A SECOND Scottish independence referendum is a regular topic in your Letters Pages, more often than not accompanied by adjectives and verbs repeated ad nauseam, dependent on one’s standpoint. There is however, a moral and political legitimacy in granting further referendums on Scottish independence if there is demand. The legitimacy comes from the historical fact that Scotland and England were separate countries joined by treaty and it is argued by many that the terms have been broken numerous times, creating at least legitimacy for review. Who would be the arbiter of such jurisprudence would also be open to challenge, given the Supreme Court of the UK for constitutional affairs is itself considered by some to breach the terms of the treaty by its very creation.

The demand for further referendums has to be visible, credible, measurable and also legitimate. Your correspondent Peter A Russell (Letters, February 13) points us in the right direction – “rational and pragmatic discussion for the best possible outcomes in the governance of the country”, although I struggle to agree with him that this was reflected in the early days of the Scottish Parliament under Labour dominance. It should be possible for Westminster and Holyrood to agree a legal framework for the setting in motion of future legitimate referendums. The most logical way to agree on the granting of a new referendum is a formula based on seats held in Holyrood or Westminster or both with a specific time lapse between referendums.

Theresa May previously said “now is not the time” for another Scottish independence referendum. It is a disgraceful dismissal by one person on a critical issue, the granting of which does not bring independence but simply a vote on it. If there is continued refusal to agree a framework for Scotland’s way forward, an existing sense of frustration in the way Westminster is treating Scotland can only deepen, and who knows where that will lead?

Alan M Morris,

20 Kirkhouse Road, Blanefield, Glasgow.

THE normally-astute Iain Macwhirter misconceives the nature of the Union, and exaggerates the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on Holyrood ("Important Spanish lessons for Scots independence parties", The Herald, February 13).

The point of a constitution is to limit the day-to-day power of government. A sovereign Westminster means the UK has none. Any constitution which enshrined the indivisibility of the UK would have rendered unlawful both the Good Friday Agreement (which expressly mandates a border poll and an exit of Northern Ireland in certain circumstances) and the Edinburgh Agreement (which likewise provided for the exit of Scotland).

Spain is irrelevant. It does have a (written) constitution which, according to Madrid, prohibits Catalonian secession. That might be tested in the current notorious criminal trial, and subsequently perhaps in the European Court of Justice, where I hope Madrid will fail, because the constitution itself is woolly, and because Catalonia is a fit polity for independence if its people so choose.

We should not fixate on a referendum under the Scotland Act. Section 30 is simply a procedure for the Privy Council to give Holyrood a power which it does not normally have: a mechanism, which thereby functions within the terms of UK domestic law, for ascertaining the will of the Scottish electorate.

In constitutional terms, however, the mechanism is not important. What is important, for a decision on independence to gain international recognition, is that it be legitimate, democratic and peaceful.

If S30 was the only method by which Scotland could make the choice, that would have the necessary but absurd consequence that even if every single resident from Unst to the Mull of Galloway wanted independence, London could prevent it by autocratic diktat. That would be absurd self-evidently, and because no UK government maintains that the Union persists by anything but consent.

If Scotland withdraws that consent by a legal, democratic and peaceful decision, by whatever means, its exit from the Union cannot be legitimately frustrated. No absurd legal restrictions set up within the Union can operate to prevent such a Scottish exit, because the move to independence is of a higher order.

A referendum under Section 30 should be tried again, not because of any inherent advantage, but because that was how Scotland rejected independence in 2014, and reversing that decision should ideally use the same process.

But London’s refusal would open the way for other acceptable means, such as an election under a clear and direct manifesto of independence, on which London would have no say whatsoever.

Accordingly, when the Scottish Government seeks permission for a fresh referendum, it should state that if permission is not forthcoming within a certain time, the alternative route of an election will be taken. That would be unimpeachable, and the warning itself might be enough to wring agreement from London.

It is a waste of breath to blame Scotland’s non-independence on anyone but ourselves. The means are in our own hands entirely. All we have to do to show we are worthy of independence is to choose it.

Alan Crocket,

63 Leyland Road, Motherwell.

THE 2014 Scottish independence referendum campaign woke up, and lit up, Scotland. There was a flowering of political debate the length and breadth of the country as people got involved in the campaign, many of whom had never before taken part in political campaigning, and there were vibrant public meetings held all over Scotland with town halls and community centres filled to overflowing. I do not recognise Peter A Russell's description of the referendum campaign as being "that bruising and divisive episode"; I voted Yes, I have friends who voted No, and we're still friends.

Politics is divisive, but presenting a distorted version of the events of the 2014 campaign, which despite a few incidents on both sides, was overwhelmingly well conducted, is not only misleading, but insulting to the Scottish public, and smacks of the increasing desperation of many Unionists who know they are losing the argument.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road, Stirling.

ROBERT IG Scott (Letters, February 13) raised the important issue of the lack of respect shown to the questioner by the SNP at First Minister's Questions. It seems to be policy to attack and deride the question and the questioner. Presumably this is a deliberate approach to avoid actually answering the question asked.

If I was in opposition I would simply announce at the start of Question Time that I would not be asking any questions as, based on past experience, there is little or no prospect of an answer being given. The SNP talks about respect without actually showing any.

Jim Hamilton,

10 Waterside Gardens, Carmunnock, Glasgow.