FROM what the leader of the SNP has repeated about the route to independence, his belief is that Scotland’s decision must be made via a referendum.

Immediately after the Dundee convention on August 15, Humza Yousaf explained to the press that the General Election would simply be a chance to show the amount of support for independence, which would have to be well in excess of 53%, to pressure the UK Government into allowing a referendum.

He went on that, “if the UK Government continues to deny a referendum, there is not a shortcut there”, adding that that was “the most difficult message I have to deliver the party”.

The sole resolution about the route to independence which has been allowed on to the agenda for National Conference, written by Yousaf and Stephen Flynn, does not depart from that line. It proposes that the election manifesto should declare, “Vote SNP for Scotland to become an independent country”, and that victory would be winning “the most seats”, whereupon “the Scottish Government is empowered to begin immediate negotiations with the UK Government to give democratic effect to Scotland becoming an independent country”.

However, the declaration, the victory and the consequence are all empty of substance. The declaration is merely a wish, because there is no statement as to what will happen if most people vote for the SNP other than some belief that the UK Government would actually enter into negotiations.

The most-seat victory means nothing for Scotland because it can be won on much less than 50% of the vote and the entirety of Scottish seats is barely more than one-tenth of English seats anyway. And as a consequence it is a joke, because London will not negotiate in those circumstances.

If the conference endorses the resolution (and, more particularly, if the manifesto is along those lines), that will throttle the independence movement for years. The basic facts which they would ignore are: 1) There is no realistic prospect whatsoever of a referendum; 2) The only route is a plebiscitary General Election, brought about by the appropriate manifesto, stating both proposition and consequence; 3) On a democratic victory in such a plebiscite, the UK would have no legal or constitutional power to prohibit Scotland from resuming its sovereign status.

When will the SNP accept those fundamental realities?

Ian Roberts

Wishaw

UNSURPRISINGLY, I suppose, I find myself once again at odds with Jim Sillars (Letters, Oct 10). One would think a man of his independence-seeking experience, indeed admirable pedigree, would have realised after all his campaigning that Westminster is never going to allow us our independence.

The internal market rules and the Supreme Court rulings denying us any right to have even an “advisory” referendum (which any self-respecting de facto campaign leader would have challenged in the courts and on the floor of the Commons to the point of civil disobedience and even withdrawal from the chamber in protest), should prove this to even the hard of thinking.

The salient fact is that almost half of the electorate is already largely convinced to the cause of indy. There’s a minority who are vehemently opposed. They will never change their minds and will have to be led into reality before they recognise its value.

Probably up to 30% either aren’t engaging or could be persuaded. But this will take rational argument and nothing less than adherence to legal means and convincing argument.

And the best and only “legal” means is through a referendum, where the arguments can be properly articulated and decisions based on them. Given where support in the polls is currently it is nothing short of remarkable.

Before the 2014 referendum, it was half it is today and were today’s level the starting point then we would be independent already. This was precisely the reason why David Cameron acceded to the referendum request – he thought there was no way he could lose, and the issue would go away.

Well, he didn’t but it hasn’t. Because many like me were on a different course, which has crumbled due to the lies employed by the Union. This has cemented indy as the key issue and highlighted the UK’s claim to be a democracy as little more than an illusion.

We haven’t even really begun to argue the case for indy because we’re mired in the fight to just have the referendum. And that’s the only game in town right now. So, Sillars and his ilk need to understand that if we’re to persuade the doubters – notwithstanding any direct action we need to undertake to get there – then ultimately the only legitimate way forward is for people living in Scotland to express their democratic right through a plebiscite specifically framed for the issue.

That democratic exercise is the doorway to the international legitimacy and respect that will allow Scotland to make its contribution and way forward in the global world.

Jim Taylor

Edinburgh

I NOTED the advice and opinions from Jim Sillars. Could this be the same Jim Sillars who donated £2000 to the Holyrood election fund of Labour’s Dame Jackie Baillie? If so, I am sure Jim will understand when I say I treat his views and opinions with a degree of scepticism/indifference.

Malcolm Cordell Broughty Ferry WHAT an interesting article about the Glencoe coins (Unearthed coins thought to have been Glencoe Massacre clan chief’s, Oct 9. Just one small point though. It states they included: “Currency from the reigns of Elizabeth I, James VI and I, Charles I, the Cromwellian Commonwealth, and Charles II.”

An unfortunate choice of words, which the BBC were pleased to report verbatim. The Elizabeth I coins were obviously English, but the wording implies she reigned over the place where they were found.

She didn’t, of course. Pedantic?

I don’t think so. A great number of our compatriots are ignorant of their history. We mustn’t compound that.

John Rutherford

Kelty, Fife