I WOULD like to take issue with Brian Boyce (Letters, Oct 29) when he states that the only direct, constitutional, lawful, democratic way to achieve independence is a majority vote in a true plebiscitary General Election.

That might indeed be the shortest route. If, however, one takes into account that a General Election relates only to the small number of MPs that Scotland is allowed at Westminster and relates to a range very important factors within Westminster control, it is unlikely that a large enough majority of Scottish voters would decide their vote on independence alone.

Moreover, trying to claim that such a majority proved the will of the people of Scotland would be met with the same response as the first devolution referendum, when the 40% rule added to the negative numbers all those eligible who did not vote. Back to square one?

READ MORE: Kemi Badenoch rows with BBC Scotland presenter over 'voluntary union'

On a second point, Mr Boyce accepts the sovereignty of the Scottish people but is proposing action through our “supreme representatives”, which I would argue introduces again that intermediate step involving Westminster. So why not consider an intermediate step involving only Holyrood and the sovereign people of Scotland, which, with a single topic, could give us an incontrovertible mandate? I firmly believe such exists and could not legally be blocked, which would then see a referendum held without Westminster “permission”.

I believe that – instead of a rebuttal unit, which is making no impact whatsoever, and white papers too long and complex for anyone other than experts to bother reading – we need a forward planning unit working NOW towards a referendum to allow the sovereign people of Scotland, as is their right, to say if they want to have the chance to choose their future.

This can be done under the Referendums (Scotland) 2020 Act, which is now part of Scots law, Royal Assent having been granted by Westminster. This could be held, preferably next May or at the latest September, on this single question, open to all voters registered for elections in Scotland, including young and new Scots, and a Yes majority would constitute that incontrovertible mandate.

READ MORE: Yes leads in first Scottish independence poll since Alex Salmond's death

This would have several advantages. It would energise all our current support by having a positive, urgent goal to achieve, encourage lost SNP members to return their support, bring the different independence groups together with a common purpose, and infuriate Westminster by finding a way round their obstruction which could not be legally challenged, for several reasons.

Westminster accepted the Claim of Right, which guarantees our people’s sovereignty over any ruling body or person, and the Supreme Court judged that the principle of parliamentary sovereignty has no remit in Scotland. If the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were also passed into Scots law, that would strengthen our case.

The time has passed for waiting for another mandate via an election. The longer we delay, the more chance Westminster has of constructing further obstacles. So let us start moving now with real urgency, preparing as many routes as we can concurrently. Let us use their main weapon – divide and conquer.

Personally, as I am now in my ninth decade, how long have I got to win independence for my grandchildren? Let’s get on with it!

L McGregor
Falkirk

BRILLIANT letter from Brian Boyce. If only Kemi Badenoch had read it, she could have answered Martin Geissler’s question lucidly, instead of making fool of herself.

I fail to see why the SNP leadership, denied a referendum, doesn’t pursue a mandate through elections, as we used to.

Kenny Kerr
via thenational.scot