IN response to a good and interesting article by George Kerevan – where he comes out on balance in favour of an early Holyrood election as a de facto referendum, and to end the misery currently predicted by two years of Tory governments that Scotland did not vote for – I respectfully raise three further points for reader consideration (An early Holyrood election should only be used as a nuclear option, Dec 19).

Oppositions tend to want elections. This was the case in 2019, when Labour voted with Boris Johnson (Liberals and SNP abstained) giving Mr Johnson his 2019 election. Boris obviously wanted that election and ultimately caused it on the clear, if ill-advised, issue of Brexit, the impact of which is still there today. Boris Johnson won a big majority of seats.

We would all agree that the First Minister has greater guile than Boris and could goad the opposition, during any of their predictable weekly moans on her government, to join the governing parties into collapsing Holyrood on the “two-thirds” rule.

READ MORE: Unionist Clubs Scotland dodges Electoral Commission fine with loophole

I politely disagree with Mr Kerevan that the UK Government would “monkey about” with the Scotland Act to block any early election manufactured at Holyrood, as a denial of democracy would further add to independence support in the manner the Supreme Court did. For the certainty of winning, we may actually welcome the UK Government “monkeying about with democracy”.

Finally, if the de facto referendum were to win, as Mr Kerevan postulates, then while it, like any referendum, would have no legal power, it would in the words of the Supreme Court “possess the authority” of democracy. Westminster would only be one of many governments recognising the validity of what would have happened in Scotland – what is more, the UK Government knows that.

In short, we have nothing to fear, but fear itself – and of course dither!

Angus MacNeil MP
Isle of Barra, Hebrides

WHEN I read George Kerevan’s weekly column I often sit and just nod my agreement, but not this week’s contribution about a plebiscite election at Holyrood or Westminster.

First of all, he fails to acknowledge the difference in electorates. For instance, 16- and 17-year-olds – a group thought to be very favourable to voting Yes – would have a vote only for a Holyrood election.

Secondly, the reaction of the electorate might indeed not be positive, as the reaction of “Brenda from Bristol” to Theresa May’s 2017 election – “Oh no. You’re joking. Not another one” – reminds us. BUT, against a backdrop of supportive polls, and Westminster militant determination that independence should not be addressed, would this still be true? Certainly, the conditions would need to be “right” and the electorate prepared, but this is not to say they couldn’t be.

READ MORE: Douglas Alexander plots Westminster comeback with Lothian bid

As for Northern Ireland, that situation is not comparable with our own. There, a border poll can only be called by the Northern Ireland Secretary. Here, we have a legal route to a Holyrood election at a time and electorate of our choice.

Finally, George is right that even if there is a successful vote, “nothing would have changed constitutionally”. We would still need Westminster agreement to independence, unless we are prepared for a unilateral declaration, but then, pretty much no matter the route, is that not the case? Indeed, is that not the real issue?

Alasdair Galloway
Dumbarton

GIVEN the recent events at the Supreme Court against our cause, the despondency amongst our Yes family is growing with the gloom of mid winter.

So thanks to George Kerevan’s bucket of cold water arguing that what we really need to confront, irrespective if the route is gold standard or not, is the stark reality that “nothing would have changed constitutionally. It would still be up to Westminster to agree on whether it should hold independence negotiations or not. Expect delay and prevarication.”

READ MORE: Gerry Hassan: Yes movement has to start doing the hard graft

We won’t come to independence without risk and it’s clear that the present FM much prefers risk avoidance rather than risk management, and her managerialism in the period since 2014 has effectively demonstrated that, if nothing else. But confront and evaluate the different levels of risk we must, whatever the forthcoming SNP conference might decide on what’s best for the rest of us in the Yes community.

There is no hope of independence without risk and there really is no escaping Kerevan’s “nuclear option”. I believe that Scotland should be independent because we have an obligation as adults to be a grown-up nation in order to protect the future of our generations as yet unborn.

In The National’s Yessay competition last year I used the analogy of skateboarding, in which learning quickly is the means to mitigate risk and reap the rewards.

Skateboarding is a particular example of taking personal responsibility for your actions. Generally speaking it’s not possible to blame others if you fall. You have to operate within your own capabilities, and if you overstretch yourself then there are consequences and you’ll hurt yourself. But the rewards of elation, euphoria, a sense of freedom, self-expression are the return on the investment of effort, concentration and agility in an internalised battle.

And so it will be if we take a risk with independence.

Iain Bruce
Nairn

WHEN a Tory government has its back against the wall and is losing votes like snow off a dyke because of its incompetence, it reverts to “Mr Tough Guy” tactics. Tough on the weakest in society, tough on trade unions, tough on crime, tough on immigration. Is this the sort of government that the people of Scotland want? Surely we all want better!

Mike Underwood
Linlithgow