WHILE I agree with Alan Crocket that we will never be “granted” a referendum on independence by Westminster, I do not accept that such is the only legal way to achieve it (Letters, July 9).

I fear that too many have been led to believe this fallacy because of some of the rhetoric surrounding the 2014 vote, such as Alex Salmond’s “once in a generation” comment – which was merely a statement of fact at that time – and subsequent references to a gold standard”.

There are other routes that do not require consent from Westminster – not least the international right of every nation to decide its own future. In addition to that, Scotland has that right under the Treaty, and Acts of Union, which protect the pre-existing Claim of Right, and confers sovereignty in Scotland on the people, not parliament, as the final authority, even to the extent of deposing a monarch who does not serve the interests of the people.

In 2018, Westminster accepted the validity of the Claim of Right, and the Supreme Court has also stated that parliamentary sovereignty does not apply in Scotland. So the decision to become independent rests solely and legally with the Scottish people.

The Act that set up devolution makes the constitution a reserved matter, and it is on these grounds that they have decreed that Holyrood cannot hold a referendum without consent. That Act, however, is a UK construct and cannot negate a treaty such as that of Union, which is a voluntary, international agreement between two sovereign nations. Our problem, therefore, is how to establish the wishes of the sovereign people of Scotland, and in a way that would be respected by the international community.

I firmly believe that this is possible. In 2020, Holyrood passed the Referendums (Scotland) 2020 Act, to which Westminster allowed Royal Assent and which is therefore in Scottish statute. The possibility of using this to ascertain the wishes of the people on holding a referendum could then enable a legal one on independence, on the instructions of the sovereign people of Scotland, as per the Claim of Right. This is only one of the possible ways to progress our cause, though others should all be investigated immediately while Holyrood gets on with day-to-day governing.

Perhaps it is timely to remind ourselves of the tenets within the Claim of Right which Scots took to the USA when they added their signatures to the Declaration of Independence.

It reads: “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed … it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

No man, party or government can deny us this right.

L McGregor

Falkirk

IT would appear that many of those MPs who lost or gave up their seat in the House of Commons now have their eyes very firmly fixed on a seat in Holyrood.

I sincerely hope that any selection process will take into account the individual contributions – or lack thereof – made by each of them in the past five years or however long they’ve been MPs.

As far as I can determine from some research and from watching too much Parliament TV over the past few years, there is a tremendous variation in both the quality and quantity of contributions from our now former MPs and even current MSPs.

A little more research would lead you to the conclusion that both groups are “mixed ability” classes. Some individuals appear to have had little or no employment experience outside of politics. There appears to be a well-trodden path from school, to university, to working for an MP or MSP to actually becoming an MP or MSP.

In my working life, I interviewed many candidates for senior positions in commerce and industry over the years. I strongly suspect that after reading their very limited CVs, I would not even have invited some of our current politicians for an interview.

I hope that in vetting and choosing candidates for the 2026 Scottish Parliament elections, the SNP and the other parties adopt a more business-like approach. Perhaps then we will get MSPs and hopefully ministers, from all social class backgrounds, but with real-life skills, who understand, for example, budgets, procurement, contracts, the criminal justice system, the housing rental market, the health service and tourism. This will mean, therefore, that they can appreciate a lot more what impact their decisions will have on real people.

John Baird

Largs

ON reading comments on last Thursday’s dire results for the SNP, it seems that most writers are merely regurgitating criticism of the hierarchy made by many over the last few years.

If they refused to listen then, what chance is there now? Their attitude seemed and still seems to be one of hubris. It’s “oor baw” and “shut up and do as we say”.

In your columns and elsewhere, suggestions that the Scottish Government and the SNP were barking up the wrong tree were too easily dismissed. The ostracising of elected representatives and threats of deselection for straying from the “approved hymn sheet” disheartened supporters and turned off the less committed.

The continuation of the current ways and ignoring valid criticism can only lead to a repeat of the same in 2026.

A shakeup of the way things are done and a willingness at the top to listen to those outside the ruling clique may reduce the damage if started now.

I fear that only “consultations” and inertia are on the cards. The SNP have become less a party of values and a drive for independence and merely a means of getting elected to public office. Indy is a byline and no longer an end in itself.

Drew Reid

Falkirk