We cannot go into an indyref2 campaign believing we will lose

The very nature of campaigns is to recruit voters to your cause or persuasion. To do so you make available to the electorate all the information you have. By nature of democracy, the opposition does the same and attempts to find fault with your case. The electorate then decides which is the better case. I have to ask if bullying Scotland to remain in the Union is a good case?

READ MORE: UK urges judges to throw out independence case during day two at Supreme Court

Today the opinion polls are about 50/50 and have been like that for the past three years now. We haven’t progressed the support at present, and I would argue that is because there hasn’t been a campaign to actively promote Yes, mainly due to Covid restrictions. I do admit that there have been a good number of events to keep the issue alive and in the public eye. No doubt it has also been a festering thorn in the side of the Unionist camp. However, if you want to win, then you have to believe that you are going to win. If you go into a campaign believing that you are going to lose, then be assured that you will lose!

Douglas wants to see support at 60% before a referendum campaign even begins. Simple maths tells us that for every point we gain, the margin increases by two points. In that respect we don’t require a great deal to get over the line. I do take his point though that the wider the margin, the better it is. As such, if we can get another 10%, then the margin is 20%. The thing is that nobody wants to be on the losing side and once we are consistently over the 50% mark, people will start coming over more readily.

Alexander Potts
Kilmarnock

I WONDER if the tactic of taking the issue of the competence of the Scottish Government to legislate on a referendum, which by default under UK law is advisory, is a very wise move. In addressing the issue in the UK Supreme Court, the Scottish Government has circumvented the slow step through the Scottish legal system to end up in the domestic court of last resort, thus opening the door for international law to be brought to bear on the nature of the UK Union.

If this move sits behind the current case in the Supreme Court then the verdict of the court will be the most important determinant in taking the issue of independence forward. The Union will then be considered by courts and organisations untrammelled by links to the UK establishment, and the argument of voluntary union vs unitary state or colony will be properly considered.

WATCH: Londoners back Scottish independence vote as Supreme Court case closes

I have always believed the Union is between two independent sovereign nations who are in a voluntary relationship which badly needs renegotiation. Due to one party exercising a powerful and toxic influence within the Union relationship and taking the stance that they are entitled to overrule the other, we have a situation of extreme disadvantage to Scotland, whose resources have been seen as accruing to the UK Exchequer to be disbursed under the control of the UK Government with little consideration of the needs of Scotland. Perhaps at long last the steps towards remedying this situation are in progress.

David Neilson
Dumfries

I DETEST the Tories and every policy they have had, and it would appear many others do also – thank goodness.

Here are some of the reasons why:

When they have nothing else to complain about the Tories go back to the ferries overrun – no mention of the £120 million wasted on the “Brexit Festival” but at least the ferries have kept a yard on the Clyde and its workers working. And of course no-one in Toryland complains about the £3 billion HMS Prince of Wales which could not get past the Channel Isles and is back in dock again after another fault was found.

READ MORE: Supreme Court: Douglas Ross slinks out as Alex Cole-Hamilton doubts Yes chances

Rees-Mogg tells us “most people in the UK will be able to offset any negative Brexit effects with their savings, shares, bonds, inheritance and work expenses.” We do not all have MP expense accounts – he lives in a different world from the rest of us.

Then Theresa Coffey tells us poor people are richer than we think and states that giving school meals to all would not be a good use of resources, and Tim Loughton Tory MP says “giving free school meals to everybody would not be the best use of resources”. I am quite sure both of them are happy enough with the subsidised meals in the House of Commons – one rule for them and another for the rest of us.

But saving the worst for last, we have Cruella Braverman and her “dream” of a Telegraph headline showing a picture of plane setting off for Rwanda. What is it with these second-generation immigrants pulling up the ladder behind them?

I do detest everything the Tories are doing and any person with an ounce of compassion should detest their actions as well.

Winifred McCartney
Paisley

I SEE Alex Salmond is asking the SNP to provide details of how they aim to proceed if the Supreme Court rules against the submission to carry out a referendum. May I ask why and why now? Is Alex trying to take away some of the positivity and glow that was generated during the SNP conference? Or, is he trying to take the pressure off the Supreme Court judges from giving a definitive ruling? Or is he trying to give the Tories (the me-me-me party who care little for the people of this country except for helping themselves to get richer) to have plenty of time to plan how to defend the status quo in the next round, if there needs to be one?

George McKnight
West Calder