AS a statement of intent I thought Nicola Sturgeon’s speech/framework was a good one and passively aggressive.

It was cleverly inclusive, enabling the SNP to illustrate that their approach to future negotiations will be in stark contrast to the path the hated May took.

It has quietly stated that Scotland has the mandate to hold a second referendum, no matter the objections emanating from Westminster.

Finally, it has bought just about enough time to put in place further fiscal structure in preparation for the divorce and subsequent application for EU membership.

Clearly the statement was light on detail, but I have no doubt that will follow for discussion at the party conference. The starting gun has been fired now – let’s get on with it while we still have blood in our veins.

Finlay Smillie
thenational.scot

WELL, unfortunately I was proved right, but wish I had not been. Plan A was to beg for a Section 30 order, and Plan B is to ask for Plan A again when the UK says no to a Section 30 order. The SNP leadership have totally lost their way.

First there was the Growth Commission, with its total lack of ambition, recipe for sluggish or no growth, wholesale adoption of failed British financial systems and ridiculous six tests. Who is independently going to make the assessments for it to go before Parliament? The same economic experts who crashed the economy a decade ago?

And now the final nail in the coffin. We will ask for a Section 30 order if we are taken out of the EU, and the UK have made it clear we will not get it. What then? I have to ask, are the SNP leadership insane, because one definition of insanity is to keep doing the same things time after time and expecting the result to be different (translation – tell them we will only act when we have permission, get told no, then ask again for permission and keep getting told no).

It all puts me in mind of the Biblical tale of the Israelites reaching the Promised Land and seeing from afar how abundant it was. Then they sent the spies in to recce the opposition, and they came back and said “No, we can’t do it, the people there are too strong for us” (translation – we are too few, too poor, too stupid) and they would not go in and take the land, even though it was promised to them and it was there for the taking (translation – we will never have a better chance to win independence than now and our leaders are running scared).

The only two who got to enter the land were Joshua and Caleb, who were not afraid of what they would face and trusted God to deliver them (and translation – no, Nicola Sturgeon is not God). All those who turned tail died in the desert without entering the Promised Land (translation – unless we are careful, we will die as citizens of a foreign nation, the UK, which trashes Scotland at every opportunity, and 100 years from now, people will look back and ask what on earth we were afraid of).

A relative rarity in Scotland, a church-going Christian, I do not mean any of the above to be sacrilegious.

We cannot sell this non-vision of a way forward. Does the leadership really believe we are just going to float up over 60%? With this latest offering, we will be lucky to maintain the 45%. If the SNP will not deliver, it will haemorrhage members to other parties, maybe new parties, who WILL deliver on independence.

Julia Pannell
Tayside

WHILE the House of Lords is an anachronism and needs to be replaced, Murdo Fraser’s quasi-federalism is not the answer (Fraser tells Unionists: back federalism or lose to ‘irresistible indy’, April 23).

It is actually faux-federalism as it does not tackle the overriding problem within the United Kingdom, namely the English-dominated House of Commons, the centralised fiscal system and Anglo-dominance of the collection and allocation of the budget. Full fiscal power would still be centralised! Pretty duff stuff from Murdo Fraser!

What is missing is actually a devolved legislature for England with its devolved budget and a separate UK budget for reserved matters, if one is thinking within the existing devolved structure of the UK.

As Fraser’s proposals indicate, there is still a doubling of roles in the Commons for English and “British” matters. There is no separate English First Minister etc etc.

The incorporating Union still exists with its first-past-the-post system. No mention about the franchise! As he states, the new revising chamber is not “a challenge to the House of Commons”. That is the giveaway. No real change!

Why create a quasi-system when one can have a full-blown federalist system? He does not even focus on a devo-max! The Brexit uncertainty has shown the House of Commons system to be unfit for purpose even for English matters! Creating a new senate in not the answer! His response is neither coherent nor competent. One must also question the critical faculties and nous of a politician like Murdo Fraser who referred to a certain Scottish football team as the Queen’s Eleven!

The English problem within the Union would still hamper Scotland’s future. We do not want a quasi-something – only full independence can give Scotland all the governmental powers to decide for itself.

John Edgar
Kilmaurs

IT must be Groundhog Day again – as another British nationalist brings forward plans for a federal UK to save the Union! This time it’s Murdo Fraser pushing for a federal-type senate to replace the antiquated, discredited and anti-democratic House of Lords. How many more times will people fall for this trap? The sole reason for peddling these ideas is to stop voters realising that nothing will change in the UK unless Scotland gets its independence. Federalism will do nothing to help improve life in Scotland. It’s unlikely it would ever happen, and only appears sporadically if the polls are looking good for independence.

Forget federalism – it’s never going to happen. If we want real change, a real democracy and a fairer society then the only answer is independence.

Cllr Kenny MacLaren
Paisley