It is supporters of independence, not opponents, who talk of barriers

His two reasons for such Westminster power are a) the law reserves it there and b) we accept it.

On a), what the law does is reserve to Westminster the power to legislate on matters relating to the union of the kingdoms (in the Scotland Act). That legal position simply has no bearing on the route to independence which I have put forward – namely a democratic vote for Yes in a plebiscitary General Election, followed if necessary by the Scottish MPs as a body declaring Scottish independence and vacating Westminster. That route involves no Westminster or Holyrood legislation whatsoever, and requires none.

READ MORE: Ellie Gomersall: Crisis and scandal won’t go away if there's no self-reflection

On b), Westminster has the powers it has, whether the Scots accept it or not. Of course, Scotland will never go independent so long as its own people accept the continuance of the Union, but that is purely a question of political will and political persuasion. “I don’t fancy an ice-cream cone” is no barrier to my buying one if I did fancy it.

If Mr Taylor’s statement that “it is folly to think that Westminster will ever accede to Scotland being independent” was true, how was the PM able to sign the Edinburgh Agreement? How, in the counsels of the world, could London possibly make the case that while it was prepared to accept Scottish independence a decade ago, it isn’t now? How could it make the case that what it will allow to Northern Ireland, it won’t to Scotland? Or that while England could leave the Union, Scotland couldn’t, etc?

It seems to me, rather, to be foolish to think Westminster would attempt to prohibit Scottish independence, because that would put it in an utterly ludicrous position, empty of foundation in law and politically impossible. It would also run completely counter to any rare statement to have emerged from London about the consensual nature of the Union. The notion of barriers to Scottish independence emerges almost exclusively from its supporters, and not from its opponents, which is a pretty sure sign of its insubstantiality, is it not?

READ MORE: We had so many independence open goals – where is the SNP's striker?

I lack the political know-how to assess the outcome of running and winning a plebiscitary Scottish general election at Holyrood 2026, so Mr Taylor may well be right in advising it. I would think, though, that the best outcome would be if on such a result London were to accept that the game was up, and enter negotiations to thrash out an independence deal, without waiting for Westminster 2029 to re-run the plebiscite and fill the Scottish seats with an indy majority. But I defer to others.

Unfortunately, I must agree with Mr Taylor about his pessimism on the prospect of the SNP doing the right thing, an exasperation all the more galling when we consider just how simple and straightforward the essentials of a Scottish exit would actually be.

Alan Crocket
Motherwell

IT seems to me that there is something fundamentally wrong at the heart of the SNP. A mantra has been created with regard to Gaza and anyone who deviates from it is to be ostracised. It’s also my impression that the Green are behind these people who are behaving like dictators.

Mr Robertson was absolutely correct to engage with the Israeli representative. That’s what grown-up governments do. They talk to others, even those they disagree with. Also, Mr Mason was spot on when he brought a reasoned and sensible view to the debate. Any political party that cannot tolerate this is narrow-minded, intolerant and dictatorial. Unless this matter is sensibly resolved I, and I am sure many others, will feel obliged to withdraw our support from the SNP.

Angus Shaw
via email