I UNDERSTAND Peter A Bell’s anxieties about the process of implementation of any referendum that occurs following a ruling by the Supreme Court but, unlike him, I don’t see it as something that’s in anyway relevant to this process (Letters, “Scottish Government submission dodges question of execution”, September 28).

We should remember that the Courts are subordinate to Parliament, and this is an English Court being asked to rule on a matter of Scottish interest that is contrary to rUK interests. As such it may well choose not to encroach on the powers of the Westminster Parliament and refer the matter back to it – perhaps even on the basis that because the matter is a future hypothetical the Scottish Government hadn’t “captured the process”, a practiced decision-avoiding ploy used by Courts.

Alternatively, the Court may examine the petition within the strict confines of the Scotland Act, which “empowers” the UK Government to refuse its “permission” to hold a referendum on self-determination. However, to do so would be an official denial by the Court of the right of Scotland to exist as a nation, in partnership with rUK in union and a constituent nation within the Union. It would be to rewrite history. It would be to deny Scotland’s claim of right. It would be to deny democracy itself.

Scotland is in the same position as any former colony of the British Empire. Through naked self-interest and greed for resources Westminster has invariably had to be dragged kicking and screaming to recognise colonies and territories’ right to autonomy. It’s what all empires do.

READ MORE: 'Biggest turnout since before pandemic' for AUOB march for independence in Edinburgh

History shows that leaving the rule of the Crown/Westminster has only ever been won through tribulations forced on those seeking autonomy. The Americans’ war to win independence, the long campaign and struggle by India, the UDI of Rhodesia, the acrimonious and violent struggle of the Irish, to name just a few.

Incidentally, none of those 60 or so former colonies succumbed to the UK’s propagandised “certain failure” mantra and pleaded to return to Westminster’s fold.

This is the 21st century. Surely, as supporters of democracy, we’d all hope that common sense could prevail and that none of this is in any way thinkable?

Scotland is seeking a different, responsible way. To negotiate secession adult to adult, if it is the settled will of the people, to get through the process and allow a new relationship to develop that will celebrate our historical ties and together, and trade in a true partnership, not the dismissive parent-child relationship we’re being forced to endure now.

And the settled will of the people can only be realised through the referendum being undemocraticaly denied by that autocratic “parent”.

I suspect Mr Bell’s premise is focused on the wrong process. The matter before the Court is to clarify the right to hold the referendum, outwith the auspices of the Scotland Act, nothing more.

The process of implementation is only relevant when the right to that plebiscite is confirmed, we hold it, and victory is won; then it becomes a matter of negotiated procedure.

Of course, had Westminster been reasonable then implementation could have productively been considered in tandem, the process much smoother. But we know the Westminster government is not and will not be, even if Labour is elected following Starmer’s staunch and sad denial of Scots’ democratic right.

The Westminster establishment government doesn’t want to, can’t afford to accede to Scotland’s secession. There are too many resource losses for rUK to consider: Nuclear bases, Fossil fuels, energy, water, standing and reputation with Nato, the UN and the international community etc.

Although hopeful, I’m not convinced the Supreme Court will deliver a fair and just ruling. I suspect the question may be being asked in the wrong forum.

It seems more appropriate for the campaign to be taken before the international Courts to press our Claim of Right and have it enforced. Perhaps this petition to the Supreme Court is a planned precursor to that process, refusal at this Supreme Court stage anticipated?

If we truly believe Scotland is a nation by right, and we are in a partnership that is abusing us, and we wish to secede from that partnership, then don’t we need to reach back to the original Act of Union and resile from it? The precise premise we need to take to international law?

Time to stop pussyfooting about. Let’s get indy done.

Jim Taylor