When will we learn Nicola Sturgeon's views about de facto referendum?

There seem to be at least three main options and none of them are ideal.

Option 1: The First Minister resigns and the SNP and Greens block the appointment of a replacement for 28 days, thus forcing a Scottish Parliament election to be used as a de facto referendum. Not ideal as the Unionists would make the most of the so-called political upheaval, as they see it. However, even during a scheduled Scottish Parliament election there is also a period of political uncertainty. A very big question mark would remain as to the best possible use of the second (list) ballot paper to elect a lot more pro-independence MSPs.

READ MORE: Holyrood votes UK should 'respect Scotland's right' to hold indyref2

Option 2: Wait until the next UK General Election and use it as a de facto referendum. 16- and 17-year-olds will not have a vote. The political focus will be on a UK basis, Labour v Tory. Labour supporters in Scotland will be asked (told) to vote Labour to get the Tories out.

Option 3: Wait until the next scheduled Scottish Parliament elections in 2026. Possibly use the second ballot paper and a second independence-supporting party to obtain a large pro-independence majority. However, a week is indeed a long time in politics and May 2026 is three long and cold Scottish winters away. Ambulances were called out to 800 people suffering from hypothermia during the recent freezing weather in Scotland. Figures from the Scottish Ambulance Service showed that about 44 people a day were taken to hospital between December 1 and 18.

READ MORE: Anas Sarwar to speak at Scotland in Union's Burns Night event

There is of course Option 4 – Give up our hopes of an independent Scotland for the foreseeable future and accept that devolution is the settled will of the Scottish people, at least for now, pay our fuel bills, accept deaths by hypothermia as a fact of life, open more food banks and live with the current NHS crisis.

I have a feeling that Option 3 may be top of the First Minister’s wish list but perhaps without the clever use of the second ballot paper. If so there will be a good few disappointed folk who no doubt will feel that a carrot on a very long stick is being dangled in their faces if simply another SNP/Green mandate is being asked for in 2026.

Maybe we are in for a surprise. We live in hope.

Brian Lawson
Paisley

LETTER-WRITERS who want the Scottish Government to tell them what they are doing about currency, the date of a referendum etc are either ignorant or trolls. No-one tells the enemy what their intentions are in advance.

William Purves
Galashiels

I WANT to thank Alan Magnus-Bennett of Fife for his letter (Jan 10) in which he recounted some aspects of Scottish history – of which I was already aware.

If I was ever asked to defend Scotland’s claim to independence and justified powers of self-determination, it is these aspects of Scottish history (and more) to which I would refer.

READ MORE: Karen Adam: Scottish independence movement within touching distance of our goal

Before I retired, I taught various undergraduate classes in various colleges and universities. I recall that I once had a student whose home was in Biafra. That was at a time when oil was discovered offshore in these parts – at which point also the people of Biafra tried to declare their independence from Nigeria. Until that happened I had been unaware of the existence of Biafra. I was convinced of the honesty and sincerity of my student when he told about certain historical events which had occurred in those parts. Nevertheless, I was also aware that the Nigerian government had dismissed the Biafran claims to independence. So I listened with interest to the argument presented to me by my student and reserved my opinion.

What I said in my letter with which Magnus-Bennett took issue was that Westminster, having set up the Holyrood parliament, (arguably) has the power to dissolve it. Did Magnus-Bennett not see that word “arguably”, or is he telling us that no such argument would take place, or that all third parties, when listening to that argument, would automatically dismiss the Westminster version of the issue? I do not think so. And I also think we would be well advised to avoid the possibility of a time-wasting diversion. It is tempting to assume that when we find an argument convincing, it will convince others completely.

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An’ foolish notion.

Hugh Noble
Appin

REGARDING the story by Hamish Morrison about the Rangers supporters group Union Bears targeting an Alba billboard next to the motorway, the following much-quoted lines sprung to mind: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Since their launch, Alba were ignored by much of the mainstream press (with some exceptions such as the pro-indy National). Last year, I was disheartened to see that many members of the independence movement spent much of their time looking down at Alba and laughing at them. However, it does seem that towards the end of last year this changed. Alba are now increasingly attacked by the SNP, the Greens and the Unionists.

This latest attack on the party by Union Bears is of no surprise considering Alba’s pro-independence and anti-monarchy stances.

I’m sure Alba will be hopeful based on recent polling that perhaps the fulfilment of the last line of the above quote is on the horizon.

Frank Wood
Port Glasgow