The Spanish Government says that under the Spanish Constitution, the Catalonian independence campaign is unconstitutional. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of that, the Spanish people have a codified (written) constitution to which they can refer, while we in the UK do not have a written constitution. As a result there is a lack of accountability and democracy at the heart of the UK Government.

A written constitution is the fundamental law that defines the state, establishes and regulates its institutions, protects its citizens, and provides an overarching structure for the governance and wellbeing of the people and the conduct of politics.

A written constitution is a constitutional necessity if sovereign Scotland is to be a representative democracy underpinned by popular sovereignty. Unlike in England with its parliamentary sovereignty, under the constitutional principles of Scotland the people are recognised as the supreme sovereign power (popular sovereignty).

It is therefore imperative that politicians across all parties and the people of Scotland work together to draft a written provisional constitution before Independence Day.

The Centre for Scottish Constitutional Studies will, by the end of this year, conclude a review of an earlier draft constitution. The reviewed draft is proposed as a guide to a debate leading to the drafting of a provisional constitution for Scotland. Such a debate will assist in clarifying to Scots what it will mean to be a self-governing state.

The approach taken by the centre is designed to provide a focal point around which a wider debate might be centred: a public debate focused on drafting a written constitution for Scotland, underpinned by the principle of popular sovereignty in place of the current parliamentary sovereignty.

Robert Ingram,

Centre for Scottish Constitutional Studies

As elected Members of the Scottish Parliament, we are writing to Spain's prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, to express grave concern at the escalating actions of the Spanish state in Catalonia. We come from a range of political traditions, with differing views on Scotland’s constitutional future and a collective neutrality on the question being posed to the Catalan people but we are united in our belief in democracy.

The Spanish government claim to be acting in defence of democracy but threats of legal action against hundreds of democratically elected representatives and repressive acts against an elected government, media organisations and citizens are in no way democratic acts. The recent arrest of a Catalan government minister and a number of government staff was a particular violation of the norms of European democracy.

The situation in Catalonia is a political challenge and it can only be adequately resolved through political action, through dialogue and through allowing the people to express their will democratically. Legal action against the Catalan government, several hundred local mayors and others perceived to be facilitating the referendum is no way for a democratic European state to act against its own people.

We call on the Prime Minister Rajoy and his government to engage with the Catalan government as partners in facilitating a democratic and just resolution to this situation. Work together to allow the people to decide their own future. This is the only sustainable and truly democratic solution.

Claudia Beamish MSP (Labour), Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP(LibDem), Neil Findlay MSP (Labour), John Finnie MSP(Green), Kate Forbes MSP (SNP), Ross Greer MSP (Green), Patrick Harvie MSP (Green co-convenor), Alison Johnstone MSP (Green), Ruth MaGuire MSP (SNP), Gillian Martin MSP (SNP), Christina McKelvie MSP (SNP), Stuart McMillan MSP (SNP), Pauline McNeil MSP (Labour), Willie Rennie MSP (Liberal Democrat leader), Sandra White MSP – SNP

GREEN BELT ISN’T REALLY VERY GREEN

Those wanting more “protection” for green belts misunderstand their nature and purpose (Green belt poll targets Murray tennis academy and Edinburgh film studio, Environment news, September 17). They’re not primarily about nature conservation but about managing urban growth. The policy was devised by English architect Patrick Abercrombie in the 1940s before there was much interest in nature conservation. He failed to sell the idea anywhere but in Scotland. It is a “one size fits all” approach and doesn’t recognise the diverse settings of Scottish towns.

Many green belts have harmed the environment by greatly increasing travel distances and car travel. Much new development occurs in outlying towns and villages, which become detached suburbs dependent on the city for jobs and services.

A better approach is designated “development corridors” based on railways and main roads, separated by “green wedges”. Sydney, the only city in Australia (or North America) with a green belt, replaced it with this plan in 1968. The Dundee green belt was abolished in 1993 because it was causing most new housing to be built outside city boundaries. Highland Council decided against a green belt for Inverness. Falkirk Council did likewise, instead adopting a “green space plan”.

Much green belt land has no conservation value and less biodiversity than within cities. Many homes have been built on flood plains, in some cases because higher land in green belts couldn’t be used. “Natural England” said the greatest biodiversity is found in housing areas with large gardens. In other countries there are large areas designated for such. It’s odd that Scotland’s planning bodies and interest groups know little of what happens in other countries where it is far more innovative.

Alan Mathieson

Perth

END PANDAMANIA FOR THE ANIMALS' SAKE

In an excellent article on the plight of the Edinburgh Zoo pandas, Angela Haggerty describes the animals as being “on a 10-year loan in Scotland”(Stop this pandamania and leave Tian Tian be, Comment, September 17). In fact they are on a 10-year lease costing Edinburgh Zoo US$10,000,000 (equivalent to £7,400,000 at time of writing).

In addition to that fee there is the cost of the purpose-built enclosure, specialist staff and veterinary equipment, supplies of bamboo to feed the animals and the annual visitation by the artificial insemination team of vets and scientists from China and other countries. It would not surprise me if the cost of the 10-year panda project exceeds £12,000,000.

This is why Edinburgh Zoo has repeatedly subjected both Giant Pandas to dangerous general anaesthetics to facilitate artificial insemination (AI). They desperately need a cute and cuddly cub to generate more income in the two years before it goes back to China to join the lucrative leasing programme.

Edinburgh Zoo should put an end to the annual artificial fertilisation fiasco.

John F Robins

Animal Concern

JOHN MUIR TRUST DOESN’T OPPOSE ALL WINDFARMS

John Munro writes that "Friends of the Earth strongly favours wind farms; the John Muir Trust opposes them’’. (David v Goliath and the battles over planning, Letters, September 17). This is incorrect.

Over the past 10 years, the John Muir Trust has only objected to around five per cent of all wind farm applications. Almost all our objections concern large, industrial-scale wind farms that have a negative visual and ecological impact on wild land – mainly remote, rugged uplands that provide a sense of sanctuary and solitude.

In that, we are in tune with the Scottish public. A recent YouGov poll revealed that 80 per cent agree that Scotland’s 42 Wild Land Areas should be protected from major infrastructure such as large commercial wind farms, super-quarries and transmission lines, while only five cent disagree.

John Low

Policy Officer

John Muir Trust

BUCCLEUCH AND THE BUYOUT PLAN

Lincoln Richford states that villagers in Wanlockhead were involved in community buy-out discussions with Buccleuch in 2013, two years before Buccleuch and 2020 Renewables publicly announced plans for the North Lowther Energy Initiative (NLEI) (Buyout plans not about windfarm, Letters, September 17). To provide clarity, Buccleuch proactively engaged with various community groups and interested parties in Wanlockhead from this period, including the Mining Museum, the Village Council, the Lowther Ski Club and Leadhills and Wanlockhead Railway. The purpose of these discussions was to facilitate development and included the possible sale of land in and around the village. At no stage has the land on which the windfarm would be built ever been considered for sale by Buccleuch. We also respect the rights of tenant farmers on this land who do not wish to see a change in ownership.

John Glen

Chief Executive, Buccleuch

MODELS' LIFE SEEMS GLUM

What is the tragic secret which blights the lives of the elegant young ladies who model the fashions in Sunday Herald Life? It seems a shame they are so sad, almost without exception.

Douglas Hunter, Ancrum