions Greece, which the anti-EU brigade rely on heavily to disparage the EU. Greece’s parlous financial situation was indisputably caused through mass tax evasion and poor central government handling of the economy. The EU, through the Central Bank, instituted necessary financial strictures to heal the economy; measures essential to the future financial wellbeing of Greeks and not dissimilar to those prescribed by the IMF on Britain during Labour’s tenure after 13 years of Tory government in the 60s. Would Mr Sillars’s alternative be Greece leaving the EU and being an economic wasteland and financial pariah?

Yes, last time those like me were voting for the status quo. But that meant we had control over all devolved powers, not just when it suited Westminster; we’d still have a future in Europe, and not leave because media fuelled immigration xenophobia and an internal Tory party struggle demanded it; and we believed the lies from supposedly reputable exponents of the Remain campaign which dissipated as soon as the dust settled, and which Mr Sillars seems to think is perfectly acceptable.

Perhaps this is the reason why, like me, Mr Sillars is now commenting on the side-lines, venting “opinion”, and no longer a serious political player?

Jim Taylor
Edinburgh