GEORGE Kerevan and Carolyn Leckie (July 8) both have plans for what we might do next, which could have been useful five years ago, had it been followed up.

Both continue to talk as though there is all the time in the world to get the act together. They are wrong.

READ MORE: George Kerevan: Hunt declared war on our sovereignty ... here are ways we could respond

There is a well-developed plan to run the vital services in Scotland, as perceived by Westminster Tories, outwith the Scottish Government, and a large investment has been made in preparedness and staffing.

This is not done to scare us, they couldn’t care less. This is sheer determination to neuter the Scottish Government the moment the protections of the EU cease to be effective. Only this way can they hope to continue the draining of Scotland’s resources and retain a “safe” nuclear harbour that won’t damage England very much if it goes wrong.

READ MORE: Carolyn Leckie: Why there might never be a better time to call indyref2

The two contenders for the race to the bottom both accept that a “no deal” is possible. Contingency plans are under way. The moment the “no deal” decision is taken in Cabinet, in camera, the power of the EU on this island vanishes.

This, I suspect, will happen some time between the crowning of Johnson and the end of October.

The way of life for Scots turns from open humanitarian aims to singular self-interest on behalf of the haves. The change is significant.

The Express headline will gleefully bark “Westminster chops of Sturgeon’s head”, and it will go on to explain: “Westminster has suspended the devolved administrations to ensure that the procedures designed to protect every Britons interest fairly during the early days of recovering control, has top priority. This is a temporary measure.”

And temporary it may well be, say 20 or 30 years!

The state broadcaster has spent years selling the lie that the English pay through to nose for the profligacy of the Scottish Government which allows it to subsidise medicines, schools, universities, baby boxes et al.

The international press sees no more than these blatant lies and lifts not a finger, but Scotland returns to the dark days.

There is only one way to counter this, use the damned mandate before the gate slams shut.

Christopher Bruce

OVER the last few days we have had an abundance of Tory politicians telling Scotland NO, you cannot have indyref2! SNP majority? No! Clear democratic mandate? No!

No! No! With each convenient microphone their cries have been getting louder and louder, but why? What is it about Scotland that makes the Tory politicians want to hold Scotland in the Union so tightly, when 63% of their members would happily let us go?

Money is the obvious answer. A sideways glance at the Norwegian Oil Fund gives us a depressingly stark view of just how much of Scotland’s wealth has been squandered and continues to be squandered. So too the benefits to the UK coffers from the wider tax revenue collected in Scotland and the debt the Treasury so generously and arbitrarily allocates to our name, but I can’t help feeling there is something more than money in play here, and it’s not about us.

I believe that the Tory politicians most fear that Scotland could be the starting crack in an avalanche of demands for self-determination across the UK which demolishes the Westminster power base they enjoy for all time.

There has been some speculation that Northern Ireland, on seeing Scotland depart, might look towards Irish reunification. In Wales it seems that interest in self-determination is growing, but I think it is the demands from the English regions that a Westminster Tory government fears the most.

Why was devolution not delivered for England (ignoring Johnson’s claims that it has been)? England has not been well served by Whitehall of late and its lack of devolved governance was certainly not because the other three nations prevented it. (A federal system which equated the status of Scotland, Wales and NI with a region of England would never have been acceptable, but devolution for England was entirely different.)

While the Tories have flirted with greater autonomy for parts of England for a while, under May (like so many other things) it has stalled. But with Scotland’s departure, I believe there will be a vociferous and unstoppable demand from the English regions to take significant control, and greater regional control can only result in one thing.

It will inevitably further reduce the power of Westminster and subsequent Tory governments over an already diminished UK. And, as we all know, along with money, power is the only other thing that Tories hold dear.

Iona Easton

RUTH Davidson and the Tory 13 at Westminster are alleged to be “encouraging” the pretender to No 10 to “promote the Union”, which surely means some essential improvement, no matter how inconsequential, can be expected. Can it be that Scotland's ambitions and the reasons for them are now grasped by Westminster? Also to be grasped is the fact that the 2014 pro-Union campaign was in its promises, assurances, friendly gesturing etc, basically dishonest as later proved beyond doubt.

Irrespective of Ruth Davidson’s intervention, probably dismissed by her party, Scotland can in fact rely upon no consideration of its ambition which is to achieve self-government, pure and simple. It will not be denied that after 312 years of an unsatisfactory arrangement with Westminster, acceptable only to and concocted by the latter. This will be achieved only by determined, honest, well-intentioned negotiation between two friendly nations not plagued by impossible time constraints. The antics of the Tory party since 2016 in Europe will not be allowed by Scotland’s government to jeopardise such a negotiation. Bring it on!

J Hamilton