THE party manifestos are out. The Unionists have spoken and their message could not be clearer. The Labour Party and the LibDems are implacably opposed to independence. Theresa May makes it clear that with her expected and increased parliamentary majority she will continue in her insistence that now is not the time for a new indyref. Alarmingly she has added a sinister twist to her stance: not only must we wait until Brexit has been clarified and implemented but there must be “public consent”. Shortly after we had to endure the spectacle of our Colonial Governor (David Mundell) gloating triumphantly as he repeated the message.

What should we understand public consent to mean? Obviously the 47 per cent who voted for the SNP manifesto in Holyrood 2016 election and the Scottish Parliament resolution for Section 30 order approval are not deemed legitimate.

Does she hold the view that public consent requires UK-wide approval? If that is the case some might like to think such consent would be easily forthcoming as our southern neighbours would be glad to see the back of us – since we are seen as subsidy junkies and a drain on their resources. That would be a delusion. The more likely outcome is that there would be such a realisation of Scotland’s worth that rUK would be desperate to avoid separation. After all, Brexit will have to be paid for and our contributions will be needed.

This is surely a serious escalation in our struggle for self-determination and an existential threat to its achievement. And yet the reaction so far has been strangely muted, even acquiescent. In my opinion this is a grave mistake, and meek compliance will be interpreted as weakness to be exploited. I cannot be alone in thinking that there needs to be a change of strategy and a shift up the gears. The way of things at present is like a game of ping pong but somebody has to pick up the ball and make a dash for the line. Much as I dislike Ruth Davidson she is prepared to play rough and tough, her latest boast being that she is going to cut the SNP down to size.

The Unionist parties, and their Scottish branches, are all saying that a vote for them is a vote against independence for Scotland but our response is so understated. The SNP manifesto is likely to repeat the demand for a referendum and a role in the Brexit negotiations. Not good enough! We should be matching the Unionists’ slogan of a vote for them is a vote against independence with one of our own. There has to be a clear understanding and an explicit statement, such that the electorate is fully aware that by voting SNP they are voting for independence. No more referendums, straight into negotiations for dissolution.

Surely we have passed the time for political niceties which are not progressing the cause. If there is no written constitution then whatever rules there are can only be based on convention and precedents: they are therefore subject to change and development. It is up to us to drive this and control the agenda.

I fear, however, that the manifesto to be revealed next Tuesday will be too cautious, more of the same, trying to appeal to the most timid and conservative.

J F Davidson
Bonnyrigg

WHAT is it that the Tories do not understand about democracy and elections? The public consented to independence in both the last Scottish elections by voting the SNP overwhelming the largest party, and the last General Election when the three Unionist parties won three out of 59 MPs? This from May, who became PM without even a vote by her own party. The SNP have been picked by public consent with a manifesto for independence, politics 101, Davidson, Dugdale, Rennie and May should attend that class and learn about democracy.

Robert Doig
Bo’ness

WITH all respect to Pat Kane in his touching appraisal of Billy Connolly (The National, May 20), I would beg to differ with Pat’s sentiments.

Regardless of Connolly’s present health predicament, he has shown himself in the worst possible light in relation to his bile and vitriol against his home nation seeking self-determination through the perfectly natural process of independence.

We all know how controversial Connolly has been throughout his life, with his outrageous style of humour which has undoubtedly served so many, so well, in giving priceless entertainment over the decades. Unfortunately, in recent years Connolly has opted to raise the Union Flag against those residing in Scotland who should dare to seek independence.

Like any other within our democracy, his opinion must be respected, however contradictory, disrespectful and oh so typically Unionist that may be. I for one can remember those early days when a guy called Billy Connolly was just another nobody trying to get the big break and make the big time. Places like Lanark Memorial Hall sold out to see this new rising star of comedy, and I paid my dues like thousands of others. Then there was the follow-on support in the purchase of LPs, cassettes, another gig, CDs, another gig, DVDs and my last gig at Glasgow Concert Hall. Perhaps only a modest investment to the betterment of another person’s life, but it was my hard-earned cash Mr Connolly, and all from a lifelong supporter of Scottish independence! By all means enjoy your retirement in peace and comfort, but sometimes it’s better to keep one’s mouth firmly shut on the political front. Remember,your pal Theresa May only wants things to be “strong and stable"? And as far as my little contribution to your grand lifestyle is concerned, well, you’re welcome.

Alfie Ward
Biggar

DREAM on, David Kelly (Letters May 19). Humans have always sought to intoxicate themselves.

For millennia they have experimented with grain, grapes, mushrooms, poppies and the like. There is, however, a clear dividing line between social lubrication and enlightenment, and escapism and abuse.

In the interests of trying (in vain) to prevent the latter, Mr Kelly wants to continue with the criminalisation of cannabis. Despite the futile 40-year “war” on recreational drugs in general and cannabis in particular? The time for a new approach is long overdue. The LibDems’ manifesto pledge should be lauded and supported, if not adopted, by all progressive parties. (The Tories would naturally support it for financial reasons, if not for the predictable backlash from that stalwart guardian of public ethics and morality the Daily Mail).

Archie McArthur
Edinburgh


DR Kevin Parsons heads yet another family who have made their home in Scotland, is doing a valuable service lecturing at Glasgow University`s Institute of Biodiversity, and is being expelled by the Home Office, who as usual hide behind a cloak of anonymity by refusing to comment on individual cases. This is so utterly wrong and insulting to Scotland and we are being treated with utter contempt.

Surely the time has come in cases like this to take the law into our own hands and refuse to comply with the Home Office`s arcane demands, and the Scottish Government should demand that the family stay in Scotland, protected if required by a vigilante squad summoned by social media, and by Police Scotland if necessary.

Peter H Fettes
Address supplied


DESPITE May and Ruth’s pathetic performance, I had to laugh at Andrew Learmonth’s insightful account of the secret show in the capital last Friday(Tories go wild for Theresa May’s greatest hits at secret show with Ruth Davidson in Edinburgh, The National, May 20). But what also caught my eye was the National’s picture of Ruth leading her illustrious leader on to the stage at the latest orchestrated “love in lock in” I felt the photographer had caught Ruth in the perfect Bruce Forsyth pose!

Let’s not be surprised if at future Tory “game” shows between now and the election we will see the emergence of well-tested catchphrases replacing their election slogans. Ruth: “Nice to see you, to see you...”

Robin Maclean
Fort Augustus