Permission would not be needed to hold an advisory referendum

Both these problems are self-imposed on the SNP leadership, and can be easily dealt with effectively.

If the SNP leadership want to have an advisory referendum on Scottish independence then they do not require the approval of Boris Johnson. The Westminster referendum to leave the EU was an advisory one in which Scotland and Northern Ireland rejected the proposal. It was not, however, the referendum which took them out of the EU; it was subsequent Westminster legislation.

No referendum on Scottish independence could be secure in legal terms which does not have the Westminster parliament’s approval, any more than the EU one could have been, as some English court would undoubtedly confirm – but that is not the issue, and never was – it is a red herring.

The SNP leadership should make it clear that they intend to run an advisory referendum on the issue in this parliament and invite the Westminster government to confirm that they will accept the outcome of that referendum and work constructively with the Scottish Government to implement the decision. If they refuse to do this or attempt to take legal action against the Scottish Government for holding an advisory referendum, the SNP can make it quite clear that they will stand candidates at the next General Election on a mandate for Scottish independence and if they secure a majority in that election they will use their right under the UN charter to establish an independent state – in co-operation with the UK or not.

It then makes no difference what steps Boris Johnson takes or what decision any English court makes; the process will go ahead on schedule. I believe that the sovereign Scottish people, and indeed the world, would see this as entirely reasonable.

Again, if the SNP leadership were to embrace a new Scottish currency to be established on, or shortly after, political independence when all the necessary institutions had been established, and started to prepare for that now, as their conference clearly wants them to do, they would send a strong message to the majority of the Scottish people who now want independence and leaders who are heading in that direction.

Andy Anderson

Saltcoats

ANENT the resurgence of debate about GERS in your sister paper, the Herald – which I also read, to keep abreast of the views of our opponents – perhaps I can add a little more light to the subject.

In 1918, at the end of World War One, a member of my family began to study accountancy. Part of his training was to study Treasury accounts, which at the time were issued separately and accurately for each part of the UK and Ireland. Almost immediately, he noticed that Scotland was contributing more to the exchequer than we were getting back in spending on our needs, and included some debits which were of no relevance to Scotland.

In the next few years, he realised that this gap was ever-widening, and not in Scotland’s favour. At some point in the early twenties, he was therefore not surprised to see that separate, accurate accounts were no longer issued, and each part of the UK was assumed responsible for a proportion of debits and credits of the whole, roughly in line with the population.

The current GERS figures are simply a refinement of this method, at a convenient time of low revenues from “Scotland’s oil”, for the reasons so clearly stated by then Scottish Secretary Ian Lang. In line with his statements, it has in recent years been admitted that, of the number of figures used to create GERS, all but one or two are “estimates” based on population share, and include our share of “assets” such as HS2, which will never reach Scotland, and Trident, which we in a majority oppose. Is it any wonder that my relative became a life-long believer in independence?

L McGregor

Falkirk

THE Scottish Parliament exists only to execute the will of the Scottish people. It seems clear, therefore, that the people should decide what is acceptable behaviour from MSPs and parliamentary staff, who are our employees.

We propose, once again, an Assembly of the People of Scotland as a first-level monitor for complaints against parliament and MSPs.

Currently, this function is carried out by the office of the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, and this body then reports to a committee of five MSPs. In effect, like at Westminster, and despite our hopes to the contrary, the only ultimate judges for politicians are other politicians.

Audit Scotland has identified “serious failings” in this process (‘Worrying’ failings at standards regulator, Dec 21). It would appear that the work the watchdog carries out is becoming bogged down in bureaucracy.

An Assembly of the People of Scotland would cut through this bureaucracy. Members would be randomly selected, as are jurors in our legal system, and would serve, on a rolling basis, for a fixed period. Their role, as arbiters of what is acceptable, would be to determine the facts of the complaints and, with common sense and respect for all citizens, to cut through issues of political correctness, identify trolling and deal with the bare bones of the complaint, rejecting without need for justification, anything they deem irrelevant.

The recommendations of this Assembly would be passed to the office of the Commissioner for Ethical Standards and any further action would require to be reported back to the Assembly until it declares itself satisfied. Sovereignty lies with the people.

CE Ayr, France

& Jenne Gray, Ayr