EVER since the Supreme Court ruling, I have veered between frustration and despair that we seem to be stuck in a process of accepting any decision that seems to block our way forward to independence, and can find only one way of trying again.

Sunday’s letters, therefore, restored a modicum of hope, with four letter-writers highlighting points previously ignored.

I see flaws in the Supreme Court’s purely legal decision. How could it be so, when the reason on which it was based was that the referendum result might possibly impact on the sovereignty of Westminster? Is that not a hypothetical point of the type that the Supreme Court has previously said it cannot rule on, and did it not recently rule that the English parliamentary writ of sovereignty has no parallel in Scots law, which makes the reason for the decision a political one and so invalid?

READ MORE: European parties condemn UK's 'direct attack' on Scotland's devolution

Secondly, as pointed out by Charlie Kerr, the Scottish Parliament was reconvened by an Act of Parliament on the instructions of the sovereign people of Scotland, one of the two signatories to an international treaty, as was their right, in a legal referendum. On this basis, they should also have the legal right to withdraw from the treaty, without need of any permission.

To this point can be added the right within the United Nations Charter, as laid out on Sunday by Christopher Bruce, for every nation to decide the form of government they wish, and that even Westminster has accepted the Claim of Right. As Andy Anderson so clearly states, we have the constitutional right to make these decisions. Why then the need for any permission from anyone to hold a referendum?

Now we are being presented with only one route to expressing our wishes – using an election as a de facto referendum. My answer to that is “no, NO, NO!”. That would mean the likelihood of another “No” from Westminster in 2024, whatever the result, and waiting till 2026 for the next “No”. I am sorry, but I have waited, hoped and worked for independence for at least six decades of adult life and may very well not be around by then, having handed in my dinner pail without even knowing that independence is coming for my grandchildren. As the old saying goes, that is something up with which I will not put!

READ MORE: The Conservatives are trying to establish a previously unthinkable precedent

Why rely on only one route at a time, and a risky one at that? I can think of at least three other feasible ones which we should be following at the same time, each of which would put pressure on Westminster and which would aid our cause if they tried to block them. All would be possible to start right away and could have “judgment day” by October 19. Only after that would the de facto idea have to come into operation if all these other routes failed. By then, I am fairly sure we would have widespread international recognition ready and waiting.

To rely on these future election dates only would impose a timescale that would make campaigning far more difficult, sap enthusiasm, risk internal squabbling amongst activists, scunner the public and above all, give Westminster time to strip us of our resources and put measures in place to make our goal impossible.

Come on, folks, let’s work on every route possible NOW and create the tide that will carry the independence-supporting parties with us to independence.

L McGregor
Falkirk

MICHAEL Fry’s recent article (Why this Scots village became celebrated all across Europe, Jan 16) reminds me of the story of a group of economic migrants who were marooned when their flimsy craft foundered. They had spent all their money and spoke a different language. Robert Owen heard of their plight and offered the Highlanders work in New Lanark. Morality.

Ian Richmond
Springfield