I HAVE to disagree with Mr Blackford: I do not believe the current Tory power grab over the return of devolved competencies from the EU will “haunt them for decades” (June 8).

Firstly I would argue that the only Tories who might even care are either those with Scottish constituencies or those that live in Scotland.

Perhaps it also applies to the few in a position to utilise certain aspects of our wee nation as a bargaining chip. Demonstrably, for all others in the Tory party, if we exclude the delusions of Empire aspect, Scotland is an irrelevance, more often an irritation.

Secondly, I truly do see the yoke of Westminster slipping away over the next decade or so, therefore “decades” is extreme.

When Scotland does go its own way, and we choose to finally become good neighbours rather than disgruntled bedfellows (on both sides, for many) then it would seem likely that, absent another incredible natural resources find, the Tory party in Westminster/England will not cast another glance in Scotland’s direction, excluding how to treat us as an independent state.

We should expect that we will only be another of hundreds that they will treat like this. The majority in that organisation will view us the unscratchable itch that has suddenly left. In the best of worlds, we might see parity with the Republic of Ireland, but it won’t be without a lot of threats first.

There are a few Conservatives, demonstrably in the lower ranks, who might feel otherwise, but the party psychology and what type of ideology it takes, even at grassroots level, to simply become nominated for that organization is likely to mean that they are forever in the minority. A few at the top, as they watch business migrate north to another English-speaking country might rue that additional loss.

The Tories would also never see themselves or their actions as to blame for the dissolution of the 1707 treaty. Almost everything says that is simply not in their psyche, and for once, they might be right.

All indications are that we Scots will finally stand proudly amongst the community of nations when we are ready, and that won’t be dictated by Tory actions, but by our own and steadily growing belief in ourselves.

When that faith reaches critical mass, nothing, no media, no propaganda, no begging, no vows can or will stop it from tipping the last vestiges of imperial Britain directly into history’s dustbin.

And that time: it is close.
A MacGregor
East Kilbride

THE Scottish Law Commission has recently issued a discussion paper, dealing with a number of aspects of the law of leases, and especially the termination of commercial leases.

The Scottish Law Commission deserve more thanks than they often get for the efforts which they put into trying to improve and tidy many aspects of Scots Law.

One of the minor topics in the present discussion paper is that of “phantom leases”. Everybody agrees that you cannot let a shop to yourself, for example.

What happens however when the sitting tenant buys the shop from the owner?

For most people, this takes you back to the situation which you couldn’t have created in the first place, namely, being your own tenant, and therefore the lease must “evaporate” because an owner’s legal title is obviously superior to and more permanent than that of a tenant. Although this looks obvious, and common sense, a practice has grown up at Registers of Scotland of pretending that the lease continues in existence in some way, as a “phantom”.

In their discussion paper, the Scottish Law Commission suggest that there are legal authorities and theories why a “phantom” lease might legitimately exist.

On analysis however, most of these involve situations where there are third party interests involved, or where some genuine distinction can be drawn between the owner of the land, and the owner of the tenancy.

It will be interesting to see how the Law Commission deals with this.

Different sectors of the legal profession have differing views on the present, counter-intuitive, practice.

All those who are interested are encouraged to give their views in to the Commission before the consultation closes on September 14 2018.
Mike Blair
Gillespie Macandrew LLP, Perth

SUPPOSE you had £100k to invest, with the choice of Jeremy Corbyn, Theresa May, or Donald Trump to manage this money on your behalf.

Corbyn would spend your money, or lose it, or forget where he had put it. May would either do nothing, or lend it to the EU without agreement for anything in return.

Trump would firstly do a deal to double your money, and then move it around various opportunities, giving you an income for life. Your choice!
Malcolm Parkin

TRUMP won’t be meeting May at the G7 because he feels it will be a “distraction” ahead of his North Korea meeting.

Anyone who thinks the “special relationship” is still alive needs to realise it has gone way beyond what Offsted would impose on a failing school – ie special measures. We are in the process of leaving the sensible people in the EU – throwing it all in and one of the big replacements for all that reliable trading was to be the US – our special friend.

Amanda Baker

IMAGINE when you’re 10 years old
How it would feel to be told
The place in which you’d learned and grown
Would no longer be your home.
Instead a land you’ve never known
From which your family fled
Is where you’ll be returned alone
Where gangsters want you dead.

Stephen McCarthy