IN Monday’s letters pages, Nick Cole tells us that in our struggle for independence we can’t do anything which is outwith “the current legal and constitutional framework we have to work with”. We must, he insists, “maintain a legal approach to our cause”. The problem with Nick’s advice is that he seems to be entirely naive about the law.

He talks about legal processes as if there is one unique legal process involved which is equitable, universal and international. In reality we are looking here at the English legal system, the Scottish legal system, international law and at least one very relevant international agreement the Treaty of Union.

READ MORE: Unionists are banking on Yessers abstaining at the General Election

We can’t talk, as Nick does, of legal processes in the abstract, and assume we are all addressing the same legal process. So any “plan” which is based on such an assumption is meaningless and of no value.

For example, an appeal to the English Supreme Court on a question relating to Scottish constitutional sovereignty is pointless. The English Supreme Court has defined, and will continue to define, “sovereignty” in Scotland exactly the same as “sovereignty” in England, because it is a court established by the Westminster Parliament and it accepts English law as its guiding principle.

The question of Scottish sovereignty is firmly established in Scottish constitutional law and is entirely different. In England the people are “subjects” of the Crown in Parliament, and the English Supreme Court sees Scots as under the same constitutional position, which they have just made clear.

READ MORE: Independent Scotland should have constitution, MSPs say

So if Nick and Humza and anyone else is seeking Scottish independence by following English law then they are not paying attention – the English Supreme Court have ruled that to be under the control of the Westminster Parliament.

This means that any of us in Scotland who want to secure Scottish independence, and to do so in a legal and peaceful way, can’t do this by using English law, including the English Supreme Court; we have to do it by using Scottish constitutional law, the international agreement called the Treaty of Union, and international law.

Now the good news for Nick and people like myself who wish to pursue a legal path to independence is that this approach seems fairly solid ground for us if we approach it properly. If we wish to do so, however, we must to do it as a united people, we must find a common platform to work on together. We can’t afford the folly of sticking to the path the SNP have been following which has clearly failed. We need to adjust slightly and work together on a better plan, which I am sure the Scottish people will eventually realise.

The SNP will be a part of this, but they are only a part and they must listen to others in the wider movement, which they have not been doing very well in recent years.

Andy Anderson
Ardrossan

MORE than 60 countries have escaped London rule, by every means from outright war to UDI, and not one of them wants a replay. Nick Cole states in a somewhat downbeat letter on Monday that Scotland’s only route to independence must be legal, but does not say what that legal way would be. Westminster has shut down all legal routes, and would probably pass laws to make illegal any so far undiscovered legal ways. With a nod to the “we are too poor” mantra, he seems to forget that HM Treasury returns only part of Scotland’s own money per annum, and that Scotland already has a system in place for collecting taxes.

READ MORE: It's premature to rule out ‘Scotland United’ General Election strategy

Much more uplifting was the reasoning from Christopher Bruce, with his suggestion of a Yes symposium which could decide to revoke the treaties between Scotland and England, and that this method would be legal.

The international community knows that Westminster is denying Scots the democratic right to choose our own future, and I believe that even if Scotland did declare UDI, it would be recognised by the world, as has happened with other countries choosing that route.

So what’s it to be? The never-ending pessimism of caution, or optimism in Scotland’s ability to forge its own destiny?

Richard Walthew
Duns

WHILE I did not vote for Mr Yousaf, I do believe that he is right in his approach to getting Scotland its independence. Any route has to be legal and cannot be open to legal challenge.

I know that this is frustrating for many and that many disagree with this, however we simply cannot have a repeat of what happened in Ireland during the 1920s. Neither can we have the First Minister behaving like Ian Smith (UDI).

READ MORE: Karen Adam: Humza Yousaf's handling of heckler showed values we cherish

Westminster will not let us go easily and will fight dirty to prevent that, but we MUST have the law (and therefore international opinion) on our side. Let us not argue amongst ourselves anymore. Let us argue with the undecided and those who believe in the Union to change their minds.

Carry on the way we are doing at the moment and we can forget about independence. That cannot happen.

Andrew Haddow
Glasgow