Sir, – I would have loved to have attended the NFUS conference last week. Work commitments, alas, forbade me.

Through the miracle of social media, however, I followed the discussions online. The debate included an extraordinary speech by the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson.

It is my opinion that, in any sane universe, she should have been chased out of the room, her credibility and integrity shot to pieces.

Ms Davidson was part of the whole ‘vote no to stay in Europe’ lie, during the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.

To be fair, she fought credibly to remain in Europe, but lost, and immediately became a hard Brexiteer.

And then she came to the NFUS conference promising things that, because the Supreme Court had now ruled that Scotland need not be consulted over Article 50, she cannot possibly deliver. I suspect she doesn’t want to.

Just for the record, I have no quarrel with the good people of the Supreme Court.

In fact, I applaud them and welcome their judgement. For the growing number of us who want an independent Scotland, they have done us a favour.

It was charged with giving a legal ruling, not a political one. It has played, as they say, a blinder, not least by confirming what many of us had suspected. Which is this – the Scottish Parliament is built on pillars of sand. Our powers, such as they are, are lent not given.

Power devolved is power retained, The Sewell Convention, which was formed to ensure that in the event of any Westminster legislation potentially or actually impinging on Scottish devolved competencies, is now legally redundant. The court said so.

We don’t have a parliament. We don’t have a country. With the risk of boring your readership, Brexit and immigration have a direct impact on, say, education (which is a devolved issue but in which much of our knowledgeable people come from the EU).

A country that can’t have any say on this doesn’t, in fact, sound like much of a country. In truth, it it isn’t a country at all.

There will – thankfully – be another referendum on Scottish independence. We were asked last time: ‘Yes or No?’

Two and a half years on, I often ask myself this – what if we frame the question a different way? What if we looked through the looking glass from the other side?

And ask this simple question.

“Who speaks for Scotland?”

My question to my fellow Scots – those who share my views and those who don’t but who are and who remain my dear friends – is this, given the Supreme Court judgement:

“Is that OK? Are you alright with that, aye? Are you fine with not having a voice, a non-permanent parliament, with not mattering? Are you OK with not being a country at all?”

Or, perhaps, this. “Is there any circumstance in which you would consider independence an option if the relevant facts are presented or must we in all circumstances stick with the UK even to our own impoverishment?”

That’s it.

That’s what it comes down to. Not politics. Just simple questions.

Because at least we know where we stand now. Anyone who’s fine with our legal status – which means, remember, that we aren’t a country – should obviously vote 'No' in 2018 (which is when the next referendum will be, I believe).

The next Scottish independence referendum – and come it will, for a’ that – will determine not so much our politics but something deeper and more fundamental.

Our own self-respect, and our pride. After all, without this we are nothing.

There’s a line in Shakespeare’s Macbeth. “Stands Scotland where it did?”

The reply is: “Alas, poor Scotland. Almost afraid to know itself."

Time for Scotland to know itself, and to think large.

And to think for itself.

Alec Ross

Lochans Mill,

Portpatrick,

Stranraer.