Sturgeon’s referral of indyref2 case to court was a necessary evil

What would her critics have had happen? The SNP have a democratic mandate to deliver indyref2.

Sturgeon set the date as required. Should we then have left the process at the mercy of the UK Government? A government, who, let’s say a week before the vote, could declare it illegal and then have sent it to the court and “cawed the feet” from under the whole movement at the eleventh hour? Can you imagine?

Do the critics of the court referral really believe the UK Government isn’t capable of something like that?

So, we lost in court, and now we have clarity. However, the strength of the overall strategy proposed by Sturgeon was that she had a fallback position to put to the Scottish people in the day the verdict was announced.

No, let’s think about what we should do now. We know from the reaction of the Unionist press and parties that they didn’t like the certainty.

So now there are reports that various independence supporting groups (including some SNP MPs) are not in favour of the next General Election becoming the de-facto referendum. It is risky. We may lose.

However, what a pity there are not also reports about their suggestions for viable, alternative scenarios.

For yet none seem to be forthcoming, and the status quo is becoming its own losing strategy with every damaging day “shackled” (with no apology to Mr McDonald) to this so-called “Union”.

I Easton

Glasgow

I AM incensed by the arrogance of the Tories and Labour in Holyrood. Neither have been elected to power but both equally happy to ignore the electorate in their desperation to do the bidding of those in London.

The SNP/Greens government at Holyrood was elected by the majority of the Scottish people.

Those voting did so in the clear knowledge that once the worst of the pandemic was over then independence was firmly back on the agenda. This is not the message Westminster want you to hear however and so they will continue to deny Scotland’s voice. Desperate times in a failing state.

Time for independence – nothing less will do.

Ann MacKay

via email

A VERY informative article on how small to medium sized enterprises are being let down by the current Brexit deal (Scots firm forced to halt trade with EU, December 1). Reported a crushing reduction of £2.2 billion in Scottish exports.

It brings home the seemingly insurmountable problems SMEs are having. When sending to the EU, they are “relying on groupage” to consolidate loads.

Both Conservative and Labour should be asked to answer on these. With UK, and particularly Sottish voters now in clear majorities, we are wishing to reverse Brexit. Certainly the hardest of hard Brexits, which was not on the ballot paper. When are the main UK parties going to start addressing the country’s fortunes for SMEs wishing to export to the EU?

Peter Gorrie

Edinburgh

FIFTY-TWO percent in favour of Scottish independence is all the more impressive when you consider the forces ranged against it.

There is the daily bombardment of the Scottish Daily Mail, Express and other papers, which regard Nicola Sturgeon as the devil incarnate. The BBC and all its works. The combined assaults of the Unionist parties. The political cynics up and down the land, to whom all parties are anathema, including the SNP. The many thousands of Rangers fans who sing God Save the King, lungs fit to burst. Not to mention the near half a million English people who live here, most of whom wish to remain in the Union.

In these circumstances, 52% speaks volumes for the increasing strength of independence as a mutually supportive, predominantly grassroots movement.

Alastair McLeish

Edinburgh

USING a UK General Election as a de facto referendum has a number of substantial disadvantages for the independence movement.

1.Those aged 16 & 17 can’t vote. By choosing this method, the Scottish Government is disenfranchising them on a vote on their country’s future.

2. EU and other foreign nationals will not be allowed to vote.

3. Those allowed to vote can only do so if they are in possession of a UK Government approved photo ID. We already know that this is a clear attempt to disenfranchise those less likely to vote Tory and thus those more likely to vote for independence.

4. It is estimated that around 35% of Labour voters are in favour of independence and would be likely to vote Yes in a referendum.

However, with the prospect of a Labour government in Westminster, they will have to choose between voting for independence or voting Labour.

All of these factors will serve to reduce the percentage vote by a significant factor.

If we were somehow able to win, there is no chance that the Labour or Tory parties will see the result as a declaration of independence as it was part of a General Election together with many other issues.

If we lose, the same parties will proclaim that we have had our referendum and lost. They will then proceed to further undermine or abolish devolution in the certain knowledge that independence will not happen for at least another decade.

Perhaps now is the time to stop playing “reasonable”. Pro-independence MPs should implement a plan to disrupt Westminster at every opportunity using their own rules, until such time as a Section 30 order is granted.

If they won’t recognise our democracy, why should we respect theirs?

David Howie

Dunblane