IT is clear that there has to be another independence referendum soon.

Time is running out. The establishment is already operating at a high level creating a negative view of the country and its ability. With the control of the media they have, they don’t even need a grassroots campaign as we do.

We need an organised campaign to be established now. We should not expect the SNP to be the campaign front-runners, as they have a country to run. The campaign body has to be all-party and no-party. Once we get a result then of course the politicians will have to do the final deal, and SNP support for the campaign is essential.

So who is going to get this off the ground? In my view the Scottish Independence Convention (SIC) needs to pick up the mantle. It has broad support within the movement and has already organised one major event in Edinburgh.

While it may not be structured or funded for this role at this point in time, this can quickly be overcome. A crowdfunding campaign will raise the money. Last week 60,000 people marched for independence. Those people were not on the street just for a walk – there is belief and burning desire there. If each of them contributed £1 a month for a year, the money is there.

Even if the movement didn’t want SIC to fulfil the role of Yes, it should still start the process. Crowdfund, spend on a campaign and if SIC is not the official Yes body the money can be transferred.

We can’t wait for a formally appointed Yes body. What is needed is the formation of a Yes body in waiting. As far as I can see the SIC is the only widely based body that can do this.

A disparate group of organisations, no matter how well intentioned, cannot take on the establishment. We are the last bit of Empire they have any vestige of control over and this is going to get very nasty, not on our part. We need in place a professional structure to stand any chance of taking on the establishment and winning.

My take on it is that there is still an expectation that SIC will step up. Quite frankly if it’s not going to do so maybe it should just go, and that will force some other group to take the lead. If the SIC leaders doubt the level of support they have, then survey the movement.

In summary, we are running out of time, the resurgent movement is looking for leadership and organisation, the money is there. Some organisation has to stick its head above the parapet. So, SIC, where are you on this?

Colin Hope

YOUR main story on Friday (Only Tories fail to back rejection of power grab, May 11) gave an incredibly clear description of the current situation within the Scottish Parliament’s constitution committee. In particular, the isolation of the Tories as the only party who are happy to see the UK Government force through decisions against the expressed will of the Scottish Parliament.

However, Patrick Harvie’s statement during the committee meeting, “[The UK Government] are now making it very clear they don’t care one way or the other whether their Brexit crisis undermines devolution”, requires some correction and clarification.

From previous statements and actions, the UK Government most certainly does know what it is doing in terms of using Brexit to undermine devolution. That is its plan, and it is very clear what it is intended to achieve: if not the complete abolition of the Scottish Parliament, its complete emasculation to the point of irrelevance.

It is the job of the Yes2 movement and the Scottish Government to get us out of this mess before this comes to pass, by holding and winning a second referendum. And if we don’t? Well, God help us.

David Patrick

INTERESTING letter from Brenda Mitchell (May 12), who is a lawyer, regarding making roads safer for pedal cyclists. She is, of course, quite right that more cycle paths should be developed, separating cyclists from other road users.

However, I take exception to her bringing up, yet again, this “presumed liability” clause meaning, of course, that any person driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road is automatically presumed guilty if that person collides with a pedal cyclist. Its all a bit “barn doors and horses” really. For example, the law states that no moped (under 50cc) is permitted on a motorway. Can anyone NOT see the sense in that law? Can you imagine a moped “puttering” along a motorway at 25mph while juggernauts and the like roar past, legally at 60mph and cars at 70mph?

Why then do I drive along the A9 or the A90, both notorious A-class roads, and find pedal cyclists on it? Relate that to mopeds on motorways and I’m sure you get my point. Of course, cycle paths are the answer to that problem but in the mean time cyclists should be banned from using such high-volume, dangerous roads.

To my next point, and this is a real needle I have with pedal cyclists. How many of them are aware of Rule 66 of the Highway Code (“Cycle in single file on busy main roads or narrow roads and when negotiating a bend”)? I suspect few are aware of it and many couldn’t care less even when they are aware. Just check it out for yourselves on a Saturday or Sunday in the summer.

I fully support more cycle ways in the name of road safety, but some cyclists need to show a bit of common sense as well before all and sundry jump on the band wagon about “presumed liability”.

Ian Heggie

THANKS for the recent articles on the subjects of Trident and Faslane. In my darkest moments, I think that Trident and its proposed removal from Scottish waters will be the ultimate reason for Scotland being denied independence. Forget about the elites in England fighting the removal of their milk cow revenues; once the military folk, Nato and Big Brother USA realise (if they have not yet done so) that they have nowhere else to park their toys, they will move heaven and Earth to prevent us “wee stupid” Scottish people from kicking them out. Nukes in George Square?

Alan Jardine
Kintore, Aberdeenshire