WHEN I read in your sister paper on Sunday that Alex Cole-Hamilton intended to block the Scottish Budget because “the public rendered a judgment … that they are not willing to put up with the division caused by independence”, I really wondered on which distant planet he has been living.

He certainly cannot have been round the doors before the election anything like as much as I and my activist friends were, as the reason given most often for the intention to vote other than SNP, or not to vote at all, was because of the LACK of positive action and progress on independence in recent years. In other words, substantial numbers became ex-supporters because they wanted MORE attention given to the independence cause.

READ MORE: Keir Starmer 'scared' of devolving migration powers to Scotland, expert claims

My personal experience for some time has been that, in fact, more and more folk, whom I met casually in a normal day, have voluntarily commented on my independence badge and mentioned their support. Moreover, I have never yet encountered any of the “division” so often quoted by Unionists, even when a Union supporter is sharing their views. One friend in particular, whom I meet several times a week, will never back independence, but we spar about it in friendly fashion, which highly entertains a number of our other friends. I am actually quite surprised at the level of unprompted support, wherever I go. Does it really constitute “division”, inferring aggression, when one simply disagrees with another’s view?

I suspect that Mr Cole-Hamilton believes that he has found a weapon to hold the SNP government to ransom and make his relatively small group of MSPs appear powerful enough to bring down the government. He would be wise to reflect on the maxim that “he who wields the knife…” and be careful what he wishes for.

P Davidson
Falkirk

I WOULD like to add my comments to those of your Anderson correspondents on the possible routes to independence.

Even if we accept that the Supreme Court judgment confirms that the Scotland Act precludes the right of Holyrood to consult on anything to do with the UK constitution, I still question whether it overrides internationally protected rights to which the UK is signed up. The UK has no codified constitution, only habit and custom, which can be changed how and when the UK Government wishes to suit their current ends.

READ MORE: Minister denies Scotland has 'watered down' climate goals at COP29

Moreover, Westminster has already de facto accepted the right of Holyrood to hold referenda on other questions, since they allowed the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 to receive Royal Assent. As they also accepted the Claim of Right, it is therefore perfectly feasible for our Scottish Government to hold a referendum to ascertain if the sovereign people of Scotland wish to exercise their right, enshrined therein, to choose the future form of government. In other words, to prove or disprove the Unionist contention that there is no appetite for having an independence referendum.

If we were able, in the next six to eight months, to have all independence-supporting groups and parties campaigning together with the single goal of raising support to the proposed 60% level, we could then face the 2026 election with a proven, incontrovertible mandate, which would then become a valid plebiscite. I believe that having a defined timescale of this kind would focus minds and effort, engender enthusiasm and set us on the path to independence in a much shorter timescale. The longer we wait for the “right time”, the more obstacles Westminster has time to concoct.

READ MORE: SNP plot to sabotage Labour's House of Lords bill

Why, however, do we not immediately begin exploring another route, or routes, at the same time? Is there someone or some group that could analyse the various ways in which Westminster has, from day one, broken the Treaty of Union, which is internationally recognised as signed by two sovereign nations? A starting point could be that the Scottish Parliament was disbanded as agreed but the English one was not; another, that the Supreme Court is being used as superior to the highest court under Scots Law, which is supposedly protected.

Should we not also be urging our Scottish Government to give the rebuttal unit more useful work than producing papers that no-one reads, planning how the Scottish Currency Group proposals, adopted at conference a year or two ago, could be speedily implemented when we do win independence? The more ideas we progress at the same time, the more targets Westminster would try to scupper and their attempts could help to increase our support.

Let’s stop believing that the only route to independence depends on Westminster and instead, find ways to force them to negotiate for fear of losing access to our resources.

L McGregor
Falkirk

THANK you, Jim Butchart, for your letter (Nov 11). The latest UK polling on assisted dying showed 78% in favour. In Scotland, a consultation took place over the summer months of July and August, in relation to the proposed legislation from Liam McArthur MSP. The results were almost 10,000 in absolute support, almost 13,000 if you include

partial support. The number who registered opposition was 3000. You can get all of the responses in some detail on the Scottish Government website if you look up assisted dying consultation 2024.

Ruth Wishart
via email