I AM not a constitutional expert, as Andrew Tickell (Can Holyrood hold a legal indyref ..., March 8) is, nor have I read the various Acts in full, but as someone who at least understood logical argument sufficiently to pass a degree course, I would like to put forward my case for the legitimacy of an independence referendum.

First, it has always been my understanding that the Treaty of Union was signed by agreement between two sovereign nations and therefore is acknowledged as binding under international law. I believe, too, that it in fact contains a clause allowing either party in the future to decide to withdraw if the nation so decides. Therefore it is Scotland’s right, as it is England’s, to decide to withdraw from that Union.

Next consider the question of sovereignty. Notwithstanding any provisions of the Scotland Act, the ratification by Westminster last July of the Claim of Right confirms that the ancient right of sovereignty in Scotland rests with the people, not any government, and that Scots thus have the right to decide the form of government that they wish. Compare the clause in the American Declaration of Independence, based on the Scottish Declaration of Arbroath, which makes this abundantly clear: “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed … It is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”

Surely these two rights, one to withdraw from the Treaty of Union and the second to decide the form of government we want, must be respected and cannot be removed by any person or government without our consent.

Now consider the question of mandate, so recently denied by Theresa May. Just how much more mandate can a nation give its leaders than a) to increase hugely the membership of the party supporting these wishes; b) to elect a majority of representatives from that party, not once, but three times over two parliaments, and c) to have these elected representatives win a mandate to ask the people in a referendum, by a majority in the national parliament? Finally, anent the Unionist argument that the people do not want to exercise these rights, the only way to verify that is by asking the people – unless, of course, you are scared of the answer. So who or what can legally stop us from asking the sovereign people of Scotland what they want?
L McGregor
Falkirk

THERESA May has never ever said no to an indyref for the good reason that she does not have the legal competence to say no or otherwise prevent one.

The English regime has committed multiple violations of the Treaty of Union and, consequently, has rendered its terms null and void. This means that England and Scotland are not in a legally constituted union and that any pretended legislation passed through the English parliament by its English majority is not lawful so far as it touches on Scotland. England and Scotland have each reverted to their former sovereignty and our parliament of Scotland has the legally constituted mandate endorsed by the Scottish electorate, passed by our parliament, to proceed with a referendum on our terms.

All we need do after the vote is pass the legislation formally confirming the dissolution of the Union. If you see what I see – England on a trajectory towards “V for Vendetta” with High Chancellor Reese-Mogg at its head, then I’m sure you will agree that the sooner we act and, to use their words, “take our country back” from them, the better.
Linda Horsburgh
Dundee

IT seems crystal clear from Nicola Sturgeon that there will only be a second indyref when it is legal and binding, and on the same basis as the Edinburgh Agreement under which referendum 2014 was conducted. And there would seem little chance of the Tory Government granting a legally binding referendum in this parliament. This surely means four things have become crystal clear:

1) However much we may want one, a second indyref isn’t going to happen anytime soon. We can either cry in our beer, or use the time to build the fantastic broad case for indy that exists, and convince the one or two in 10 currently floating or No voters to switch to Yes that we need to, to win a referendum majority for independence

2) The Yes movement collectively, through all pro-indy parties, should seek an unequivocal and non-conditional mandate for a second indyref at the Holyrood 2021 elections – one that cannot be quibbled over and for which a powerful precedent has already been set by the 2011 mandate and the Edinburgh Agreement. At those elections the SNP should stand unopposed by any other pro-indy party in the constituencies, and the other Yes parties should stand on a joint slate, unopposed by the SNP, on the list. This is the strategy needed under our Scottish Parliamentary Additional Member System to “Max the Yes” and the number of pro-indy MSPs elected.

3) The SNP should stand at the 2022 Westminster election on the basis of offering support to a minority Labour government in return for agreement on a legally binding indyref2 to be held in the spring or autumn of 2023.

4) Scotland will no longer be a member of the EU at the time of an agreed indyref. In the interests of choice and democracy, and uniting both all potential Yes Remainers and all potential Yes Leavers, the SNP and all the other indy parties should make a choice on the key arguments for independence, and state that once this is achieved Scots will be allowed their own say, in their own referendum, on whether to rejoin the EU, go for a Norway style arrangement, or to stay initially with the UK arrangements and then negotiate our own bespoke trade deals outwith EU structures. An independent Scotland should also promise a referendum on whether to become a democratic republic.
Steve Arnott
Inverness