Your eight-page pull-out was a perfect reminder of why we are where we are (The Journey to Yes, Indyref: 2 years on, September 18). It was brave of Ruth Davidson to offer an article, and I commend her for doing so (My vision of Scotland’s future in the union). She gave it her very best shot in terms of explaining her support for the Union. However, I’d like to take issue with some of the main arguments she puts forward.

The Scotland Act 2016 emphatically does not contain “tax and welfare powers as people were promised”. Some powers have been delivered, but nothing like what the Scottish people were led to believe would be extended to them by a grateful and generous British state in return for a No vote.

She complains that independence supporters should adhere to the “once in a generation” line. Supporters of any political party don’t just roll over and give up if they lose one vote.

There’s a suggestion that the result of the EU referendum is not a “trigger” for Indyref2 – but the SNP manifesto of 2016 states clearly that a Leave vote in the European referendum is exactly that – and as a democrat, she can’t argue with the one million votes and 63 seats that the SNP won just four months ago.

Ms Davidson argues that the Union is far from falling apart. It clearly is at the very edge of splitting, and this is due, more than anything else, to the shifting politics of each part of the UK state. With a neo-liberal, inward-looking England pursuing an increasingly right-wing agenda, and with many aspects of these policies being imposed on a centre-left, outward-looking Scotland, it is clear that the bonds are at snapping point. The situation in Northern Ireland only adds to the instability.

“It can be a Union which provides us with economic security” – in a post-Brexit world, how can the UK provide this security? Statements from representatives of the European Commission, Parliament and leaders of member states have made clear that it can’t.

“Power can be devolved and shared” – will this hold true for EU negotiations? Or, as Philip Hammond stated, will there be “no separate EU deal for Scotland”? Bearing in mind that Ms Davidson and Mr Hammond are in the same party, this is a contradiction I’ll leave for them to tackle, and I wait expectantly for their proposed solution.

When suggesting that Yes-voters are swayed by “identity, flag and country”, she misses the point that many, many Yes voters wanted to leave the UK precisely because it is a land of “identity, flag and country”. The queen, British Bake-Off, indeed “Great British” everything on television these days, Land of hope and glory ... the list is endless, the undercurrent of jingoism sickening.

Let’s get down to brass tacks. Currently we have a Scottish Government looking to respect both referendum votes – No to independence (2014) and Remain in the UK (2016), by seeking to explore all options in terms of keeping Scotland in the EU and the UK. A couple of these half-way EU-UK proposals for Scotland look promising, insofar as they would respect both referendum votes.

However, if – or more likely when – all such proposals for Scotland to remain in the EU and the UK are rejected by the UK Government, the Scottish Government will have the moral authority to call another independence referendum.

If Ruth Davidson really does want to say “no to a second referendum”, the ball is in her court. Find a politically meaningful way for Scotland to maintain its place in both unions – and deliver it. After all, that’s what she was arguing for up until June 23 this year.

David Patrick

Edinburgh