I WAS disappointed to read that Joanna Cherry appears to have succumbed to the superficial attractions of Plan B (Brexit process has clearly illustrated the limits of devolution, June 25). This plan is to win a majority for independence in a Holyrood election, and then “open negotiations” on independence with the UK Government.

What its proponents do not explain is what then happens when the UK Government denies Plan B any legitimacy and refuses to negotiate, as would inevitably occur. UDI? If that is the idea, we should be told: support for independence under those conditions would be likely to plummet. What then?

Cherry says that building support for independence is of no use without a plan. I could not disagree more: building support for independence is the plan, and there is no shortcut around it.

READ MORE: Joanna Cherry: Brexit process has clearly illustrated limits of devolution

No regime can resist forever the pressure of its people, as countless examples from history have shown. Yes, it might take a while. But the moment the Yes movement give up on the need to persuade and the imperative to listen to those who disagree with us, it will have lost its way and will become an impediment to independence, not its facilitator.

True leadership is telling those uncomfortable truths loud and clear, and reaching out to those who are not yet won over to independence, not seeking easy popularity by pandering to the simplicities of an increasingly fractious fringe.

The Scottish Government, through its skilful navigation of the perils of the Covid outbreak, has won respect and increased support for independence. Let us applaud them for it, build on this to increase support even further, and recommit ourselves to the diversity, openness and tolerance of the 2014 campaign. This prefigured the kind of society Scotland could be: the acrimonious divisions opening up within the Yes movement, on the other hand, do not presage anything good.

Paddy Farrington

IRISH independence was declared on the steps of Dublin Post Office by a small group of armed men. To begin with, even in Dublin, a majority were against them.

The USA declared independence with support from a minority of their population. There was no referendum, but President John Adams (the second one, after Washington) gave as his estimate that only one third of American voters would have supported independence. “Voters” were a minority anyway. Women couldn’t vote, Native Americans couldn’t vote, black people were mostly slaves, even many white men couldn’t vote. A sort-of independence was achieved in both cases, but “freedom” was still a very long way off for many.

The reason some of us favour a new, non-party-political referendum on independence for Scotland isn’t because of trying to keep things “legal”. The reason is mass participation. We continue to seek a referendum because we think mass participation can lead to more profound change than doing things through an elite.

Of course the coronavirus put a damper on things. Some of us are still in isolation at present, and some of us are likely to be for some time to come. But if it is being assumed that an election will be possible in May 2021, then there’s no good reason why a new, non-party-political referendum on independence could not be organised, campaigned for, and held before then. And there’s no reason we can’t get a decisive Yes result.

And – as agreed by delegates from all over Scotland, including some of us from Angus, at our December 2019 national forum in Perth – so far as we of the Radical Independence Campaign are concerned, a Yes result in a new, non-party-political referendum would, in itself, be a declaration of independence. We should act as independent from that point on.

Having said that, a word of warning to opponents of democratic self-determination. If they should succeed in preventing, or sabotaging such a referendum, then it would become necessary to seek other ways of getting mass democratic participation in the independence process.

Dave Coull
Findowrie, Angus

ANOTHER intelligent, common-sense and realistic column from Paul (Wee Ginger Dug) which has as its base patience and caution (We need to smash the UK’s Section 30 refusal brick wall, June 23).

We are all frustrated and impatient with various degrees of suppressed anger while we await indyref2. But as Paul correctly writes, we are on the right path. I believe that any reckless deviation from that path would prove to be a setback.

READ MORE: Wee Ginger Dug: We need to smash the UK’s Section 30 refusal brick wall

There is not one paragraph of his article that I would be in disagreement with. All serious thinkers and activists in our movement should keep what he says at the forefront of their minds.

He is a great asset to our cause.

Bobby Brennan

WELL said, Peter Kerr (I’m sick of snide Yes supporters having a go at our First Minister, June 25). Time methinks for “The Dug” to go back into his kennel with his tail between his legs.

Alan Johnson

TOO Much and Never Enough is the title of a book by Donald Trump’s niece that his lawyers are trying to suppress. Oxfam research quoted by Kevin Mckenna last week, reporting that “26 billionaires own as many assets as the poorest half of the world’s population”, revived memories of our lovely erstwhile neighbours Robert and Mary, who met an American millionaire while holidaying in Florida.

Charmed by their Scottish accent, he took a shine to them, inviting the couple to a party on his luxury yacht. As guests on board continuously voiced their frustration at a stock market dip jeopardising further acquisitions of yachts and properties, Mary wondered innocently: “But there must come a time, surely, when you feel you have enough?”

A shocked silence ensued, broken finally by a whispered: “There’s NEVER enough!”

Now a byword in our household, this phrase surfaces at every news report of unbridled greed.

James Stevenson