IAIN Bruce makes some interesting points in his letter (March 18), but sometimes – where you believe that there is a lack of leadership – you have to put yourself in that place, either metaphorically or physically.

Far too many of us want others to take the role of leader, then complain when it appears that nothing is happening. Yes, I have to agree that I don’t see an “official indyref2” campaign, but I do see and do participate in the AUOB and Yes2indee marches. I do make points known to the anti brigade, even if at times it feels as if I’m talking to a brick wall! We need to realise that leadership is not just about an elected few, but about us all in the independence movement taking small steps and pushing forward en masse.

When we talk about a section 30 order, what is it we actually want? Both Boris Johnson and Sir Keir Starmer over the past couple of weeks have made statements – on television no less – to the effect that nations and people do have the right to choose the government of their own choice and others have no right to interfere.

This then poses the question of how they are going to oppose a request from Scotland in holding an independence referendum in the near future. As it is more likely that Boris will still be PM at the time, or a Conservative government, how then does the UK Government argue its case in the Supreme Court, more so when their very own words will be used against them? When we talk and say that permission won’t be granted, we are being defeatist and we are countering our own argument and belief. Instead, we should be telling ourselves that it will happen and has to happen.

The BBC might still be regarded as the best news channel in the world. That doesn’t mean that it covers the independence issue with any seriousness. In fact, far from it, as it treats the issue more as a little spat in a Brownie pack. Sometimes you actually get more information on Scottish independence by watching foreign news and current affairs. A couple of weeks ago, there was a big debate on the main German news channel about the very issue – Scottish independence – and a need for a section 30 order from Westminster. The politicians and political correspondents that took part all agreed that we don’t need one. That is also the main consensus in Europe and the US.

If political correspondents and current affairs programmes around the world believe that we don’t need a section 30, and that we will be independent within a handful of years, why then are we feart that Westminster will stymie our cause? We are at the stage of the campaign where the only people who can defeat us are ourselves!
Alexander Potts
Kilmarnock

ALTHOUGH an anti-nuclear activist, I am, in common with the vast majority of people and many other anti-nuclear activists, not a pacifist.

To have armed forces, to fight wars – that is to say, for instance, to knowingly sometimes order thousands into battle with the virtually certain knowledge that the majority will die or be maimed for life – is a decision leaders have made for thousands of years.

For some, that’s immoral – and it often is. However, from time to time, for the vast majority of human societies, it’s a sad reality that they would rather not think about, but sometimes tolerate.

I do know too, as is abundantly clear in these difficult days, that many people do not want to think through the consequences of the carnage of war. That’s a perfectly understandable reaction that I have some sympathy with, but only some.

On Thursday evening I saw on TV, in common with millions of others, four – or was it five – tiny newborn babies. They were gasping, gurgling and thrashing as newborns do, but they were doing it in a basement in a war-torn city.

Horrifying as that was, for me, as an anti-nuclear activist, worse was to come. I watched in horror as Thursday’s Question Time audience, full of media-induced guilt and media-induced confusion, continued in large numbers to entertain the potentially disastrous option of a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

For those who still think my anti-nuclear position is merely a subset of an alternative lifestyle choice, I suggest you consider what other, more establishment voices have to say.

The Royal United Services Institute, RUSI, is as establishment as it gets.

On its open-source section of its website is an article headlined: “A no-fly zone would be ineffective, dangerous and a gift to Putin”. I commend it to all of you who think that “rolling the iron dice” is a risk worth taking, though bear in mind that this time they are radioactive, with potentially a different species-ending type of carnage.
Bill Ramsay
Via email