LIKE Alan Walker (Letters, Jun 8) I am also in my seventies. I am a retired firefighter, and I ceased being an SNP member in 2006.

There are unintended consequences to almost anything. I have always believed that a “Unilateral Declaration of Independence” would be necessary. If a referendum achieves independence, so be it, but a UDI after a majority is gained is my preferred option.

The route to independence via referendum came through a delegate at an SNP National Council a number of years before the establishment of the “devolved Scottish Parliament”, before proportional representation, when first-past-the-post was used for every election whether local government, regional or national GB elections. The National Council delegate asked the question: “What will we do if we gain a majority of MPs at a General Election and Westminster says NO?”

READ MORE: Seven-way TV debate made clear Stephen Flynn is a future SNP leader

The delegates at council, it seemed to me, in one voice stood up and declared “UDI”. This reaction, I believe, set minds thinking at the higher echelons of the SNP. Within a few of years, the party’s policy changed to consent through a referendum for independence. The UDI fundamentalist route was drowned out in favour of the devolutionist referenda route.

Where has the devolved referenda route got Scottish independence? Three General Elections, four Scottish Parliament elections with either majorities or largest party for the SNP, yet the party still thinks devolution through referenda will gain our independence.

General Elections are Westminster elections to decide who the electors of GB and NI want to govern. Westminster sets the rules, first past the post. Scotland can only become independent by taking power away from those who wield that power, under their rules.

At the last three General Elections the electors of Scotland have said they do not want to be governed by Westminster. How many elections do the SNP need to win for Westminster to accept the will of the Scottish electorate? Answer: it never will. Scottish Parliament elections do not and will never be independence elections; they are designed to keep Westminster in control of Scotland.

READ MORE: Patrick Harvie says he will 'probably' always be an independence supporter

UDI will be the only option, and the nations of the UN will accept the outcome of the election even if Westminster says “NO”. At the first General Election after independence the Unionist parties would need to declare their intentions to rejoin the Union. Scottish electors are unlikely to vote to rejoin, especially at the first such election. However, the Unionist parties would no longer be Unionist parties, they would be independent, and propose manifestos for an independent Scotland without the need to refer to their former Westminster masters. Whatever party wins the election will form a government with the mandate of the Scottish electorate in a parliament of the people of Scotland.

Let the SNP declare in their manifesto that a vote for the SNP is a vote for independence and that a majority of Scottish constituencies is a mandate for independence and UDI.

Alex Kerr

ANDREW Tickell’s brilliant piece in yesterday’s Sunday National explains the background to the current attempt to change the law (Lord Advocate set to win long battle against corroboration ‘wrong turning’, Jun 9).

Unfortunately we have already arrived at a situation where police and prosecutors are bypassing the need for sufficient corroboration in certain cases and ignoring the glaringly obvious: that just because a complaint is made does not mean an accused is guilty, or indeed that any crime has taken place at all.

I am not pleading here on behalf of the criminal fraternity, but if this change takes place we could all potentially be criminalised on the say so of one person. Sounds far-fetched? Look at what is being proposed. Regardless of whether a complaint is malicious or without foundation, an accused person in Scotland can currently expect that any complaint made against him/her will be properly investigated and charges not be brought in the absence of some corroborating evidence. That perfectly reasonable expectation could now be thrown away. Deeply worrying.

Jim Butchart
via email

I AM pleased to say that during the D-Day commemorations last week I did not hear the name of Churchill, because he was largely opposed to giving priority to an invasion through France. He wanted instead to concentrate on Italy and even on Greece and its islands and then through the Balkans.

He had to be overruled by Roosevelt and his joint chiefs of staff, and Roosevelt also insisted that Operation Overlord, the code name for the Normandy invasion, should be under the overall command of an American. Despite my thinking that it was universally known that Eisenhower was given that responsibility, one UK news outlet this week was claiming that role went to Montgomery.

Churchill’s reputation as a great war leader is largely based on the inspiration he gave when Britain was really up against it in 1941, which I don’t belittle, and to the fact that he wrote the best known and many-volumed History of the Second World War.

Andrew M Fraser