DOESN’T Ms Lovina Roe appear to misunderstand the role of EU leaders and the European Court of Human Rights (Rajoy should be condemned by our leaders, Letters, The National, November 1)?

Notwithstanding enshrining the right of peoples to self-determination, I contend that logically this applies to each member state and not fragmented sections of each state; it being the state itself that is the member of the EU.

Sadly, Catalonia is not internationally recognised as a separate entity, which is why nations fearing such breakaways are refusing to recognise their right to self-determination.

EU leaders are walking on eggshells, they simply have no political mechanism to interfere in the internal affairs of a member state. Whose interests would they align with? Where would it end? Perhaps Ms Roe should consider what her reaction would be if the EU interceded in any such manner in the struggle of Scots following a similar route to independence?

Sadly, if you hold elections then you are deemed to be a democracy, which satisfies EU membership. However, don’t we just know that there are many shades of “democracy” and there is no fully comprehensive constitution quality control required for membership of the EU, the devil being in the differences?

Whereas Spain’s constitution appears not to allow for a plebiscite to secede from the nation state, at least the UK’s unwritten constitution does accommodate a referendum.

However, what use is this to Scots if the PM can refuse it carte blanche and the Westminster Government can employ its natural English majority to deny us our fundamental right to hold such a vote as a peaceful precursor to self-determination, which if Ms Roe had read my contributions would recognise my avowed support for?

Isn’t Ms Roe’s second misunderstanding of the role of the ECHR? It is a reactive body that determines the outcome of cases brought before it, its binding decisions on signatories feeding into the rules of the EU. It has no powers to intervene in any state to prevent or control a contemporary situation. It is rightly a reactive independent body, not a politically proactive one.

I have no doubt that diplomatic pressure will be being applied to the Madrid Government, by EU leaders and others. And I welcome international condemnation of Spain’s rush to previous fascist type. Bully-boy tactics can never quell the fervour by many in Catalonia for self-determination. They can only fan the flames of resent and promote the struggle for freedom from such oppression. History has taught us this lesson many times, which we should heed.

Here in Scotland, isn’t our alleged democracy proving equally illusory? While our constitution may appear more reasonable by allowing an independence plebiscite, isn’t the reality of Westminster refusing to sanction one that of a constitution designed to contain the will of the people rather than express it? How is this different from Spain’s?

Perhaps after the lies of the 2014 referendum – EU membership, shipbuilding, natural resource wealth, commercial prospects etc. along with the continued years of Tory austerity which has impacted sorely on us, and the certain impending disadvantages of Brexit – the reason why our vote is being denied is because opponents of independence realise just how untenable their argument is and increasingly futile their resistance has become?

Scotland first. Our Scotland designed by Scots, for all Scots, by birth or domicile.
Jim Taylor
Edinburgh