(Published as a letter in the Scotsman)
Regarding what he characterises as "silly misunderstanding" and "clumsy distortions of SNP objectives" from independence sceptics, David Hill (Letters, 19 May) claims the party's position has "not changed at all".
But, for example, I seem to recall that independence envisaged a Scottish currency rather than sterling.
Then came the idealism of the euro, and whereas interest rates set by the Bank of England in London were considered inappropriate for Scotland, the European Central Bank in Frankfurt seemed more palatable.
More recently sterling seems to have become more attractive, but in a recent TV interview Nicola Sturgeon deflected her inability to address the issue by reverting to a "best interests of Scotland" style of answer, thus hardly consistent with Mr Hill's claim.
By the same token, it seems strange that the SNP would like to leave our domestic union but then cede sovereignty to a substantially bigger one in the form of the European Union, where Scotland's influence will surely be less than in the UK context.
Of course, Mr Hill will argue that an independent Scotland would choose to cede sovereignty to the EU, as compared with the current relationship between ourselves and the UK.
However, the weakness of such a stance is that the people of Scotland haven't demonstrated any desire to leave the UK, which is why Alex Salmond does not want an independence referendum at this time.
This will no doubt be formally tested in due course, but in the meantime those who portray Scotland as some kind of Western Tibet fundamentally misrepresent the (currently) settled will of the Scottish people.