ON Thursday as we heard our colonial governor, Alister Jack, on Good Morning Scotland, we had our worst fears confirmed. As we predicted, the Internal Market Act is being used to take away powers devolved to Holyrood by the Scotland Act, by dealing directly with local councils over funding supposedly from the Barnett Formula.

What this means is that we now have two opposing definitions of “devolution”.

1. As per the Scotland Act, in addition to those powers specified as devolved, any powers NOT specified as retained by Westminster are also devolved. Under this definition, control of local government, including the funding, is devolved.

2. As per the governor, Westminster dealing directly with such areas, as now proposed with an element of local government funding, is “devolution in action”.

The two arguments for this new definition of devolution are: 1. The Internal Market Act allows Westminster to overrule Holyrood. 2. Westminster wants to deal with those who know best what we in Scotland need!

So the party that we have rejected at Westminster for nearly 60 years, and here since devolution (old meaning), feels that they are better able to represent the people of Scotland than the government in Scotland, elected by the people of Scotland, which works regularly with local government? This from the appointee of that same party which has steadfastly refused to consider any of the wishes or needs of Scotland in the past.

And which devolved power – under the “current” definition – will he want to take over next and use directly under that same Internal Market Act? Once a number have been taken way, without our consent, will our masters decide that there is no need for Holyrood?

READ MORE: SNP hit out at 'naked power grab' by Tories looking to spend in devolved areas

We have only once defence – independence!

Forth Valley Indy Network: Butterflies Rising; Denny & Dunipace Independence Group; Falkirk For Independence; Still Yes Clacks; Yes Bo’ness; Yes Clackmannanshire; Yes Denny & Dunipace; Yes Grangemouth; Yes Linlithgow; Yes Stirling

SALMOND v Sturgeon. So is there really yet another conspiracy for us to interrogate? Maybes aye, maybes naw.

We should not lose sight of the origins and the serious issues that need addressed and resolved.

However, we have had the daily drip feed of accusations and soundbites for some time. It is almost as though it is a deliberate ploy to keep the cauldron of claim and counterclaim simmering – allowing all the media, the opposition politicians but also some of the SNP politicians and independence supporters – to feed daily and fully and regurgitate the same points, sometimes nuanced sometimes not.

Many constituent members of Scotland’s establishment are accused of collusion, deliberate obstruction and obfuscation. Can this really be true? It would have required a degree of sophistication, planning, co-ordination and execution not always evident here. I could hope to find out the truth soon but I’m not too hopeful. I suspect the cauldron will continue to simmer and occasionally boil over.

So, here is the East Lothian Question – is all of this not just another Unionist plot? This is as good a theory as some that are being made. It would be a conspiracy to “trump” all others, but equally fanciful?

Ken Howells

Longniddry, East Lothian

ONE headline in Thursday’s Tory press tells Scotland, ‘you now live in a petty dictatorship’. One person’s pomposity and hurt pride are undermining our road towards waving goodbye to the corruption and incompetence at the heart of Westminster politics. Conspiracy, perhaps we should wonder who is conspiring?

Given Holyrood’s, honest, competent and straight forward handling of the Covid problem, on a host of vital issues from Trident to food standards and the environment, ask yourself, do we still want to be a party to the intransigence of “Little Britannia?”

Iain R Thomson

Strathglass

LESLEY Riddoch has written some good material but her article in on Thursday was excellent (The Salmond vs Sturgeon battle is lose-lose ... but the party can be fixed, February 25).

Lesley puts her finger directly on the feelings of many of us is the Yes movement watch this internal battle in the SNP. She also points to a sensible way forward Peter Murrell can take a huge step to reduce the friction and help the SNP administration at the same time. He should resign now and move out of the picture.

Andy Anderson

Saltcoats

ONCE again Lesley Riddoch is bang on the nail. In a well-explained and fair assessment of the above her final recommendation is excellent. Peter Murrell’s resignation would be the right response, not necessarily to resolve the above, but to recognise that the SNP organisation needs a root-and-branch restructuring, and to accept that the SNP ship has been steered off course in the last few years, on his watch.

James Macintyre

Lesmahagow

I’VE just listened to Henry McLeish on Radio Scotland talking about the present political crisis. He thinks the d’Hondt system is not sufficient to prevent what is, in his view, a “one-party state”. He thinks the present “mess” could have been prevented if there had been a better system in place.

Poor Henry, who had seemed to be softening towards Scottish independence, is reverting to type and the subtext of what he says is “if only there was a system that gave Labour more power!”

Derek Ball

Bearsden