I’LL stick my colours to the mast, right from the start. I plan to be at Holyrood Wednesday for the rally. I hope to be joined by many, many thousands in various locations across Scotland. We did once before, that dark night noting the demise of our EU membership, and at a Hands off Our Parliament event even earlier. Marches, rallies – I’m there if possible.

As such, I found Friday’s letters contributions, starting with Maggie Chetty’s, intriguing. (I’ve know and worked with M Chetty for many years and have a high regard for her.)

There is an underlying dichotomy regarding democracy within any so-called democratic society. It is allegedly established for the greater good of all within that society. At the best of times, outcomes seem to be more favourable and effective for the majority: those aligned with and wielding the political power. The minority are expected to accept the direction and functioning of the state. To rebut and reverse that, it is required to work within the confines of the (democratic) state.

READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: Yessers must fill the streets for indyref2 case verdict

But it was ever thus that those in charge with the power to make rules, enact laws, enforce “security” through state functionaries, make every effort to ensure such structures always bend towards themselves and their ilk through legislation.

So was the Supreme Court set up to function equally for and across the so-called Union of equals? Of course not. Those in power very seldom give up power of their own free will. Establishing a court with that particular make-up (eight, two, one and one judges respectively from each part of the UK) clearly identifies its intention: the maintenance of the power base held by one section of the wider Union.

The clue is in the name: Supreme. Supreme authority and supreme power based in legislation that favours the numerical majority and their belief in the continuity of that “Union”. What a disgrace that Labour, and very particularly Labour in Scotland, accepted that. Who said the parcel of rogues were a one-off happening consigned to history?

Over the centuries, the Union’s structures have been reconfigured always to the benefit the majority. The prime example is the diminution of the validity of the Treaty, an international accord between the two sovereign nations Scotland and England. Now, sadly, it is nothing more than a historical footnote but it is only part of victimisation experienced following on from the entrenchment of a form of British nationalism that we are all supposed to embrace and conform with.

READ MORE: Andrew Tickell: Yes, no, maybe– how the Supreme Court ruling will play out

What recourse within the confines laid down? Surely we have to exhaust every internal legal, democratic avenue whilst identifying and recording more evidence of the anti-democratic, democracy-denying barriers put up to stymie us.

That includes using courts. I don’t want to: it takes time, it costs money, but it plays the game, the democratic game. I’ll get a copy of the Treaty and burn it. It’s the same as the rallies. A demonstration of resistance. But I won’t support UDI. Scotland is a nation that wants to operate within the family of democratic independent nations worldwide. We have to regain that independence democratically.

Scotland has elected a majority of pro-indy MPs and MSPs. I’m happy to let them get on with the day job of accountable and hopefully good government, so long as they demonstrate a parallel focus of working towards independence. That’s their job.

As for the grassroots. Did we disappear? Certainly not. Are we tired? Hell yes, just now and then. Will we give up? Hell no!

Selma Rahman

WITH great respect for Maggie Chetty, I don’t think it is helpful to critique Lesley Riddoch’s media-savvy campaign to get people out to show the world we care about the Supreme Court’s decision. If you can be at one of the events on Wednesday then turn up and demonstrate your support for independence.

I have nothing against anyone letting off steam by burning the Treaty of Union, but the fact is that Scots voted two million to 1.6 million to stay in the Union, complete with its Supreme Court, House of Lords, and all.

READ MORE: Judges could say it’s too early to rule on indyref2 powers, according to legal expert

I agree that the Better Together campaign has turned out to be fallacious in major aspects and, with all that has happened since, the 2014 result seems as tenuous and ripe for over-turning as when Australians voted by a 55% majority in 1999 to retain their hereditary monarch.

What 2014 did do, however, was establish a legal referendum as the recognised route out of the Union and we must therefore be seen to exhaust that option before turning to other avenues. The Supreme Court’s decision is an inflexion point to the next and I hope final phase of the campaign for independence, so please turn up!

David Mungall
via email

I WAS surprised and delighted to discover my grandson in the middle of a photo with a banner for Radical Independence Campaign outside the Supreme Court. He has been very politically orientated for some years but I had not known his views regarding Scottish independence. Having had great-grandparents on both sides who were “dyed-in-the-wool” Tories, it is refreshing to know that today’s young people are thinking with sensitivity and understanding as to what is the best for Scotland.

Margaret Wylie
via email

IS there any reason why National journalists keep referring to the Alba Party as Alex Salmond’s Alba Party? It is a well-established, democratic, pro independence party and has many thousands of members. It is certainly not a one-man band.

If you must continue in this vein, please be consistent and insist that your journalists talk about Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP and Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater’s Greens each time you mention them.

Alison Fraser