THE First Minister’s timetable of a referendum on independence by late 2018 -spring 2019 might have allowed Scotland to find some way of maintaining EU membership, but Theresa May has made clear that this is not acceptable. Is there an alternative route?

In 2014 we used a referendum to establish opinion, but referenda will not necessarily be satisfactory, as Labour MP Mike Gapes made clear in his speech on the Brexit Bill on February 1, quoting former Europe Minister David Liddington MP, that “The [EU] referendum is advisory, as was the case for both the 1975 referendum on Europe and the Scottish independence vote last year.” [Official Report, 16 June 2015.] In other words, even if we were to vote Yes, the sovereign House of Commons could still say No.

However, there are other, more frequently used methods of demonstrating public opinion, in particular the election of representatives, whether to local councils, Holyrood or even to Westminster.

Recently former UK ambassador Craig Murray, Professor Alf Baird, and the playwright George Gunn, have argued for the SNP MPs at Westminster to withdraw, and since there is a majority of Scottish MPs at Westminster committed to independence, seek to begin independence negotiations with London.

The difficulty with this strategy is that the First Minister was very clear during the 2015 Westminster election that “even if the SNP win every single seat in Scotland on Thursday it is not a mandate for a referendum on independence. It is a vote to make Scotland’s voice heard”. So, the conclusion that the current SNP MPs at Westminster were not elected on a mandate to withdraw and seek independence negotiations is inescapable.

However, that need not be the end of the matter, for it would be perfectly possible for these MPs, working to the First Minister’s timetable, to resign their seats, perhaps at the beginning of 2019, and seek re-election on the explicit mandate of beginning independence negotiations. In short through 56 simultaneous by-elections, 95 per cent of Scottish seats, to demonstrate, or not, a majority for independence. A referendum by other means.

Of course, it could be objected if the three Unionist MPs did not also resign their seats, that their electorates would be disenfranchised. However, their recourse should be to their MP.

This strategy would circumvent the objection that they were not elected to seek independence, and, as there are 59 Scottish seats in the present House of Commons, even winning 30 could be claimed as a majority, based on the UK convention of the winner being 50 per cent + 1.

Such an election, if successful, would be a clear and public demonstration of Scottish public opinion, with independence as the distinct primary issue. Mrs May might not be willing to allow a referendum in the First Minister’s timescale, but she would be utterly powerless to prevent this. If she thinks there is a crisis now, she “aint seen nothing yet”, and to ignore it would be an even more “epic mistake”.

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue, Dumbarton.

NICOLA Sturgeon's courageous position in announcing the intention of a second referendum was always going to put Theresa May on the back foot with a consequence that Mrs May would get her retaliation.

To time her response of "now is not the time" for the exact ending of First Minister’s Questions, with Ruth Davidson being present at the same time whilst knowing all along what she would be saying, was maybe what should have been expected. As an example of statesmanship and leadership it was more the response of the playground bully backed up by her gang.

For the Prime Minister to offer that this not the time while she gets on with negotiating Brexit is both demeaning to the Scottish people and patronises us.

Most dangerously, though – if this is an example of her negotiating skills the UK has no chance of brokering any deals with anyone, never mind the EU. Given the positive messages coming from many parts of Europe to Scotland's interest in being part of the EU, maybe the fate of the Union is indeed sealed.

Iain C Boddy,

23, Lockerbie Road, Dumfries.

IN the fog and faux outrage of the phoney war over Brexit and Scottish independence, it’s not easy to see hard facts in front of your face, but this much us true: Nicola Sturgeon leads a charmed life.

Having cried wolf so often since last June, her hand was forced on Monday and she demanded a second independence referendum before a Brexit deal is done. Every Scot and his dog know that would be idiotic but Ms Sturgeon realised she couldn’t show her face at her party conference on Saturday if she had acted like a stateswoman rather than (what we’re all used to) a spoiled child.

Theresa May then makes the rational, unflashy case for postponing a second independence referendum until after Brexit knowing she’ll be further demonised by the First Minister. Had the PM been a shameless opportunist, like the FM, she would have granted the latter’s wish because an independence referendum before Brexit is a plebiscite Ms Sturgeon loses, along with her job. Her political life has instead been prolonged by Mrs May’s patient prudence.

Having heard to her discomfort this week that the EU is not that popular with her fellow Scots, the First Minister will no doubt pivot another 90 degrees and come up with new wheezes and whinges; at least one old scratchy record will have been changed at last.

Ms Sturgeon is fiddling while Scotland burns. Her mission to pull our country out of the UK regardless of the consequences, and in the absence of all economic sense, is driven by personal vanity bordering on monomania. She is leading a charmed life – but for how long? How long will the majority of Scots – those who voted No barely two years ago – put up with such dangerous recklessness?

Martin Ketterer,

Sandringham Court, Newton Mearns.

THE SNP believes it has a manifesto mandate to pursue to a further referendum on independence, even if the more rational amongst us doubt whether that supersedes the commitment made in the Edinburgh Agreement that the outcome of the first one would be "decisive" and "respected by all sides". Likewise, the party of "once in generation" and "once in a lifetime" but which declared "the campaign continues" while the ink was still wet on the results in 2014 is one which is not to be trusted in any way.

However, the Scottish Green Party is in a different position. Its 2016 manifesto is clear that it would support independence in the event of a further referendum. However, it also states that “citizens should be able to play a direct role in the legislative process: on presenting a petition signed by an appropriate number of voters, citizens should be able to trigger a vote on important issues of devolved responsibility. ... this is the Scottish Greens’ preferred way of deciding to hold a second referendum on Independence. If a new referendum is to happen, it should come about by the will of the people, and not be driven by calculations of party political advantage."

This is not the casual promise of given in haste by an office-hungry politician on the stump, but a solemn and considered statement of principle in a manifesto.

The simple fact is that there is no such petition. Indeed, the only evidence of the “will of the people” is the parliamentary petition against a new referendum which has gained over 100,000 signatures in single day. Moreover, there is not a single opinion poll which favours a re-run of 2014 as proposed by the First Minister. If the Greens cannot comply with their own freely given pledge, every other promise they make is dust and ashes.

But there are two ways in which the Scottish Green Party can avoid the fate of the SNP which has lost all credibility for plain dealing and honesty with the public. These are that Greens MSPs either vote against the proposal for indyref2 next week, or abstain.

In fact, the only option which is a betrayal of their own manifesto is to vote for a referendum which does not enjoy the demonstrable and unambiguous support of the people of Scotland.

Peter A Russell,

87 Munro Road, Jordanhill, Glasgow.

A DEOMCRATIC outrage? Here's a democratic outrage for you. Scotland wasn't mentioned on the EU referendum ballot paper. Neither was the Scottish constitution. On the basis that I wanted the UK to remain in the EU, I voted Remain.

Nicola Sturgeon seems to think we were asked a different question, or is reverse-engineering her own question to suit the only answer the SNP will ever arrive at. This is a manipulation of my Remain vote. My vote in Renfrew is worth no more or no less than somebody who voted from Reigate, Rhyl or Randalstown.

That's democracy. And with a heavy heart on June 24 last year, that's what the democrat in me has to accept.

If Scotland or the Scottish constitution had been mentioned on the ballot I would almost certainly have voted differently. Had it been some kind of choice between keeping Scotland in the UK or Scotland in the EU (something that Ms Sturgeon is unable to promise), I would have looked at the economics of it, the shared culture and border, the practicalities, and would have voted pro-UK.

In a perfect world of course we could have been members of the UK and the EU, but again, it's democracy that we aren't. Regrettably. But there it is. The democratic outrage is Ms Sturgeon's appropriation of my Remain vote for her own ends.

Paul Russell,

Flat 2/2, 21 Redshank Avenue, Renfrew.

I'M sick of the squabbling as to whether or not Scottish people want another independence referendum. Politicians have vested interests and pollsters are frequently wrong. Let's settle it once and for all (unless circumstances materially change) by holding a referendum to see if Scots want another Independence referendum.

John Eoin Douglas,

7b Spey Terrace, Edinburgh.