ROBIN McAlpine presents us with yet another “strategy” to achieve our independence, and as I read it, it has all the weaknesses of some of the existing strategies and offers nothing of substance.

The main weakness is that it is geared to putting Scotland “in a stronger negotiating position with the UK Government”. This appears to be based on the same tired old “belief” that Scotland can only get its independence from a negotiated agreement with the UK Government. Well, let us ask ourselves why we should accept this?

Scotland is one of the oldest states in Europe. England under Edward the 1st, 2nd and 3rd attempted to incorporate Scotland into greater England by military force, but in spite of their greater size and wealth, they clearly failed to sustain this.

An independent Scotland entered into an agreed Union with England in 1707 by an international treaty.

Scotland’s constitutional law identifies the Scottish people as being sovereign. This was well established before 1707, it was confirmed in the treaty and has since been acknowledged by the Westminster Parliament and the UK Supreme Court.

The sovereign Scottish people can decide that the Treaty of Union has been undermined by the UK Government (of which there are many examples) and can declare that it is no longer valid.

An independent Scotland is therefore something which only the sovereign people of Scotland can determine; it can’t be achieved by negotiations with the UK Government. Now that is important to understand, because the UK economy is in dire trouble internationally and depends hugely on the Scottish economy and Scottish natural resources to survive, so if we were depending on negotiations with the UK in order to get our independence, we would never get this, no matter how many Scots voted for it. This objective of Robin’s is not required and could never be obtained.

It appears that Robin sees mass people power as an important impute in the campaign – I agree with him about that, but such a movement must be a bottom-up movement, not a top-down organisation like so many others, if it is going to do what is required.

The idea that we could build such a movement by using the internet, and that the establishment will stand back and allow you to do that, is to fail to understand how powerful the UK state machinery is.

Robin refers to the Scottish Covenant petition of the 1950s which gathered 2.5 million signatures (before computers were around). Well, we should learn from this experience, and understanding why it failed to be effective last time should guide us in our further attempt to repeat this exercise.

Finally, Robin has nothing to say about the election which will take place next year, except to express his usual pessimism. This leaves a gaping hole in his plan. If he looks at the route to independence produced by Believe In Scotland, he might pick up some ideas of how the Scottish people might find an institution which would allow them to effectively use their sovereignty.

Andy Anderson

Ardrossan

ROBIN McAlpine of Common Weal says he has a plan that WILL win independence in 10 years (Oct 1). He then goes on to advocate the almost identical approach we already know is failing us. But isn’t insanity repeating actions and expecting a different result?

“We can’t do civil disobedience at 47%”? Says who, Mr McAlpine? How would we really know what the percentage is without having the referendum to determine it?

Methinks he places too much trust in pollsters and polls, particularly when this knowingly lying UK Government is being pursued through the courts for polling results they staunchly refuse to disclose. Anyone doubt the reason?

While it would be wrong to impose indy at that alleged level of support, that’s not where we’re at. We recognise there is a groundswell of opinion that suggests a significant majority may be had, and that we have a democratic right as “partners” in a Union to determine whether the citizens want to continue with that partnership.

Just as we did in 2014 when public support was held to be around 30% (the low support suggesting failure being the reason for the referendum being “granted”). And don’t we already have a precedent? It’s called Brexit, where the UK’s status in the EU was no different to Scotland’s status in the UK (partners, which we were told was the case in 2014). And that is the point that should have been tested in the courts all the way to the UN.

England will never willingly give up Scotland.

The Westminster establishment dishing out oil production licence largesse to the vested interests that support them reveals that to us.

So, let’s stop messing around with this latest Common Weal half-hearted kicking the indy ball about, being nicety nice, but which will still fail approach, until we realise we’re going to have to take our independence back, just like all the other colonies had to do.

We need to play hardball and direct action is the only way. We need to create the conditions where England sees indy as the solution to the problem they’re faced with. Our problem is a de facto independence leadership that’s resisting moving out of its political comfort zone.

There are several legitimate democratic lawful routes to precipitate it, all justifiable to those still to be convinced, and all founded on our legal right to decide for ourselves by asking the question of Scots in a plebiscite.

Any doubters would still have the opportunity to say no. Good grief, 10 years? I’ll likely be dead by then. Patriots want action now. So, let’s stop mincing words, forget pandering to the chattering classes and let’s get on with it. Time is precious. Indy will allow us to rebuild our country in a better way to that of failed Westminster. There’s work to be done. The sooner the better.

Jim Taylor

Edinburgh