THERE’S been huge interest in the Believe in Scotland Strategy for Independence document released last Wednesday, plus plenty of reaction. Most, rightly in my view, give full-hearted support. Others find fault – stating that it is variously a power grab, a duplication, or an attempt to split the independence movement. We all know we do division very well in Scotland and sadly we’ve been here before.

READ MORE: Indy group proposes Citizens' Convention to break constitutional deadlock

In 1650, for example, Oliver Cromwell faced the Scottish commander in the field General Leslie at the battle of Dunbar. According to John Buchan’s biography of Cromwell, the latter knew that Leslie was a formidable general but nonetheless he felt pretty confident because “there was no such homogeneity in the Scottish army as in his own”. For a start, he knew the Scots he was facing were “intolerant” and “suspicious” of each other. His opponent General Leslie “could not trust them” because they were divided amongst themselves: “They had an embarrassing choice of battle cries – ‘Presbytery and the King!’, ‘Presbytery and No King’, ‘King and No Presbytery!’”

General Leslie lost the battle of Dunbar.

Frances Roberts
Ardrishaig

JIM Taylor’s “branch offices” long letter (Jul 16) covers so many points that have been raised by supporters of Scottish independence, over a very long time, but will sadly be seen, read and understood by far too few.

However, Jim, like so many of us, draws conclusions from what he knows and understands. But how much of that is implanted by the relentless Westminster propaganda machine?

Jim states that Westminster “denies” us the right to exit the Union. Westminster wants us to believe that to be true, but it isn’t. It’s the result of the Unionist propaganda machine, relentless in its endeavour to keep a firm grip on the assets flowing from the north.

READ MORE: Clive Lewis on a future UK republic and the right of Scots to choose indy

It is convoluted, but our politicians – so they tell us – strive for the right to hold a referendum in Scotland on whether or not this rich country should stand on its own two feet, and benefit from its own wealth.

Drill down and you’ll find that a win for that referendum gives our politicians the right to ask their politicians if we can have our ball back please, sir. For reasons unknown to me, our politicians don’t seem to understand that every single time we have elected them to a majority, we have told them to get on with that job.

They were told in no uncertain terms, in that amazing 2015 election. 65 Ayes sent to that place, and just three Naws.

Could it be clearer?

That was the referendum we needed, but but but. When I saw those 65 Ayes line up and swear fealty to Westminster and the Crown, I knew the SNP had been bought. When I saw the strength and the vitriol the SNP poured on any who criticised their policies or lack thereof, I saw them digging in.

READ MORE: How can the Scottish Government win back trust?

What has just passed us by was a chance for our MPs to take a stand. To improve the state we’re in, they have to refuse to take that oath to protect the Union, and to do their own thing with regards to the monarchy.

They would still be our MPs, still bear witness to the Scots desire to stand on our own feet. But the Scottish National Party chose to protect the Union. Is that what you wanted? Expected?

“But it’s not all bad,” we’re told by the party machine headed up by their publicity guy that published “The Vow”. Remember that? “ olyrood elections are coming, we must regroup,” they tell us, as though that had an impact on our claim to independence.

Holyrood is a Westminster construct. It is not allowed, by law, to do the things that have to be done to achieve our freedom.

MSPs are not in any way representative of the body that signed us into this penury, whereas our MPs are.

READ MORE: Kate Forbes: Voters told us they want more from SNP government – we must deliver

However, our MPs may not secede from the treaties, may not even discuss the case for such an action because they just swore not to, and the penalties are severe.

So the two elected bodies we have trusted to deliver us from evil won’t. It’s “won’t”, not “can’t”.

Two possibilities lie in the near future. They both revolve around the 2026 election. Either the SNP see the value in having a Scotland-wide Yes majority, by opening up the second vote to Yessers, or stick to their guns and put party before country yet again. But don’t be concerned, as neither result leads to the solution – that will still lie with our MPs. Holyrood can only ask permission, no matter its majority.

If they choose the first option, they may well achieve a majority that allows increased powers to be allocated to them, including the right to hold referenda.

Any resulting referendum can only result in Holyrood asking permission.

People outside the recognised political framework toil relentlessly to put in place a respected body that can do what our MPs choose not to do. It is the only realistic method available to us. It is sad to realise that our MPs and MSPs won’t help in this matter that is clearly so important to Scotland.

Christopher Bruce
Taynuilt