We must present the case for independence directly to the voters

When, eventually, we ask/beg for a Section 30 order (how that sticks in my throat), it should be from a position of strength, when the polls are showing a sizeable and consistent majority in favour of independence.

I’ve noticed, periodically, that contributors to this paper express surprise and a certain bewilderment that the support for independence hasn’t really changed much since the referendum in 2014, stubbornly hovering around the 45% mark. This despite the glaringly obvious incompetence of the current Tory Westminster government and its dismissive, patronising and sometimes blatantly hostile attitude to Scotland and her parliamentary representatives.

READ MORE: This is the question we should be asking ourselves about indyref2

Why are 55% of the Scottish electorate still so reluctant to reject Unionism in all its manifestations and embrace the prospect of Scotland becoming a free, independent state, able to set her own priorities and take her proud place among the global family of nations? Can’t they now see the advantages of independence which are so apparent to the loyal, regular readers of the National?

Well, no actually, they can’t because they don’t read the National. They get their information from The Daily Mail or The Telegraph or The Sun or that paragon of unbiased reporting, the BBC.

The sad fact is that the majority of the Scottish electorate simply don’t know in what ways a future independent Scotland would be different, better, fairer, more democratic even, than the current set-up. More than four years after the 2014 vote, it’s still not really clear what currency we’d use, what our relationship with the EU or Nato would be, whether our state pension would still be one of the lowest in Europe, what our energy policy and our foreign policy would be etc etc.

READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon: Alex Salmond allegations will not harm the case for Yes

It’s time that these policies, and many others, are crystallised as far as is possible by the Scottish Government and then disseminated to the Scottish population so that people know exactly what they’re voting for in any forthcoming referendum.

So how do we get this information across to the 55%? With the obvious exception of The National, I think it most unlikely that the print or broadcast media in Scotland would permit the use of their platforms to promote independence, so we need to bypass these bodies and present the case for independence directly to the voter by other means. Perhaps by using leaflets, pushed through letter boxes, advertising posters, mobile billboards and any other method we can devise to get the message over. We can’t wait until the starting gun has fired. We need to prepare ourselves before we enter the arena.

The greater independence movement has the manpower, the energy and the enthusiasm to do this – all it needs is a bit of direction, encouragement and support from the Scottish Government, which perhaps should be focusing less on Britain’s exit from the EU and more on Scotland’s exit from the UK.

Calls for another referendum to be held sooner rather than later, irrespective of the polls, are becoming increasingly common and increasingly strident. Our First Minister should hold her nerve and delay setting a date until the groundwork has been properly laid, the people have been properly informed and there is a clear, unambiguous and undeniable majority desire by the people of Scotland for independence.

Alex Henderson
Bearsden

ROBIN McAlpine writes: “... if the rUK refused to recognise Scotland as an independent country, none of the other major powers would either.” If that is the case how can any colonial country, for example, become independent, if the “mother” nation simply refuses to recognise it?

I happen to be reading Scotland, the UK and Brexit (edited by Hassan & Gunson, 2017). In a brief section titled “Independence referendums in international law”, Matthew Qvortrup, fellow of King’s College, London, states: “Referendums on independence in international law tend to result in recognition if it is clear that there is a popular mandate for statehood among the voters.” Previously he had given the example (amongst others) of Estonia becoming independent without the Soviet Union’s permission. He goes on to contend that such an outcome for Scotland could trump the views of the Supreme Court.

So perhaps the position is not as clear-cut as Robin McAlpine claims.

According to the Scotland Act 2016, section one, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government cannot be abolished except by a decision of the people of Scotland “voting in a referendum”. Does this not imply that the Scottish Government has the power to hold a referendum (surely it would be absurd to say that only Westminster has the power to hold a referendum to abolish the Scottish Parliament)? So a layman’s question – why, then, does Scotland not have the right to hold a referendum on another matter, independence?

Roddie Macpherson
Avoch

INSPIRED by the article ‘Canavan calls for new referendum before 2021 "or we might miss the boat"' (January 28), I prepared to write a letter for your columns. Then I reconsidered, telling myself despondently that writing letters to the papers never changes the world.

Then I had a recollection. In 1961 Peter Benenson effectively founded Amnesty International by writing a letter to a newspaper. That certainly had positive and enduring global consequences. Just one example.

So folks, keep on writing your letters. One of them might change the world.

Billy Scobie
Alexandria

READ MORE: Dennis Canavan warns against 'missing the boat' on indyref2