Essential reading on how Plan A can achieve indyref2

For those who call for a Plan B without detailing what it should be like or its consequences, Mr Hassan illustrates for us the form or construct of a Plan A. To me, this eliminates any other type of plan, alternative or secondary.

READ MORE: Gerry Hassan: We really ARE in the early days of a better nation

As regards the Labour party, I also make a distinction between its Holyrood leadership and its membership. It is to them the appeal of independence should be directed. I have always thought the slogan “Red Tories Out” was entirely wrong.

As to the BBC, some of our supporters feel criticism of their untruths, distortions or the ignoring of our events is a waste of time. I disagree – we must continue to apply pressure on them for it. The purpose is two-fold: an attempt to rectify it in the immediate and in the long term, so that when indyref2 happens their reporting is more balanced, less biased and fairer.

Finally, I agree with Mr Hassan in two good points he makes. One, we will not win independence by default; and two, the next time we are playing for keeps and the British state knows there is a good chance they will lose.

The next referendum will be very intense.

Bobby Brennan

Glasgow

THERE has been much discussion in your letters section recently about the prospects for, and the fairness of, using Scotland’s voting system to maximise the number of pro-indy seats in the Scottish Parliament. Most of it, though, ignores the most important point.

This is that the result must be seen as legitimate by the great majority of Scottish people – whether they are currently pro or anti-independence, or wavering. Westminster will always try to obstruct the road to independence, so will try to deny legitimacy to all moves towards it. International support, while potentially important, is nothing like so vital as acceptance within Scotland itself.

The idea being put forward is that an overwhelming majority of seats in the next Scottish Parliament, won on much less than an overwhelming majority of votes, should be followed by a referendum mandated by that Parliament. To win that referendum convincingly, the indy cause must attract a substantial portion of those voters who so far have been sceptical.

Let’s remember that a very important reason, for many people, for potentially preferring a Scottish to a UK Government is that the latter is embedded in an all-too self-obsessed political world in Westminster.

There is a widespread – and ultimately healthy – scepticism about political parties. People suspect that parties become engrossed in political games, and that in the pursuit of parliamentary power they become divorced from the experiences and interests of those they represent.

A Scottish election strategy based on getting far more seats for independence parties than their share of the votes can only confirm, for unconvinced voters, that this applies as much to Scottish politics, and to those parties in particular, as it does to Westminster. That will lose indy votes in a subsequent referendum, not gain them.

Lyn Jones

Address supplied

READING the many and varied views of your columnists and readers over the past weeks and months, I despair. Apart from Nicola Sturgeon, does anybody else see the bigger picture of the problem we have with Westminster?

To gain our independence we will have to face a Westminster that will fight tooth and nail, and sometimes under-handedly, to hold on to what remains of their English empire. They are very experienced in this. Their experience has been gained over more than 700 years: first, it was the Crown, later Westminster. These people can fight dirty.

Going to the EU to ask for help, as suggested by Pete Wishart, is not going to work. They did nothing when Catalonia needed their help. Winning a case in court to hold our own referendum, as suggested by Joanna Cherry, is also not going to help. Westminster will just encourage all who do not want independence to not vote. Unless 100% of the 54%, as noted in the latest poll for independence, come out to vote Yes, we cannot win. It would be another Catalonia situation. Both these ideas, I think, are just kicking the can further down the road.

How did the countries of the old Commonwealth gain their independence? The smaller countries in Africa and Asia had to fight Westminster over decades to achieve it.

America had to fight Westminster to achieve their independence. Ireland had to fight Westminster to achieve theirs. Australia, however, did not have to fight, but it took them decades of negotiations with Westminster to achieve their goal.

Westminster, especially this Tory Government under Boris Johnson, is just going to keep ignoring the question in the hope that it will go away, again. I give you the Dominic Cummings debacle as an instance.

Is anyone else beginning to see the bigger picture yet as to what we are up against?

George McKnight

West Calder

I THINK that Geoff Hobson (Letters, July 1) has completely missed the point of what we are trying to achieve as a Yes movement and, more importantly, just who we are up against.

Firstly, there is absolutely nothing to be gained in playing fair against the Westminster establishment. They do not conduct themselves that way, so why should we? There is only legal and illegal, so with that in mind, using the voting system as we have is not illegal so it must be legal. Doing so will most certainly not bring down the wrath of the UN upon Scotland. How could it?

Scottish voters using the democratic system available at the time is a good thing and I rather think that the UN will be chuffed that it will not involve them having to put “peacekeepers” on the ground, something I have experience of.

He also goes on to mention morals and being seen as fair. But this is Westminster and the establishment that we are up against here. If Mr Hobson would like to get in contact with the peoples of India, Iraq, Iran and Palestine to name but a few as to how morally fair the Brit establishment played it, he may he’ll get his eyes opened.

The time for playing cricket with a straight bat is over. It ended for Scotland many years ago and now her peoples are savvy to the way we have been treated. We should and we will play our hand accordingly.

Before anyone asks, I have a highly defined sense of morality and can see nothing wrong in what is being attempted. If the other parties do not do so well, then that will be as a direct result of those parties failing to convince the voters.

The Westminster parties have had their time, very much like the Union itself, and it is high time they were all placed in the history file.

There was also the question about how will it gain for Scotland its independence if we flood the Holyrood chamber with pro-indy MSPs, as all Johnson has to do is continue to refuse a Section 30 Order. It is not actually Johnson’s prerogative to refuse the democratic will of the voters in Scotland. His petulant manner will not win him any favours on the world stage, nor will it stop Scotland’s desired route to self determination.

Our future is very bright. Independence is right.

Cliff Purvis

Veterans For Scottish

Independence 2.0

BORIS Johnson has announced £5 billion worth of capital spending projects. However, like everything Johnson says, it’s a con. None of this is new money. It’s simply rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

When asked how any of this recycled money would create any new jobs, Johnson did not answer because he can’t. The reason he can’t answer is because it won’t create any new jobs.

Since the time of Thatcher, the Tories have argued that profit is the reward for risk. They say inequality is the failure of individuals not to take full advantage of opportunities. They ignore the inexorable logic of the system. They say capitalism is the only possible way of organising society.

However, this system has been undermined since 2008 with continuous bailouts for the financial sector, while living standards and wages have collapsed.

Now Boris Johnson has had to borrow the language of Keynesianism. He says that austerity won’t be coming back. This is true simply because it never went away.

Some senior Tories are now worried about the defenestration of Mark Sedwell from his job as cabinet secretary. They say this power grab by Dominic Cummings could do real long-term damage to Tory prospects.

Cummings is now a figure despised by the public. Many millions could not see relatives for months during lockdown. Johnson’s defence of him is seen as undermining the oligarch’s control of the political situation arising from the pandemic.

Cummings’s further empowerment will become a lighting rod for mass protest. There will be anger at the Tories’ woeful handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, especially when the true extent of the economic damage becomes clear.

The Tories have an agenda to get everyone back to work, no matter what the dangers. A second wave is inevitable. Cummings’s arrogance and Johnson’s incompetence is undermining attempts by government to deal with the consequences.

The Tories, their media allies, Blairites and Union Barons want to get people back to work. They use untruths, blackmail and slander. They give unlimited funds to big businesses. All this while leaving frontline workers inadequately protected against Covid-19. All this to make profits for the fatcats.

Alan Hinnrichs

Dundee

AS a fervent supporter of Scottish independence and your newspaper, I was disappointed to see the quality of journalism in the article on the Catholic Church and “gay conversion therapy” (Catholic Church urged to shut down groups promoting “dangerous” gay conversion therapy, June 28). I understand that an anti-Catholic press was the norm in Scotland for many years. Thankfully, this has slowly and surely been consigned to history. However it does keep “popping up” and I would not have expected to see an example in your pages.

READ MORE: Catholic Church told to shut down gay conversion therapy groups

The problem with this article is not that it criticises the church – all institutions should be open to this. The message clearly makes the accusation that the Catholic Church in Scotland promotes or acquiesces in “gay conversion therapy”. Only in the final few words does the author report that the church repudiates this allegation quite firmly. By the time the reader gets to that point, if one ever gets there, the damage has been done.

Please continue to promote your high-value agenda, but not at the expense of your standards.

Donald McLeod

St Andrews