MIGHT I respectfully suggest that any proposed deal between the SNP and Labour, in order to be hopefully “granted” indyref2 powers, would be profoundly ill-considered?

Labour are dyed-in-the-wool Unionists who cannot be trusted to deliver on any deal which might lead to Scottish independence. It may be argued that the SNP leadership is cleverly trying to play strictly to Westminster rules so that the eventual referendum will be regarded as legally binding. However, even though Ian Blackford himself managed to get Westminster to accept Scotland’s Claim of Right, the harsh reality is that no London government is ever going to countenance another independence referendum, even if we have meticulously ticked all of their boxes.

Fundamentally, we should not approach independence with a mentality which implies dependence on Westminster for permission to hold indyref2. This would be a logical and moral contradiction. Independence, by definition, cannot be dependent – on deals with the Labour party or any other.

Billy Scobie

I WAS appalled at yesterday morning’s National headline (Give us indyref powers, October 7). This is a splendid example of the Scottish cringe. Why in the name of God should we have to appeal to an English old Etonian toff to give us the right to decide our future? Surely, Scotland should revoke the so-called Treaty of Union.

Neil M Shaw

OH, what a tangled web we weave. The Tory hardliners have succeeded after all these years in opening Pandora’s Box and Brexit has emerged from it in all its fury. Chaos reigns with no end in sight. Sad but fitting to see the mother of parliaments writhing in agony in its death throes, thanks to English nationalism. Who would have thought this could ever happen? The truth is we cannot build democracy on a bed of lies, not if we want it to last.

Maureen Patton

PETER Bell (Letters, October 6) says he doesn’t understand why we need to find a route to independence that is legal within the current constitutional framework. One reason is that we are up against the British state which, when challenged, always resorts to violence (remember Kenya, Diego Garcia, Northern Ireland, the miners’ strike … all within living memory).

But the more potent reason is that independence must be supported by the majority of the Scottish people – and the bigger the majority, the better. There can be no short cuts to independence. Peter Bell proposes no credible alternative plan – and neither do other critics urging Nicola Sturgeon to be “bolder”.

With the polls at 50-50, we are still very far from reaching the level of support that is needed, though the ground is gradually shifting. The current impasse in Catalonia and the failure of the Quebec independence movement show what can happen when hubris takes over: we should not repeat these mistakes.

And actually, it’s perfectly clear what our priority must be: to win over those as yet unconvinced of the case for independence with relentless positivity, rather than to give in to self-indulgent musings.

Paddy Farrington

IN his open letter to Nicola Sturgeon, Peter A Bell quotes Eleanor Roosevelt’s saying: “What one has to do can usually be done”. The Scottish Government is proceeding with legislation that would allow it to hold referendums in Scotland. He adds: “What you don’t do can be a destructive force”. The Scottish Parliament exists only as a parliament devolved by the Westminster Parliament. Breaking Westminster Parliament’s law is a “don’t do” that would result in the immediate destruction of the Scottish Parliament.

However, the Unionists in Westminster must rue the day that they gave Scotland its devolved parliament – the legislature capable of leading Scotland legally to independence with the consent of the people, provided that cool heads pay attention to the much older saying “Softly, softly, catchee monkey”.

John Jamieson
South Queensferry

IT was a delighted to read George Kerevan’s article looking 50 years in the future (It’s 2069 ... here’s what our marches 50 years ago REALLY achieved, October 7). It brought a tear to my eye thinking this could be the Scotland my grandchildren will be living in.

Will they remember me participating in AUOB marches? Will they know how much passion and work across the whole of Scotland went into gaining independence?

I do hope George’s vision is more than a dream, and our future will be bright. What a difference that would be in comparison to future we are facing now, thinking what the future holds for us as we are dragged out of the EU.

A Harrison

IN yesterday’s paper Ruth Wishart made some unsubstantiated claims about the nature of the impatience of the supporters of independence who marched on Saturday (We must not let Johnson stand in way of indyref2, October 7). There’s an awareness of the need to engage with doubters in order to build the unassailable majority we need.

Pete Wishart, on the other hand, blogs about the need for hard work and patient debate – this is an argument which strikes home to this activist.

Those who expect our leaders to do all the heavy lifting and magic tricks to independence seem to ignore that as a nation achieving self-determination we need to take responsibility ourselves as well. There’s no shortcut to this, but doing this will enrich us all.

Cathie Lloyd
Letters, Lochbroom