THE Seven Days supplement in the Sunday National is essential reading for supporters of independence and should be “distributed” to all those who are not, especially if they do not have time to keep up daily with political news.

Michael Russell provides invaluable insights into the workings of governmental processes within Scotland and the rest of the UK and this week legitimately questions how someone with such jaundiced prejudices as Andrew Neil regarding devolved government in Scotland, established by an overwhelming majority vote here, could have had such a prominent and influential role with our supposedly impartial state broadcaster.

READ MORE: Michael Russell: MSPs should be well aware of dangers of politicising legal advice

Ruth Wishart, in her usual inimitable style, provides straightforward and well-grounded comment with a choice of words that typically brings some light-hearted relief from some of the entrenched views expressed in many newspapers across the UK. The key issue she identifies is not which leadership (present or past) camp SNP supporters identify with but whether they will all turn out to vote for their party in May, as not to do so would be a “betrayal of the wider Yes movement”.

READ MORE: Ruth Wishart: Scottish independence supporters deserve better than this political soap opera

Of course clear separation of management and political roles within the SNP’s governing structure is necessary going forward, but this will not resolve all the challenges ahead of the SNP and the independence movement. The point is well made that the government in the UK which most resembles that of a “Banana Republic” is the one at Westminster, not the one at Holyrood, and while this seems obvious it still needs to be repeated to counter the ridiculous claims of the London-controlled mainstream media.

Andrew Tickell provides a forensic legal opinion, which is invaluable given the current maelstrom of “fake news” propagated by the London media around the current Holyrood parliamentary enquiry. Information not made public but presented in a criminal action cannot be used in other investigative forums, clearly a necessity to avoid less rigorous “re-trials”.

READ MORE: Andrew Tickell: Understanding the legalities behind the Holyrood Committee

A “conspiracy theory” can be argued in a Scottish criminal case and if considered plausible by a judge may be pursued. In the Alex Salmond trial the judge made a ruling that effectively denied there was sufficient evidence presented to back a conspiracy theory, and poignantly that decision was accepted by Alex’s own lawyers as it was not appealed. Possibly messages copied since might suggest otherwise to some, but to others much of what is conveyed by digital means today is transmitted without proper context and is often misleading if not more “fake news”.

Perhaps if some committee members had spent less time pursuing political agendas and more time seeking answers to some of the more pivotal questions we may all now be a little wiser?

Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with Sandy Coghill from Skye (February 27) when he says forget the current establishment and work together to create an inclusive and independent Scottish society.

In this vital year, any serious disagreement within the SNP is a risk to its strong position in the polls and must surely cease. Right now all concerns, both policy and personal related, must be shelved as division does not win hearts and minds. With unity of purpose, the focus has to be on winning a Holyrood majority and establishing the democratic case for independence.

Since Conservative Unionism has become British or indeed English nationalism, a united social democratic SNP must now bring together all Yes campaign groups and galvanise this ancient, richly endowed nation to believe and have confidence in the endless opportunities of an independent Scotland.

Grant Frazer
Newtonmore

I NOTE on the BBC website a Highland Council wooden sign carved in the form of a footprint saying “Take your rubbish home and leave only footprints”. It would appear this is supposed to be part of a campaign to attract tourists.

I wonder if those responsible for this piece of nonsense have ever tried to understand what the sign conveys to tourists from across the “Big Pond”. Imagine an American tourist with at least two large black plastic sacks full of rubbish arriving at Edinburgh Airport and wanting to check them in as luggage. I appreciate that Highland Council may have foreseen this problem and made special arrangements with the airport authorities to accept the rubbish!

When the tourist arrives “home” with his rubbish, as instructed by Highland Council, I wonder how the American health and customs officials will react!

What the notice actually conveys is that Highland Council is either not willing or capable of operating a properly organised waste collection service and in reality it would prefer if the tourists just sent their money in advance and then just stayed at home!

I trust that the Scottish Government Minister responsible for tourism will have the sign(s), which are a disgrace, removed and replaced with ones which will convey to tourist that the are welcome and receive a traditional Scottish Highland welcome.

Thomas L Inglis
Fintry