AT this time of the 10th anniversary of our independence vote, much has been written about the circumstances of the vote, what has happened since and what should be done to secure a future Yes vote.

One crucial aspect has been missing, however. What is required to demonstrate to the world and equally importantly, ourselves, that we in Scotland support independence. I am taking for granted that we support a democratic majority, but ask how this will be demonstrated and what size of “ majority” would be deemed sufficient.

READ MORE: Statements from SNP leaders must be taken with a pinch of salt

A constitutional convention, Claim of Right and second referendum all have their supporters. Sadly, current polling of around 45-50% for independence does not constitute a mandate. This figure will have to increase substantially to allow us to achieve our dream, but let me leave the “how” to another day. Let me ask the question, how many is the minimum required to secure our successful, sustained and peaceful independence?

The current established standard to observe our democracy is a majority of one vote. In a vote of Yes against No, even a record-equalling 86% turnout would be won by a vote of 43%+1, significantly less than half our electorate. A 70% turnout would be won by a vote of 35%+1 of our electorate. Not many more than a third! To achieve 50%+1 of our electorate (the majority of our electorate voting Yes) from a turnout of 86% requires 58.1% to vote Yes. In a turnout of 70%, a majority of the electorate requires 71.4% to vote Yes. Many private clubs rule that a two-thirds majority of voters is required for constitutional changes.

READ MORE: How is a vote for independence to be put into effect?

Why should our cause of independence require any more than a simple majority of one, as is accepted here and internationally? Well, we cannot expect the Westminster government to allow a future referendum, so such a plebiscite might follow another route as mentioned earlier. We might be risking claims of incompetence and boycott from a Holyrood-commissioned referendum so we must be able to demonstrate our mandate to the world.

We must anticipate strong resistance from the British state. They will not accept the loss of their source of our resources easily. Remember the disruption to voting by Spanish police during the referendum in Catalonia. Remember the reaction to the independence of Ireland from Britain. We have sections of our population who would support the similar annexing of parts of our country or of reacting violently. We must have the clear mandate from our people to counteract that and gain international recognition.

Such steps might not be within our current political horizon, but decisions should be taken now to set our required level of achievement.

Campbell Anderson
Edinburgh

FURTHER to my letter of September 19 about retaining Scotland’s wealth for Scots. So many Scots believe we are not rich enough for independence.

A few examples of wealth: wind power, oil reserves, tourism, whisky, fishing, farming, technology, a highly educated population – the list could go on. These are not figments of my imagination or hope over reality. Scotland’s devolved powers do not give scope to harness these resources and won’t until we stop thinking we can’t. We can and must. Scotland is being systematically disempowered and dismantled – think of the words of The Proclaimers in Letter from America – Bathgate no more, Linwood no more, Methil no more, Irvine no more and now Grangemouth. This is modern-day Highland Clearances. This is Scotland’s reality until we – as a nation – make it not so.

Frieda Burns
Stonehaven