THANKS to William Ross for his amusing reply to me in defence of Mr Sillars (Letters, June 30).

Decrying my reasoning as beggaring belief and lacking consistency, the hapless Mr Ross underquoted my assertion that the lies of the Vow in the 2014 referendum were justification for re-running it, by omitting my rider “should we [ie Scots] want one". Personally, as Mr Ross must now realise, I have no faith in referendums, which as we’ve seen through experience don’t have the same strict standards of debating or funding controls as elections; essential to deliver the balance of campaigning that would give merit to the result as fair.

So, let me say again, I do not consider referendums as a competent political instrument to self-determination and I regret that our political leaders have agreed that route to independence. However, I have no control over this, and I accept that putting the future of the nation into an election manifesto may be considered politically precarious. There again, there isn’t any shortcut to determining the true will of the electorate, necessary to achieve independence and ensure its success.

In the shambles of Westminster a Cabinet clique are running the show and our elected representatives are hanging onto its coat tails, the near two-thirds of the electorate who didn’t vote to leave the EU completely ignored by them. How is this democracy? How can a few Tories in a minority government completely negate all those who we elected to represent us? How can Mr Ross witness this and believe this procedural dictatorship is democracy in action and acceptable – a situation brought about by a “referendum”? Why shouldn’t the final say on our international relationships be in a free vote by those whom we’ve elected to protect our interests?

Finally, Mr Ross, even if an election with independence on the agenda did effectively turn into a single-issue campaign, like a referendum, at least it would be so with the controls I have mentioned. It would be a fairer campaign conducted to stricter guidelines, balance required in the media – the lack of which was such a key corrupting influence in the 2014 referendum, and no wealthy Arron Banks types to splash their cash to pollute the integrity of the campaign, as happened during the Brexit referendum.

Also, haven’t we known all along that the Scottish National Party has stood for independence from its inception, and haven’t we already elected them to majority government? And haven’t others like the Greens come on board? My question therefore is why isn’t Scotland independent already?

Jim Taylor
Edinburgh

JIM Taylor’s latest letter (June 30) again shows his lack of intellectual rigour. The existence of S28(7) of the 1998 Act, in which Westminster asserts its sovereignty, in no way means that Scotland does not have a devolved parliament. It merely states the obvious, that devolution is power retained, not a division of sovereignty.

Jim doubts if Westminster sovereignty was “fully and openly described to Scots during the devolution process", and suggests that we were “sold a pup.” Fact: Westminster sovereignty was in the White Paper endorsed by the referendum, in which the SNP (Sean Connery and all) played a prominent part for the double Yes, and in the Act itself which SNP MPs helped to pass.

I abstained in the referendum because there was no division of sovereignty, which was consistent with my record: see Sillars v Smith SLT 539 1982, where, in the Appeal Court, I contested the sovereignty of parliament. It is absurd to claim that by pointing to 64 per cent of our exports going to rUK, I am endorsing staying in the Union. It is simply an important fact that we shall need to bear in mind when seeking a majority for independence, and in negotiating the deal with rUK afterwards.

Jim asserts that he doesn’t "accept plebiscites like Brexit, legally only advisory, have any legitimacy other than to 'guide' elected representatives"’ declaring this to be a higher democratic standard than mine. Really? Tell the people you are asking them to make a definitive decision, as did the Cameron official document we all received, then tell them when you don’t like the result that you didn’t mean what you said, and MPs can reverse it? I would call that duplicity, not democracy.

I note also that he advocates Shetland being able to exercise a different decision from the rest of Scotland, not seeming to realise how that would play into the hands of the No side. Why, they might ask, stop only at Shetland? Why not Grampian or the Borders as well if they vote No? With his generous attitude to Shetland, I hope Jim realises that he would be giving away a good slice of our fishing grounds, plus a good chunk of our waters which contain oil.

On the EU he seems to be labouring under the idea that I know nothing about it. Actually I know quite a bit about it, having been involved in the legislation that took us into the European Economic Community, and thereafter continuing to study its development up to the Lisbon Treaty. In addition I worked with EU officials on projects concerned with the Arab world, and have led a number of delegations to the Commission.

That experience is why I have been able to peel away Brussels propaganda which has sought to justify its crucifixion of the Greek people with its mantra, which Jim has swallowed whole, that they brought disaster upon themselves.

The so-called bailout was not to save the Greeks, but the French and German banks who had lent them billions. The bail out enabled Greece to pay the banks, while piling up more debt, forced to sell public assets and imposing punishing austerity, as Varis Varoufakis has explained in detail.

I am, as Jim says, now on the sidelines, but it is a good position from which to observe. What I see is disturbing. Much of the present demand for independence is fuelled by outrage, grievance, a belief in a malign Westminster, and abuse of those who do not agree with us. That combination will not take us to a majority. It is too narrow, too sour.

The case for independence will be won only if we leave off declaring Westminster the root of all evil, and in its place present a positive case: that whatever may be said and debated about the last 300 years, the Union manifestly does not now work for well for Scotland; that our potential cannot be released; that dynamic change in our society cannot be triggered, that devolution has been tried, but its restraints, inherent in the whole process, have shown it does not work.

Jim Sillars
Edinburgh