THANKS to The National for reporting on Professor Sionaidh Douglas-Scott’s illuminating and helpful opinion carried by the Centre on Constitutional Change, which lays out a number of arguments for Scotland’s legal and constitutional right to independence if its people so wish, and the UK Government’s corresponding obligation not to frustrate it (UK Government ‘immoral’ for refusing indyref2, Nov 2).

Allow me, though, to draw attention to what appears to me to be one fault, namely the statement in her opinion that “although the Scottish people have an acknowledged right to self-determination, this can only be lawfully actualised through consensual negotiations with the UK Government”. In this, she reflects other experts such as Professor Michael Keating, whose written evidence of July 2021 to a House of Lords Committee says: “The politically accepted right to secession, moreover, co-exists with the constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty and supremacy. The devolution statutes confirm that Parliament remains supreme so that secession would require its consent.” Similar remarks can be found elsewhere.

READ MORE: Channel 4 accused of 'rigging' Make Me Prime Minister against pro-independence candidate

I regard such statements as a misinterpretation of the notion of “parliamentary sovereignty”. They do not comport with a Scottish right to independence, because that is no right if it is subject to any Westminster override. But in fact there is no such override, and the statements, in Douglas-Scott’s opinion and everywhere else, are never backed up. No source or justification is given, and they are pronounced as if they were self-evident. Prof Keating’s point about Westminster sovereignty over the devolved Holyrood parliament is no more than a devolution issue, nothing to do with Scottish independence. The reality is that the overriding UK parliamentary sovereignty, such as it is, applies only to the state as it exists from time to time, and does not operate to prevent a national part of the state from leaving it. There is no legal or constitutional impediment in the UK against Scottish secession – full stop.

I do not seriously doubt that if there is a Yes vote, Westminster will enter negotiations for Scottish independence, but we will only get to the vote – and get a Yes result – if we don’t weaken our resolve with a misguided exaggeration of London’s power.

Alan Crocket
Motherwell

THE article headed “UK Government ‘immoral’ for refusing indyref” along with its succinct detail, espoused by Sionaidh Douglas-Scott anniversary chair in law at Queen Mary University in London, is absolutely beautiful music to my ears as I read it out aloud to my wife even though I may be profoundly deaf in both ears. The contents therein, if more widely distributed, must surely affect the the majority of waverers that we have in Scotland so that we can go for independence from the shenanigans of the UK Government and sort ourselves out as an overdue independent state.

WD Mill Irving
Kilbirnie

I’M not going to put up a defence of Alba in response to Malcolm Cordell’s letter in Wednesday's paper, their spokesmen are more capable than I am. The reason for the formation of Alba and several smaller independence parties is that the SNP appear to many as only paying lip service to the goal of independence since the last referendum. The ball keeps being kicked further down the road.

There have been numerous practical responses to the failure to win the last referendum but all have been ignored by the SNP, often out of hand, with the current hierarchy’s attitude being “if it’s not my idea then reject it”. Often without serious consideration.

READ MORE: Alex Salmond's Alba Party launch indy billboards campaign across Scotland

Rather than attacking the independence competition, Mr Cordell and others so minded should examine the reasons that gave rise to the likes of Alba. It seems that the SNP have learned no lessons from 2014 and continue with the failed programme used then. Or worse, advocating the much discredited so-called “Growth Commission”.

The SNP should be extending the hand of friendship to all those seeking independence instead of the “it’s ma ba’, yer no playin’ “ attitude that has prevailed in recent times. Not all criticism is destructive, and had the SNP taken on board even some of what others have said, independence would be nearer than it is.

Drew Reid
Falkirk

THE findings of the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey 2021/22 published this week clearly demonstrated that the public have confidence in the SNP and our Holyrood government, sharply contrasting with the public’s verdict on the Westminster government and its treatment of Scotland. The findings should not come as a surprise to anyone considering the consistent approval ratings for our First Minister, outperforming any other political leader in the UK.

READ MORE: Scotland's scathing views on UK Government revealed in major new poll

On Wednesday in our Holyrood parliament Deputy First Minister John Swinney demonstrated why the Scottish Government’s rating approval is way ahead of that of Westminster, when he gave a financial statement to the chamber amidst the cost-of-living crisis. This statement was clear evidence of the SNP government reaching out to the most vulnerable with the doubling of the Fuel Insecurity Fund, doubling of the Scottish Child Bridging Payment to £260 and a new £1.4m Island Cost Crisis Emergency Fund.

Added to those announcements was increased funding for future pay awards in the public sector. The Scottish Government, with such limited financial resources, are certainly prioritising spending on the vulnerable. Can we expect Westminster to follow this lead as we approach the autumn Budget statement on November 17?

Catriona C Clark
Falkirk