IT is interesting that both respected doyens of the SNP, Jim Fairlie and Jim Sillars, irrespective of their separate journeys, are now united in advocating that a future independent Scotland should forge an international trading path outside of the EU, yet both gentlemen have seemingly been relatively silent over the last three years about which form of Brexit they actually support.

Clearly whether the UK leaves the EU on WTO rules or on terms effectively reflecting a “hard Brexit” or a “soft Brexit”, the outcome could have considerable repercussions for a newly independent Scotland, so one would think this subject would also be deserving of their considered inputs. Furthermore, should either of these gentlemen believe his arguments – ideological, economic or other – to be truly compelling, one would expect him to be persistently referencing other countries around the globe that could possibly serve as successful models for a future independent Scotland.

Should in fact such models not be readily identifiable at this time, then perhaps both men could use the time they currently have available to instead focus their efforts on helping the people of Scotland achieve the primary goal of “self-determination” and once this is attained – and ahead of a subsequent national government election or referendum – take the time to prepare more comprehensive arguments aligned to their personal visions for our country as to why Scotland’s trading future should not be tied to membership of the EU, nor perhaps of EFTA or the EEA?

Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian

IT has been interesting reading how Jim Sillars is going to save the SNP from itself with regards the “impossible EU situation” it finds itself in, via the letters pages, over the last few issues.

Equally interesting is reading the response from other side of this SNP odd couple; Jim Fairlie’s inference that in the 1980s Mr Sillars originally supported the SNP “independence in the EU” line.

While it will be fascinating to see how this spat develops, thepoint both are making is moot.

The SNP membership voted to support the “Independence in the EU” policy, at conference, by a majority. The SNP being a membership party then made this SNP policy, as they did over the highly contentious shift on Nato policy. This is how representative democracy works, and no matter how hard Mr Fairlie and Mr Sillars beat their chests over the EU or on membership of Nato, they lost the arguments within the SNP and its membership.

It follows, after the result of the 2016 Brexit referendum, that by a majority of 2:1 the active voters in Scotland agree with the SNP core policy that an independent Scotland should remain in the EU. Not one Scottish constituency voted to leave the EU.

This leaves Mr Sillar’s recent run of anti-EU letters moot as under Scots Law and constitutional practice it is incumbent on a Scottish Government to represent the will of the sovereign people of Scotland viz “Independence in the EU”: a policy which is also mandated by the SNP membership.

Interesting as the gum-bumping of Messers Sillars and Fairlie may be, it has little to offer the key aim of the SNP, as laid down in the party’s constitution, to bring about an independent Scotland, and in fact does much to hinder this fundamental aim of the SNP by encouraging division where there should be none.

Like much of which is currently discussed – currency, public ownership of key services, the economic model for a future Scotland, the constitution, et cetera – until we are independent, it is all just so much navel-gazing and hot air. These positions only become an issue once we have a fully sovereign country, once more, and a duly elected Scottish Parliament to represent the will of the sovereign people of Scotland.

As a member of the SNP, like them, can I humbly ask this “odd couple” to stay silent in future, unless they have something positive to say about gaining Scottish independence rather than implying the SNP membership are daft, have been lead by the nose and do not have a clue.

Peter Thomson
Kirkcudbright

READING Jim Fairlie’s letter (March 25) I am left wondering why the international socialist Jeremy Corbyn is and has always been anti-EU if the EU is an international socialist organisation. I understand that he and his followers in the Labour party are against an independent Scotland because they wish to do away with borders and independent countries in their unitary socialist state. I do not see that state in the current EU, nor in any future EU.

As I have written before, both in these columns and elsewhere, I was born in England with English parents. I approach Scottish independence from the viewpoint of a country being in charge of its own affairs, a view seemingly shared by many in England who have had Brexit sold to them as a way to “take back control”, to regain their “independence”. We should now see clearly where that is leading us. In England the government party believes they should control the people.

In an independent Scotland we will have the opportunity to do things differently. I should like my grandchildren to have the opportunities that I, Jim Fairlie and Jim Sillars have had over the last 40 years, to travel freely throughout Europe with little interference from the European authorities. We are now old men who should not be attempting to block the youngsters whose world it is. They, not we, are the future. If they want that future to be in the EU, so be it. If they want some other arrangement such as EFTA, then I’m happy with that. Let us be a part of bringing together all the peoples of Europe to work for a better future for Scotland, Europe and the world.

Robert Mitchell
Stirling