THE terminology used to frame the subject of indyref2 by this supposedly pro-independence publication is disheartening, to say the least – and John Curtice should know better, too (FM to go ahead with indyref2 plans despite General Election, October 30).

Things that naturally go along with the rights we have as people don’t need to be applied for and are not in the gift of politicians. The people of Scotland have the right to self-determination and it is unlawful to interfere with that. We have a procedure to follow to administer our right to self-determination, but cooperating with that procedure isn’t optional for the UK Government. It can’t refuse to comply. It’s like when you go to the bank to get your money out. It’s your money. The bank can’t refuse to give it to you on demand. They don’t have that right. They can’t keep you from taking possession of what is yours. If they try to, that’s a crime. Similarly, we have the right to self-determination. No-one and no body can keep it from us. That is illegal. The Section 30 order is the banknote in this simile. It is a documentation of a value which already belongs to us and that value must be made available – as it says on all banknotes – on demand.

READ MORE: Brexit: FM to go ahead with indyref2 plans despite General Election

Now, Nicola Sturgeon is apparently promising to demand our right to self-determination and, when she does, it cannot be refused. You might think she’s already done that, once, and been refused but you’d be wrong. If you look at the letter she sent way back in 2017, it’s not a demand. It’s a discussion document. In fact, that famous phrase Theresa May used to defer the Section 30 order wasn’t her own idea. “Now is not the time” was handed to her in the letter from Nicola Sturgeon. As such, failing to act and provide us with the documentation required to enable a referendum was not interfering with our right to self-determination. It was cooperating with terms provided by Nicola Sturgeon and what was reported as being a “formal request” was, in fact, a chatty open invitation to indefinitely put off doing anything.

The next one had better be a proper demand with defined parameters. She’s never done that before.

Neil Mackenzie

NOW that a General Election is in the offing the metropolitan commentariat are narrowing perceptions to England only, as usual. In a Guardian article published on Tuesday, “Even if the Tories win an election, they’ll be finished”, Polly Toynbee makes interesting comments, but woefully falls into the trap of exaggerating the Labour standing across the UK.

She claims that, with the demographic destiny, “30-year-olds are twice as likely to vote Labour.” But where? Certainly not in Scotland, where Labour representation has sunk below the radar at all levels of government. The famed “duopoly” are not functioning north of the Tweed and Scotland can no longer be shoehorned into the UK political landscape south of the Tweed.

Where are the LibDems in this equation? They are out-and-out Anglos. Their leader, Jo Swinson, an MP and former junior minister the austerity-driven Cameron-Clegg joint administration, representing a Scottish constituency, accused the PM for not taking into account the whole UK in the Brexit issues. However, she could only mention Northern Ireland in this context. Nothing about the devolved governments in Scotland and Wales being consulted where devolved matters are affected!

After the joint statements made recently by Nicola Sturgeon and the Labour Welsh First Minister, Labour in Wales is developing a less metropolitan focus in relation to an indyref2 and other matters. Plaid Cymru is also rising in numbers.

Polly Toynbee (and others as above) seem to forget that there are other parties and nations of the present UK represented at Westminster, which can and have altered the cosy duopolitic hegemony. None more so than the SNP at Holyrood and its phalanx of SNP MPs at Westminster. But then, UK is simply an acronym for Engerland.

John Edgar