Keith Brown's preferred routes to indy are unlikely to be open to us

I am sure there would be processes to be followed as he claims, but the SNP and Greens hold a majority of seats and could thus vote down any nominated replacement.

Why use a Holyrood election? First, the timing of such an election is at our discretion, and thus more predictable than the next Westminster election which will be any time in the next two years.

Secondly, the electoral roll to be used for a Holyrood election includes 16- and 17-year-olds, unlike a Westminster election where the qualifying age is 18. Younger people, we are told, are more likely to vote for independence.

READ MORE: The Holyrood election route can definitely win us our independence

Of course, clearly an agreement with Westminster about another independence vote is “the quick way to do it ... the reasonable way to do it ... the democratic way to do it”, but probably, given the recent Supreme Court decision and the policies being pursued by Westminster, the most unlikely “way to do it”.

I’m sorry, but other than an unwillingness to acknowledge the advantages of a different course of action – using a Holyrood election rather than a Westminster one – there seems no reason for Mr Brown’s argument. We have already been through the loop of “we don’t need a Plan B”; let’s not repeat that same loop now.

Alasdair Galloway
Dumbarton

I AM dismayed at a few reported statements that have come out since the recent Supreme Court ruling. There were two from people in the SNP that when it comes, the vote at the UK election will be for a referendum. What?! We had that last year. We need this vote to be for independence. If the UK will not negotiate, then UDI.

Lots of people in the Yes movement and Alba want the vote to be for a Holyrood election as that would mean young voters and foreigners would not be disenfranchised as they would in a UK election, and UK elections also will need identity proof. Keith Brown had binned that sensible proposal.

The SNP are going to have a conference early next year to decide how to use the UK election. Excellent idea – let’s just ignore the Greens, Alba and the total Yes movement. Yet again the party of independence ignores their support base, unless of course an election is due.

READ MORE: Holyrood election makes for a better de facto referendum

There are great things going on on the ground from Alba, Common Weal, Believe in Scotland and many others. All shunned by the SNP.

Simply put, the SNP will not listen or take advice. Their ears are still closed. My view is that they need to wake up and smell the coffee. Yes, they will gets votes if it helps independence because that is what we want, but once we win a vote many people will not forget and the SNP will end up a minor party after Independence Day.

The SNP have been absolutely great for Scotland doing the day job, that is why they get my vote. They have achieved much to be proud of. I only wish they would not ignore others that are on the same side. This is my frustration. It’s like “not invented here”, so it must be useless. The party’s obsession with control hurts them and us.

Robert Anderson
Dunning

REGARDING your story “Holyrood election ‘can never provide indyref2 mandate’ (Nov 29). Please would everyone stop trying to escape from the wrong box, put us back in the wrong box, at the wrong time, with the wrong question! The right question is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

Do the sovereign people of Scotland have the right to repeal the Act of Union and the ratification on 16th January 1707?

These votes were specific to Scotland, specific to the members of the Scottish Parliament, and subsequently closed the Scottish Parliament. These votes took place before the Union on 1st May 1707, and are therefore beyond the reach of the later Parliament of Great Britain and would therefore be a matter reserved only to Scotland.

A referendum question: should Scotland repeal the Act of Union and the ratification of the act – Yes or No?

The result: if the majority vote Yes then Scotland would return to being an independent nation.

Brian Swinbanks
Tobermory

IN my opinion John Nicolson should treat the kangaroo court he is facing with the contempt it deserves. Naturally he must attend but does he have to say anything to them? Perhaps he could read a book and let them talk among themselves? What can these numpties do about it? Suspension from the House, perhaps for a couple of weeks – that should make his constituents very cross.

Our MPs must start treating this archaic talking shop with the contempt it deserves. Clapping when they approve of something could be a good start; apoplexy on the Tory benches, that would be fun. We must stop playing by their rules.

R Mill Irving
Gifford, East Lothian

READ MORE: SNP's John Nicolson to face investigation after Speaker letter row

TUESDAY’S session on referring John Nicolson to the House of Commons Standards Committee was two hours wasted on a farcical, hate-filled debate on a possible breach in the present-day media of an archaic rule, where the outcome was never in doubt, which revealed everything that is wrong with the Westminster Parliament.

The UK’s Westminster Parliament has now been left behind, trapped in a time warp of trivia while putting a stranglehold on democracy in order to maintain its hierarchy of superiority.

John Jamieson
South Queensferry