MARK Smith ("Four ways the independence marchers got it wrong, The Herald, May 7) could have added a further couple of points that last Saturday’s marchers for independence should address. First, it seems likely that the absolute majorities the SNP won in 2007 and 2011 will prove to be exceptional and the Holyrood electoral system will revert to its intended function of producing minority and coalition governments. The SNP had the opportunity to put separation from the UK into its manifesto and make a unilateral declaration of independence. It threw everything into the gamble of a referendum and lost.

Secondly, and more basic, it is incumbent on those who seek another referendum to introduce us to this unfamiliar means of government. We have a well-established representative democracy into which referendums do not fit. They are ad hoc devices of very questionable status. They reduce vastly complex matters to absurd simplicities, producing the imbroglio that is the present Brexit mess. The pattern emerging from the last two referendums is that the secessionist party regards defeat as a temporary setback and victory as decisive, binding and final.

At the very least, a referendum needs a formal status, with its scope and limitations clearly defined in law. For example, for constitutional change a percentage of the total electorate may be required to carry it, not just of those voting on the day. Alternatively, of those voting on the day maybe a two-thirds majority should be required. There should certainly be a fool-proof mechanism for assessing the outcome of negotiations that a referendum has authorised. This should be either a vote in the parliament or a second referendum, perhaps again with a super-majority required to carry it. Rejection would return us to the status quo ante and the matter may not be re-visited in a referendum for, say, 20 years.

Before we come to the subject matter of a referendum, it must be recognised that a referendum itself presents a serious problem for our representative democracy. I am looking forward to learning to which body of political theory and practice those who advocate referendums are referring.

Tim Bell,

11 Madeira Place, Edinburgh.

BRIAN Quail’s letter gave an eloquent and passionate response to Mark Smith’s analysis ("Four ways the independence marchers have got it wrong", The Herald, May 7), as he set out two ways he is sure they got it right (Letters, May 8). He explained why he thought self-determination was the natural state for a country, just as he left no one in doubt about the strength of his nuclear disarmament convictions. Many thoughtful and well-intended supporters of independence would undoubtedly have opinions that chime with Mr Quail’s analysis.

Of course few would argue with wanting a fair say over your own destiny, or with wanting a peaceful world, but there are strong arguments why breaking up the UK will not of itself deliver that.

For all the examples of smaller nations that have broken away from old connections and gone on to thrive, there are many more right across the world that now continue happily as part of one larger nation. After all, a Europe with the clock turned back 300 years and every combination of nation and geography undone would be fragmented in countless ways. Separation might be the right path, particularly where there is demonstrable oppression of a minority, but it is not self-evident, and certainly cannot be considered so when the majority value the sharing of resources and cooperation across a union of nations, and recognise the benefits of devolved powers.

As for wanting to rid the world of the threat of nuclear conflict, the unilateral disarmament argument is a powerful one if only there were a unity of view across the planet on this issue. Sadly the mix of egos and some dictators that lead many of the nations of the world suggests there is a need to retain an ability to stand up for what is right. Personally, I believe the UK has played a positive role in this regard, particularly over the course of the last century or so. On the issue of nuclear disarmament, the Scottish independence movement feels it has the moral high ground, but for the rest of us who sit in the multilateral disarmament camp that appears a rather insular view of our place in the world.

These are simply different opinions of course, and while I might disagree with Mr Quail’s conclusions, I do admire the way they were expressed.

Keith Howell,

White Moss, West Linton, Peeblesshire.

MARK Smith's argument that marchers on Saturday believed that their numbers proved everyone else in Scotland now supports independence is a gross insult to the intelligence of Yes voters in general and to the organisers in particular. Acknowledging the euphoria inevitably generated by being part of such a huge and positive gathering, in a country where most of the newspapers and media outlets propagandise against independence on a daily basis, is one thing; transposing it into evidence of simplistic and unrealistic thinking by marchers is just silly.

The Yes campaign is actively campaigning now on the basis that there is a serious, vital, intelligent, pragmatic and positive argument for independence to be won in the new circumstances of 2018. By bringing many of them together, Saturday's march was just a tremendous boost for that campaign, which continues.

His second and third points meet unfortunately at the street corner last Saturday, where, as they have done before, about 20 sheepish and sometimes bullish individuals thrust their arms up and their Union flags as 40,000 or more yes campaigners marched by. As Mr Smith said, flag-waving can appear threatening, especially accompanied by what appears to be a Nazi salute. But perhaps he just missed the irony here as the euphoric sea of Saltires and Lions Rampant swept by more or less oblivious to these darker aspects of British nationalism.

As a Yes campaigner who along with many others did not manage to march on Saturday I can already offer Mr Smith some information from many doorstep conversations with voters who now intend to vote for independence having rejected it in 2014. It might give him cause to reconsider his final points. Whether or not we leave the EU, the recent behaviour and political ideologies of those in government at Westminster, from the rape clause to the Windrush scandal, have made an argument for a more humane, internationally co-operative and environmentally concerned independent Scottish Government, in or out of the EU.

His final error of course is to retain the notion that when we name the day for the referendum on independence, we will be seeking "permission".

Frances McKie,

20 Ash Hill, Evanton.