KEITH Howell (Letters, August 3) agrees with Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie that “independence should only ever come from a referendum formally agreed with the UK Government”, calling this “common sense”. I call it a stark illustration of the powerlessness of our country.

Support for independence is now significantly more than the 28 per cent support in 2012. If he had known how support for independence would increase during the referendum campaign, would David Cameron have signed the Edinburgh Agreement? Today, it would be a very brave Prime Minister who offers a second referendum when Yes is within margin of statistical error of winning.

READ MORE: Majority now want Scottish independence, says 'phenomenal' new poll 

Clearly, as “Minister for the Union”, the Union is staple to Mr Johnson’s world view, so refusal of a Section 30 request has to be expected. But other than no official referendum what does this mean? What does it tell us?

It illuminates just how powerless our country is. Imagine if polls showed that everyone in Scotland – even Mr Howell – was not only in favour of another referendum but of a Yes vote. Even then, even in such extreme, and vanishingly unlikely, circumstances, Scotland would still have to obtain the permission of Westminster to hold a referendum. If this was not forthcoming, then Mr Howell’s “common sense” would dictate that we put our views to one side and simply carry on. Former Conservative Secretary of State for Brexit David Davis said, referring to the EU, “There is no other treaty in the world I’m aware of where a sovereign nation undertakes to join up and can only leave when the other side says so”. Welcome to Scotland, Mr Davis, for what you speak of is our position.

It is precisely this which leads Mr Howell to support Mr Harvie’s argument about an official referendum – Westminster can always say no, and therefore, without a Plan B there is nothing Scotland can do. We are trapped, even in the event of clear and substantial support for independence. Indeed, ironically, perhaps the higher support becomes, so the likelihood of a Section 30 Order diminishes.

However, there is a Plan B in the regrettable event that Westminster continues to refuse a Section 30 Order. Angus MacNeil and Chris McEleny have suggested the SNP include a manifesto commitment, in the event that a Section 30 Order has been refused, that if pro-independence SNP and Green candidates won a majority of seats at the next Westminster or Holyrood election, this would be a mandate to begin Independence negotiations. Interestingly Margaret Thatcher herself suggested that if Scotland wanted to regain its Independence all it had to do was elect a majority of Scottish MPs who supported this.

Mr Howell, of course, would object that an “unofficial [referendum] would be potentially even more divisive”. Yet in the face of the level of support that is now being reported, is just saying No not at least as divisive?

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

THE First Minister has called the Ashcroft poll "phenomenal". It certainly was a "phenomenon", which the dictionary tells me is, among other things, "a fact or an event in nature or society, especially one that is not fully understood"

READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon: There is a 'growing sense of urgency for independence' 

Since 2016 we have had a sustained campaign from the SNP targeting the Tory Party as inept, incompetent and anti-Scottish, especially in regard to its handling of Brexit. It repeatedly called for details of impact assessments, negotiating strategies and economic plans for the upcoming negotiations and for life outside the EU.

We have had repetitive statements from the SNP forecasting doom for post0Brexit UK and proclaiming the need for Scotland to be set free of the UK and allowed to chart our own course. What we have not had, however, is any detail of the impact assessments, negotiating strategies or economic plans for an independent Scotland.

We have not been told how being outside the UK and the EU would benefit Scotland.

There are a couple of "facts" which the SNP has made clear.

The Growth Commission report tells us we will need a decade or more of severe austerity coupled with exceptional growth to clear the deficit with which Scotland operates today. The frequent statements on immigration tell us the we will need to attract up to one million immigrants to Scotland or we will be unable to pay the already meagre state pensions. Both of these need to be explained in detail.

The SNP plans and strategies for Scotland succeeding as an independent country are not simply campaign tools, to be unleashed only during a referendum campaign.

If it has these plans available then it must be published so that we can all see the truth about independence and have an opportunity to challenge any claims it makes.

If the SNP does not have these plans in place, why is it trying to lead us all to a potentially catastrophic future?

The SNP might be swinging public opinion slightly towards an independence vote but if it attempts to repeat the fiasco of the Brexit poll, where facts were kept secret and deceptive campaigning claims were made to fool the voters, I doubt that the people of Scotland will receive that well.

Michael Kent, Giffnock.

THERE can be no doubt that post-Brexit an independent Scotland in the EU would mean a hard border between Scotland and England.

This would mean at least extra paperwork, and almost certainly delays and tariffs, for the majority of Scotland's exports and imports which go to or through England. Berwick and Carlisle would become transit towns and could even choose to become freeports, though that might not be an unmixed blessing.

Of course, Scotland might opt instead to use trade routes via its EU partners. This would avoid the above hindrances but would involve longer distances, not to mention travel by sea or air rather than land. The extra distance and time would increase the prices of the commodities and thence the cost of goods in the shops.

This leads to further questions. Are Scotland's ports equipped for a vast upsurge in business? What about the infrastructure serving them; can the roads and railways cope with the contents of all the lorries which previously crossed the border unhindered? There's plenty of capacity for air freight at Prestwick, but greatly increasing air transport is hardly commensurate with reducing carbon emissions.

One might argue that surely England would still allow Scottish goods to pass unhindered but given that the loss of the 50-plus Scottish MPs from the House of Commons, who might be considered a moderating influence, Scotland is even more likely to have a right-wing Tory government, which is unlikely to over-exert itself to help an independent Scotland. After all, one could hardly expect the rest of the UK to treat a breakaway member as though it was still part of the Union.

There are those of course who would consider independence for Scotland well worth these costs. Others may be more inclined to recall the old adage, out of the frying-pan into the fire.

Jane Ann Liston, St Andrews.