OK then, that’s the Supreme Court’s decision. They quite clearly stated (by their use of the Quebec and Kosovo examples) that Scotland (or any aspiring country) can only achieve its independence if it is oppressed.

Oppression is usually instigated by the oppressing country attempting to suppress an independence movement by violence (see Catalonia) or if that fails, by suppressing armed rebellion (see Ireland, Kosovo, South Africa et al). Is that really a correct interpretation? Is that what they really want? Is that really the only way to achieve independence from a larger overbearing country? By violence?

No it isn’t. Ask the independent inhabitants of Norway, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia to name just a few “locals”. Besides, there is a better, more recent, more appropriate example. Czechoslovakia – a union of two nations agreed to become independent of each other without a shot being fired or a blow struck.

READ MORE: Next steps to Scottish independence after Supreme Court ruling

Scotland and England are, similarly, two INDEPENDENT nations in a Union agreed by international treaty. I’m sure if England found it advantageous to split from Scotland, it would be enabled in Westminster by next week!

I do not accept that the Supreme Court (sitting in England with only one Scottish judge) has the powers to overturn Scottish law.

They mention “constitution”. Let me see that so-called non-existent constitution so I may check the basis the court has pronounced upon.

I anyway do not accept that their findings are correct under international law. This deeply flawed pronouncement should be challenged in the court whose ruling they have used to bolster the current status quo – the international court.

They say the Scottish Parliament is in England’s ownership, but the Scottish people are sovereign. It is in Westminster’s powers to overrule or remove the Scottish Parliament anytime Westminster likes, they imply. If they dare.

Alan Laird

THE overwhelming disappointment which came over me after the Supreme Court verdict on the Scottish independence referendum cannot be overstated. I watched in my classroom as once again we were denied our rights. The fact that a Scottish Parliament elected by the Scottish people, which reflects the will of the Scottish electorate, cannot decide the fate of Scotland is downright ludicrous.

READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon takes stage to address indy rally in Edinburgh

Westminster will lose its popularity and recognition over the fact that it denies its own people its legislative will. The next steps are uncertain for independence. Although we have a right to national self-determination, the chances of receiving it are slim. And I blame the out-of-touch incompetent Westminster system and government. If our MPs were confident of victory, they should grant a Section 30 order and crush the indy movement. But they are not. They are scared of their power slipping away. They are cowards.

Noah Miles (17)

LORD Reed says that “the outcome … would possess the authority of a democratic expression of the view of the Scottish electorate”. Is this not what democracy is?

As there is no way for the Scottish electorate to express their democratic view, other than to ask them, this means that we are not allowed to express our democratic view. Was, perhaps, the wrong question asked? Should it not have been “Does a recently passed act by one partner in a treaty, that specifically allows either party to resile from it at any time, supersede that treaty and the democratic right of every nation to decide their own future?

P Davidson

NOW that the Supreme Court has ruled that a referendum relating to any UK reserved matter is not within the Scottish Parliament’s competence, only political pressure will be able to bring about constitutional change. It seems now that the SNP’s traditional aim of electing a majority of independence-supporting MPs was the correct one, and that just being “stronger for Scotland” within the UK would achieve nothing.

READ MORE: Supreme Court judgment renders Scottish democracy an illusion

So now we have to adopt Plan C and achieve that majority (again) at the next UK election, but this time making it clear that it must lead to negotiations to alter the present constitution. In referring categorically to the sovereignty of the UK Parliament, the court’s judgment has in effect written that sovereignty into the unwritten constitution and rubbished the earlier legal opinion that Scottish sovereignty lies with the people. That is what must be challenged by our vote and our campaign.

Robert Fraser

THE Supreme Court decision must lead to UDI. There is obviously no point in pursuing pointless legalistic endeavours to achieve independence, especially in view of the ever-present danger of nuclear annihilation with Russian MOD direct threats to Scotland and the presence of targets including Trident and other nuclear installations.

The Scottish Government has a majority for independence and should call a constituent assembly of Scottish and Westminster MPs, local authorities and business and trade unions and if the majority favour independence, then the Scottish Government should move to repeal the Act of Union 1707 and declare UDI.

Colin Beattie
via email

REGARDING the English Supreme Court’s decision, the Scottish Government should immediately rescind the Treaty of the Union of the Scottish and English Parliaments. This is well within the rights of the Scottish Parliament and the people. This would be recognised internationally.

Bill Purves