I READ today’s article by Lesley Riddoch with some amazement (The world needs to SEE that we are serious about our independence, Nov 17). I applaud her attempts to try to breathe some life into the Yes reaction to the Supreme Court announcement but I think there is a basic contradiction at the heart of what she is planning.

It is clear that Lesley is disappointed at the diminution of activity by the Yes campaign but we have obviously come to different conclusions as to why that might be.

The contradiction for me is why she is connecting this to a decision by the Supreme Court. The Treaty of Union preserved the right of Scots Law, so why does the SNP leadership believe that the Supreme Court has any role to play in our Scottish constitutional future?

READ MORE: Blackford 'faces SNP Westminster leadership bid from Stephen Flynn'

I agree that many countries have arrived at independence through different routes, but very few with the legal assistance of their oppressors.

I came to the view a few years ago that the Treaty of Union should be central to our efforts. I came to that view on my own, without the recent input from Sara Salyers and Salvo, Prof Alf Baird and Craig Murray, whose efforts have gladdened my heart!

Lesley is correct in believing that the Yes campaign has become dispirited and lacking in enthusiasm but we have to ask ourselves why this is.

The Alba Party went into the last election offering to work together in unity with the SNP and was vigorously rejected by the SNP leadership.

READ MORE: Skye and Inverurie join indyref2 verdict rallies bringing total to 10

Alba may not have gained anything electorally, but progressive action is not always to be gauged by what happens in parliament as Westminster has shown us.

Salvo organised small events across Scotland on November 5. They had bonfires across Scotland with independistas burning copies of the Treaty of Union – small in scale but profoundly meaningful. Symbolism is very important to all of us!

For all that some Scots Unionist lawyers and historians disparaged Sara Salyers’ narrative about the Claim of Right, Charles III felt obliged to pledge himself to it in Scotland as part of his journey to the throne.

The trip to the Supreme Court is a negation of the terms of the Treaty of Union – an international agreement between two sovereign nations.

But I remain optimistic that our time is coming and I hope enough of us can come together, and seize our independence!

Maggie Chetty

NOW that we have a date for the ruling by the Supreme Court I have three wishes for the good Yes fairy!

1. That every SNP MPs, MSPs, councillors and all who believe Scotland should be an independent country attend one of the eight demonstrations organised across Scotland on the 23rd of this month, and be proud to do so.

READ MORE: Whatever its ruling, the Supreme Court can't stop the Yes movement

2. That ALL the gatherings are a peaceful and positive occasion where we can show our support for independence. That we do not give anti-independence voices any ammunition. No negativity, no swearing, no trouble.

3. Obviously, that the ruling goes in our favour.

Now is the time.

J McKenzie

THE UK Supreme Court, created in 2009, comprises eight English judges, two Scottish, one Welsh and one Northern Irish. This English-dominated court as presently constituted could, should it so decide, have in its power the means to deny justice to the other three members of their Precious Union. Such a court construct established from its beginning that the UK is not a nation of equals. Had it been so, each nation would be represented by three judges.

Do the judges intend upholding law-making from a parliament with 533 seats in England, 59 in Scotland, 40 in Wales and 18 Northern Ireland? A parliament which could, should it so desire, put the interest of one nation, England, before the desires of others. In one such case with the creation of their UK Supreme Court itself, and the way it is presently constituted.

READ MORE: Your raw reaction will make the world pay attention to independence

No matter the decision this Supreme Court may come to next Wednesday, they must face the fact that their court can never be balanced when taking account of the aspirations of the other three nations in this Union. The great tragedy is that Scottish MPs and Lords participated in the creation of this risible court knowing its intended purpose. Such intrigue is nothing new in Scotland; since before 1707.

How long will it be before appointments to this court, if not already, become political appointees, as in the US?

This Supreme Court was created when Unionist parties still held sway in Scotland. It was created to suffocate the ambitions of Scotland’s population should their new Scottish parliament fail to satisfy rising aspirations.

This Supreme Court is wide open to the accusation it is a kangaroo court set up to enforce the jurisdiction of Westminster over Scotland, ad infinitum. Judges participating in such an outrage might reflect.

Bob Cotton
via email

KEVIN’S McKenna’s latest column must surely be put forward for some kind of comedy award for his take on the SNP that “after 15 years of unopposed rule, they are simply unaccustomed to criticism” (Welcome back Wings – you’ve been missed, Nov 16).

After I managed to stop laughing I did struggle to remember the last time that any newspaper, radio station, TV news etc had dared to criticise or challenge the SNP, so maybe he has a point. When will the mainstream media do their jobs as Kevin advises and stop letting the SNP off the hook? You would think this was a one-party state despite the pathetic efforts of the three opposition parties registered in the country next door.

Oops, here I am writing Kevin’s next column.

Richard Montgomery
via thenational.scot