WHAT is Holyrood for? In a democracy, the electorate of a country examines and then votes on propositions for future government. Democracy is not delivered via selective opinion polling but by votes by the electorate.

The Scottish Government was elected on a specific manifesto promise, to trigger a second independence referendum if Scotland was taken out of the EU against the will of the people. An EU referendum went ahead, and Scotland voted, by a considerable majority, to stay in the EU.

The elected Scottish Government has won a majority in the Scottish Parliament to seek a Section 30 order from Westminster to allow the Scottish electorate to once again vote on the future direction of our country (“Holyrood backs referendum as Tories vow to delay vote”, The Herald, March 29).

Irrespective of your opinion on the rights or wrongs of independence, for Westminster to refuse to grant this request – at a timescale the elected Parliament of Scotland deems beneficial to protect the interests of this country – is demonstrably undemocratic.

By offering a referendum on independence, the Scottish Parliament is giving us the right to choose between two new, possible futures, at a time of unprecedented change. That is all a referendum is – the right for the people to be consulted, to question, imagine, consider – and then choose. Why would any believer in democracy not embrace that? If your arguments for or against the Union are rigorous, and your vision bold, there should be nothing to fear.

For Westminster to quell debate and scrutiny, and to undermine the Scottish Parliament with spurious “veto” arguments regarding timing and clarity is not democracy. It’s autocracy because it’s not giving us a voice about this pressing dilemma. Like it or not, we are at a crossroads in Scotland’s future. There is no more status quo.

If we are told that the Government we elected cannot implement its mandate to let the Scottish people decide what direction that future will take then, again, I ask: what is Holyrood for?

Karen Campbell,

High Trees,

Ramsay Wood,

Gatehouse of Fleet.

SO Nicola Sturgeon thinks that it’s a “democratic outrage” that her call for another referendum on secession has been kicked in to the long grass by the UK Government.

How does she have the temerity to try and claim the democratic high ground when she is treating 2,000,000 Scottish voters, who voted for the Union in 2014, with such utter contempt? The SNP never has and never will get near that level of support.

I am one of the 2,000,000 and I most certainly believe in democracy. The question has been asked and it has been emphatically and democratically answered - for a generation.

Al Reid,

6 Blair Atholl Gate,

Newton Mearns.

A RATHER nervous-looking David Mundell was the Westminster Government’s fall guy in telling the Scottish Parliament that not only would there not be a second referendum before Brexit but also that it wouldn’t even enter negotiations.

Theresa May’s Government of English nationalists has decided to take Scotland on, which is completely undemocratic. The UK has not been a unitary state for nigh-on 20 years. Devolved government put paid to that.

Now we’ve been told that, regardless of how Scotland votes in either a UK referendum or in Westminster elections, it will always be overshadowed by English votes, the only ones that count. England’s domination of Scotland is what Mrs May meant, Gollum-like, by “our precious, precious Union”.

Yet she could have handled it differently if she had taken note of some of Scotland’s specific interests in the Brexit process: the need for migrants to boost the Scottish economy; access to the single market; agriculture and fishing being handed back to Holyrood instead of Westminster. She could have compromised on some of the sensible ideas in the Scotland’s Place in Europe document.

Instead, just as David Cameron’s idiocy in calling for an EU referendum to appease his rabid right-wing made him the godfather of Brexit, so Mrs May, with her latest arrogant insult to Scottish democracy, will be the midwife of the break-up of Britain.

The Prime Minister should remember that Mrs Thatcher tried the same arrogant line with the imposition of the poll tax on Scotland. One million Scottish adults used people power to defeat that tax on the poor. We could do the same to stave off economic and social disaster that a hard Brexit would cause.

Duncan MacLaren,

Flat 14, 20 Montrose Street, Glasgow.

NOW that article 50 has been triggered as the first step to leaving the EU and the Scottish Government has, thanks to the Greens, managed to secure the mandate for a second referendum.

I would be delighted if it now got on with governing. Our education system, once the envy of the rest of Britain, is sadly lacking. Our hospitals are struggling to cope with retaining staff and dealing with patients (“Health chiefs blame staff shortage for worst cancer waiting times”, The Herald, March 29) and our roads are akin to farm tracks.

If these matters were dealt with and if it is the Scottish Government’s desire to reapply for entry into the EU if the country were to be independent, wouldn’t our case be all the stronger if we were a thriving country? At present we clearly are not.

Neil Stewart,

61 Dunmore Street, Balfron.

IT was more than a little perplexing to note that, on her recent visit to Scotland, Prime Minister May hailed an £11million project being carried out by scientists from the University of Glasgow as an example of her determination to “forge a more Global Britain”.

The speech writers were clearly playing a cruel April Fool’s Day prank, a few days ahead of the day itself, as the research project hailed by Mrs May to protect people from “the awful Zika virus” was funded under an EU scheme likely to be lost after Brexit.

Although the Zika virus work is “supported by UK government funds”, as Ms May said, only around £1m comes from the Government’s Global Challenges Research Fund. No less than £10m has been provided by the EU’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, its key funding stream for groundbreaking medical research.

Involvement in such future projects would have to be renegotiated as part of any Brexit deal and, with Mrs May choosing the hardest and most divisive form of Brexit, this will create great uncertainty not only for scientists but also for every section of society.

Alex Orr,

Flat 2, 77 Leamington Terrace,

Edinburgh.

ZHOU Enlai, Communist China’s first premier, could have been talking about Brexit when, in answer to a question about the impact of the French Revolution, he said: “It’s too early to say.”

Surely we need time to digest the terms of Brexit and experience it in practice. We don’t need 200 years but 2019 is far too soon.

If the SNP were to include areferendum commitment in its manifesto for the 2021 Holyrood elections and it won an overall majority, it would have a definite mandate for a vote in, say, 2024.

By then we would have had some experience of Brexit and the SNP would have had seven more years to get our finances, economy, education and health service in a fit state to succeed as an independent nation.

To avoid any debate, more than over 60 per cent of the registered electorate would have to vote to leave the UK. This would also be a more respectable mini-generation of 10 years since the first referendum.

Allan Sutherland,

1 Willow Row, Stonehaven.

LET us examine the legitimacy of David Mundell and Ruth Davidson to speak for the Scottish people. From a high point in 1955 of 36 seats out of 71 in the Westminster election, the Conservative party is represented by one MP. Its continuing decline shows what support it has in Scotland. The SNP has 56 out of a total of 59 Westminster seats.

In the Holyrood elections in 2016 , Ruth Davidson’s Scottish Tories had seven directly elected seats with 500,000 votes. A further 500,000 votes saw it gain 24 additional seats under the Holyrood voting system.

The SNP, with more than one million votes, secured 59 directly elected seats but a further 950,000 votes yielded only an additional four seats. So gaining 46.5 per cent of the constituency votes and 41.7 per cent of the regional votes means support for the SNP is virtually double that of the Scottish Conservative party. Who has the right to speak for Scotland at Westminster and at Holyrood? It is certainly not Mr Mundell and Ms Davidson!

Yet Ms Davidson tells us what the Scottish people want and Mr Mundell does the bidding of his Westminster leader. Is it, then, any wonder that directly elected support for the Conservative Party in Scotland is at such a low point?

Dave Biggart,

Southcroft,

Knockbuckle Road,

Kilmacolm.

PLEASE help me out. The next Scottish independence referendum will be grounded in Brexit and the fact that 62 per cent of us voted to remain; so far so good.

When we do vote are we voting for an independent Scotland in or out of Europe? We don’t know. So what do I base my judgment upon? Again we do not know.

All of that aside, is there anything tangible, material, credible or meaningful we have heard from Brussels to suggest we will be admitted as a member state in our own right? Not as far as I can tell.

Also, does the Scottish economy meet the stringent economic tests (for instance, GDP versus deficit) that need to be adhered to prior to becoming a member?

In terms of actual head count, how many of us make up the 62 per cent who voted to remain in the EU against the 55-30 per cent who voted to remain part of the UK at the last referendum? After all, it’s all about the will of the Scottish people.

If our First Minister is unable to provide us with that sort of detail and, further, she cannot provide a timetable for our entry as a new member state, is this not strikingly similar to the assurances she is seeking of our rather beleaguered Prime Minister?

Kenneth S Morrison,

19 Glasgow Road, Paisley.