It is quite possible that the Scottish National party will be the biggest party in Holyrood after the May elections, and no doubt it will have a second independence referendum in its manifesto that will give it a mandate to call for one. Without quarrelling with your editorial’s suggestion that Boris Johnson is the SNP’s best recruiting sergeant (The Guardian view on the future of the union: Britain faces breakup, 29 December), the party has two major problems. First, although Brexit greatly increases the scope for anti-English rhetoric (“we didn’t vote for it”, although actually 38% did vote for it), it makes Scottish independence a lot harder to realise. If geography throws the UK into Europe, it throws the various parts of this small, compact archipelago of islands together rather more forcefully. Brexit is greatly to be deplored, but it will be difficult to argue that a further separation is the remedy. Second, the SNP can’t afford to lose a referendum, and neither can it afford to win it. The Brexit imbroglio amply demonstrates that our (flawed) voting procedures are for electing named individuals who become accountable for a fixed term, and that they do nothing to resolve abstract ideas. If the SNP had confidence in its case for independence, it would say in its manifesto that it intends to make a unilateral declaration of independence from Westminster. This would produce a fine clash between the electoral mandate and constitutional law, to be openly sorted out in the established institutions of the parliaments and courts, producing a secure outcome. Tim Bell Edinburgh • Your editorial makes sound sense on the state of the union. Boris Johnson is indeed the gift that keeps on giving to the SNP. The tragedy is that many in Scotland are now accepting the SNP line that he represents all English people. As a non-Scot living in Scotland, with Anglo-Welsh parentage, I resent being tarred with the same Johnsonian brush. Many people living in England will feel the same way. Should the SNP succeed in achieving Scottish independence, it will leave a bitterly divided Scotland and a hurt and resentful England. And, as Johnson’s recent trade agreement with the European Union illustrates, any deal between a large and a small entity can only be in favour of the former. Nick Williams Auchenblae, Aberdeenshire • Your editorial implies that Scottish independence is to be avoided if at all possible. Perhaps the Guardian might want to look at it from Scotland’s point of view. How would you like to be ruled by a corrupt, failing, undemocratic government that exercises its powers against those whom it deems to be a threat, such as the Windrush generation, refugees and asylum seekers? You may remember that Theresa May ignored all overtures from Scotland’s first minister on Brexit, despite the clear wish of Scotland to stay in the EU. Boris Johnson claimed that devolution had been a disaster. Scottish people might respond by saying that 11 years of Conservative government have not been much of a triumph. Two of Scotland’s nearest neighbours, Norway and Ireland, top the United Nations’ quality of life index (clearly weather is not a criterion). Scots want to be citizens of a centre-left government, to be in the EU, and to be in a country without nuclear weapons. Why does the Guardian see independence for Scotland in such a poor light? Dave Burns Ballysimon, County Limerick, Ireland