MICHAEL Russell is absolutely correct in his column “Scots must never accept Westminster sovereignty” (Dec 10). This should be clear to all Scots after they saw the recent Supreme Court judgment and got a clear indication that in English law, sovereignty means subjection to the outdated English version of sovereignty which Michael rightly identifies.

If Michael is right, then clearly we can’t have acceptance of the English concept of sovereignty on some matters but not on others – we have to accept it, or reject it, in its entirety. Since the concept that “sovereignty rests with the Scottish people” is the Scottish legal position, is more democratic, and is more acceptable in international terms, then it is clear that the Scottish Government and the Scottish people must embrace this view of sovereign power as the sovereignty which applies in Scotland, and therefore must reject any other definition of sovereignty.

READ MORE: It was better to seek Supreme Court's view than risk kick in the teeth

If we do this, then the Scottish Government’s strategy for independence must change significantly and must do so now. There is clearly no point in trying to get the Scottish people to vote again to show their support for politicians who support independence, in order to get Westminster to agree a Section 30 option, if they have no intention of doing that.

The obvious place to start is to address what the Supreme Court was afraid to address. What is the source of the Scottish Parliament and where does it get its political power from? The Supreme Court does not address that political question, it presents a legal presentation based on English sovereignty and claims that the Scottish Parliament is the creation of the Scotland Act 1998 in the Westminster Parliament and that this English Parliament could abolish the Scottish Parliament if it wanted to, and voted to do so.

Well the Scottish people do not believe that, and this is clear from the support for independence shown in opinion polls since this court announcement.

READ MORE: Starmer's Brexit policy pushing Scotland to independence, warns peer

The real source of the Scottish Parliament is two million-plus people living in Scotland who took part in two referendums and who voted twice by a majority for the parliament to be established and once for it to have tax-raising powers. That is the sovereign power which created the Scottish parliament, and which will determine its existence and its future powers.

So the Scottish Government might look to this sovereign power for its independence strategy and it could start by respecting the votes which the Scottish people have already cast and acknowledging that the Scottish Parliament is not a creation of Westminster, it is a creation of the Scottish people and its future will be determined by the Scottish people and no-one else.

Andy Anderson
Ardrossan

IS there something more subtle going on in that UK Supreme Court? One thing is certain, in an independent Scotland – Holyrood will never recognise the House of Lords, or the status of the incumbents therein.

In an independent Scotland would senior judges be titled “Lord”? Is it indeed essential that such judges be thus titled? Would such a threat to their status in an independent Scotland cloud their Lordships’ judgement?

In the US Supreme Court, nine judges are designated chief and eight associate justices. They use their given and family name, preceded by “Justice”.

Our judges present themselves in bizarre outfits, with wiggery, giving the impression they are unique beings. Do such judges embellish themselves in such wacky garments to create the notion they be exceptional legal thinkers?

21st-century independent Scotland needs a modern legal system, not a theatrical museum.

Bob Cotton
via email