IN Jonathan Spink’s Long Letter “Here’s why election in May should not be a proxy referendum” (September 29) he gives no indication why we should expect the UK Government ever to grant a second referendum nor a logical alternative to a Plan B.

Regarding international recognition, he refers to the EU’s Policy Centre’s policy brief “The EU’s Scottish question”. This was published in June 2019 when the EU were hoping to negotiate a deal, before the UK Government’s move towards a No-Deal Brexit, before it breached the Withdrawal Agreement with the Internal Market Bill, breaking international law and showing disdain for democracy with the devolved administrations. Why would we or the international community expect such a rogue UK state to honour a legitimate route to independence?

READ MORE: Holyrood election should not be a proxy referendum – here are the pitfalls

It is not a requirement for the state being left to agree legally to a break-away state becoming independent for the breakaway state to gain recognition by the international community. For example the Kosovo Declaration of Independence from Serbia was recognised by the International Court of Justice, including support from the UK Government representation.

Mr Spink’s indicates “elections are about multiple issues and people will not necessarily vote in the same way.” If the SNP adopts a manifesto which clearly indicates that if a majority of MSPs elected at the 2021 Holyrood election are for pro-independence parties, this would be taken as a vote for a declaration of Scottish independence, then that makes it clear to people that is what they are voting for.

With elections for a new Scottish Government to be held soon after independence, that will be where people can vote for specific policies.

With the UK Government’s willingness to flout international law and clear signs of imminent undermining devolved governments, such an urgent democratic route is more likely than ever to gain international recognition of Scotland as an independent state.

Jim Stamper
Bearsden

I BELIEVE that using the May 21 vote as a proxy indy plebiscite is legitimate, and that includes a majority of seats and or a majority of votes.

The “status quo” at present in the UK is that a party with a majority of seats can form a government. That party is not required to have a majority of the total seats or votes. This then allows that party full control of the state including declaration of war. The UK does not have a written constitution but uses constitutional precedence as a working tool. We too should use that tool. We would therefore be following the constitutional “norms” of our present governance.

READ MORE: We need a majority of pro-indy votes, not just a majority of pro-indy seats

In his letter of Tuesday Jonathan Spink quotes Fabian Zuleeg of the EU Policy Centre along the lines of saying that countries with a domestic secessionist movement must meet the rules of the “parent state” to be legitimate in their move to independence, The UK is not a country, it is a union of countries. The EU is a union of countries which did not stop the UK from leaving, even though parts of it voted not to leave.

The former Soviet Union was a de facto union but effectively disbanded in the early 90s. Countries from that union simply removed themselves from that union, no permission sought, and are now full EU members, eg Bulgaria and Hungary. Parts of the Yugoslav group are now independent EU state such as Croatia. The former British empire had states which left in varying degrees of violence (reference Kenya, Cyprus, and Malaya). All now with full UN credentials.

Our primary concern of legitimacy should be the sovereign rights of Scots.

M Ross
Aviemore

KENNY MacAskill calls for semi-abstentionism and correctly states that total abstentionism would not be acceptable to Scotland’s voters (MacAskill in call for SNP to quit the Commons before indy, September 17). I don’t think his proposal would be either.

Let us firstly look at Sinn Fein’s position with regards to their taking of their seats at Westminster. Theirs is one taken in the 1920s. Voters of Sinn Fein find this acceptable for several reasons that constist of a total attitude: 1) emotional attachment, 2) Irish history, 3) reunification of their country, 4) their experience of British rule since the partition of six counties in the 1920s.

READ MORE: Kenny MacAskill calls for SNP to practice 'semi-abstentionism' and leave London

Unless there has been change, I understand that Sinn Fein’s MPs’ wages are paid into the the funds of their party.

Our MPs (the SNP ones) suffer insult, abuse, ridicule, dismissal and opposition to every proposal they make. It is something SNP voters have to angrily tolerate.

As our citizens continue to witness this treatment of our elected representatives then the honest among them must arrive at the understanding that the only respectful place for those they elect is their own parliament in an independent Scotland.

Bobby Brennan
Glasgow

THE article in Friday’s National concerning the plight of trainee paramedics (Urgent action call on paramedics bursary, September 25) struck a chord with me as I happen to know of two young trainees who are suffering from such a lack of financial support.

I find it hard to believe that trainee paramedics are not treated the same as trainee nurses and midwives who, quite rightly, receive annual bursaries. I wonder what logic brought this situation about?

READ MORE: MSPs warned student paramedics 'need action now' with bursaries

Not only are enthusiastic, caring, paramedic students preparing for a career of preserving lives, as do nurses and midwives, but they will be doing so on the front line – first on the scene at crucial moments!

Obviously, the logic should be changed immediately.

Dennis White
Blackwood