THE summing up and detailing of past events, failures and knockbacks regarding Scotland’s democratic and legitimate attempts to achieve independence from the UK resulting in a prolonged activity of negatives, as described in the Long Letter by Iain K of Dunoon (Jan 28), must surely chime with most of your readers, who are now showing increased frustration since the Supreme Court setback.

Since then, regrettably there has not been much activity regarding viable alternative avenues. Notably and worryingly, there is an increasing lethargy now showing in the media which worries me. This will put voters off, resulting in poor voter turnout. Through time people learn to put up with what transpires, with what is expected in the UK as being normal for a Brexit-induced economy with all its lack of opportunities, high and increasing costs that they live with.

Ian, with his functioning brain, quite rightly suggests a possible way forward by not involving the UK Parliament. Scotland should take it above their heads if they threaten to set back further legitimate mandates for independence that Scotland wants, and further the whole scenario with the UN and Court of Human Rights for future legitimate vote mandates when the UK Parliament is legally not willing to accept an independence mandate.

We tried the honourable course but Westminster is a two-party political house which will never change and Scotland has been kicked in the face. Enough is enough – Iain is right – keep Westminster out of it.

Like Iain, my brain still functions, albeit rather slowly now. This nation must keep the pot on the boil to further independence and the UK can look after itself to suit its own way. We can be useful neighbours in many ways but with true independence.

WD Mill Irving
Kilbirnie

AS an SNP member, I am still waiting for the information Jim Todd referred to in Thursday’s National concerning the “message” from the First Minister. However, I enjoyed reading his comments on Scotland’s Claim of Right and his dictionary meaning of “self-determination”, as is universally recognised as being the right of every nation. More information about the Claim of Right follows.

The Scottish Claim of Right is enshrined in Scots law and has been since 1689. It is recognised by the Westminster Parliament and government and even by King Charles III. (Whether they both understand it is neither here or there in my view.)

Salvo, or the “Act of salve jure cujuslibet”, was made law in 1663 which, from 1592 to 1707, gave the people “Salvo”, meaning to allow a person(s) to challenge the parliament legislation if it prejudiced civil rights.

Salvo’s relevance to the Treaty of Union and the Union itself is that it was ratified as a condition of both. This was understood even by the English spy and Unionist Daniel Defoe, who wrote on the effects of the Union for Scotland: “The Laws of Government (in Scotland) continue as the Government continues establish’d in the Claim of Right, I mean as to the Limitations of Government and Obedience”.

The campaigning arm Salvo is definitely non-political. Its membership declared last year to maintain the ownership of Scotland by the people being the sovereign nation.

There is a related “peaceful” movement (open to all Scots to join via Salvo) which would wish to call a Scottish National Congress in which to “assert and defend our Scottish rights” to self-determination, and end abuse from the seen-to-be foreign government that is Westminster.

You can find information online at www.salvo.scot.

Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife

BRIAN Lawson and Jim Taylor say it all in their excellent letters in Thursday’s edition, when they raise the issue of the GRR Bill’s place in the priorities of our government.

The current jail debacle shows up this legislation for what it is – ill thought out and a gift to Unionists.

The mystery remains – why has this divisive agenda ( I can’t find a better word for it) even been considered by an SNP government, far less written into a bill?

Voters who may have been willing to back independence must be looking on and thinking: if this is an indication of how an independent Scotland will look, no thanks.

I’ve voted SNP over 50 years, and I’m appalled by this nonsense.

Would anyone from our government care to explain why this bill has been prioritised?

Jim Butchart
via email

I HAVE always been confident that Scotland would be a wealthy, self-sufficient nation, the McCrone report being one of the many sources I have read. I have just read Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp’s book Scotland the Brief. I would strongly recommend this book to anyone– it completely explodes any myth that Scotland is “too wee” or “couldn’t afford to be independent”. I have now passed this book on to friends who are in the doubting camp. If reading it doesn’t change their opinion, there is nothing that will. I hope the information contained in this book can get as wide an audience as possible.

Gordon Walker
Paisley