AS the Brexit negotiations intensify, the SNP’s opposition to any form of Brexit appears to be incompatible with its renewed demand for Indyref2. On the one hand, it justifies that demand on the basis of a material change in circumstance since the 2014 referendum, that change being Brexit. Of course no such material change has occurred yet and, if Remainers get their way, it will never happen. However, the SNP uses the possibility of Brexit to ignore its previous pledges of “once in a generation" and to “accept the result" of the 2014 referendum.

If anyone doubts these pledges were made specifically there is no need to plough through the 164 pages of the SNP White Paper, Scotland’s Future, to find them. Simply read the introductory page and the message from Alex Salmond which follows on.

On the other hand, the same SNP seems determined to support all the ongoing attempts to scupper Brexit, apparently accepting that if successful that would pull the rug out from under its justification for Indyref2. So despite all the SNP’s apparent opposition to Brexit, its demand for Indyref2 indicates its real wish is for Brexit to succeed. Why not admit it and support Brexit?

Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop.

I HAVE to take issue at the sheer hypocrisy of Derek Mackay, Scottish Finance Secretary, when he was interviewed yesterday at the SNP conference by video link for the BBC Politics Live programme. He was asked about the justification of holding a second independence referendum and on no fewer than seven occasions he used the word “democratic" or “democracy” in his comments about the rights of the Scottish people to be allowed a vote. Twice he even asked his own question “do we or do we not live in a democracy?” He seems to have totally forgotten about the democratic rights of the people who voted No in the 2014 independence referendum, or do they not count?

Christopher H Jones, Giffnock.

IT is because I want to see independence that I hope whoever is in government at Westminster will reject Nicola Sturgeon's demand for a referendum next year. 2020, for reasons every journalist, MSP, and MP knows, but apparently not the delegates at the SNP conference, will be the worst time for a referendum campaign led by the SNP. Either the SNP leader was being foolish in demanding it, or was engaged in a cynical exercise in manipulating the emotions of the activists.

Jim Sillars, Edinburgh EH9.

I NOTE the article by Kirsty Strickland ("Why SNP dissidents should keep faith with their leader", The Herald, October 15) and must make comment on the penultimate paragraph, in particular "having a leader who still plays by the rules".

Which rules?

Here we have someone who promoted a once in a generation, democratic vote for independence, yet when it did not go the way it was hoped, it now becomes the best of three. If there is another referendum and it is still a No vote, does it become the best of five?

Apart from the fact that this is not "playing by the rules" how can the leader of our country sign a binding document confirming the terms of the last referendum, and then ignore those terms and conditions to suit her own agenda?

John Harrison, Glasgow G12.

MARTIN Redfern (Letters, October 15) can sleep easy; Scexit isn't going to happen. The antics of all too many in the SNP will see to that, the latest example being the Provost of Glasgow's Imelda Marcos-style foible for shoes.

Add to that the squandering of taxpayers' money (for example, Prestwick Airport), strangely reminiscent of the bad old days of Labour hegemony, plus in particular the SNP leadership's long-standing love affair with the EU, and there would be no Yes majority.

Bitter for radical decentralists like me, who'd love to see Scotland emulating Norway and Switzerland, independent and rich outside the EU.

George Morton, Rosyth.

IN the current furore over the punishment of Catalan politicians for their criminal activity in pursuit of secession from Spain ("Government accused of cowardice over Catalan jailings", The Herald, October 16), an important factor is being ignored by most commentators. This is that the primacy of unelected judges over elected politicians is a direct result of having a written constitution that must be enforced if the rule of law is to be maintained.

By coincidence, a written constitution is one of the demands of the 50 self-appointed sages from Scotland's elite who have set themselves up as superior to two million No voters with their Declaration For Independence.It is hard to see how they – or the SNP which also wants a statutory constitution – can complain about the principle of legal action against those who choose to flout that same constitution.

Personally, I think the convictions are entirely in order, but the penalties are much too harsh: those found guilty should be surcharged for the waste of public money, banned from holding public office, and made to do some useful community service such as removing ugly secessionist graffiti.

Peter A Russell, Glasgow G13.