IN his judgment yesterday, Lord Doherty expressed the view that proroguing is a matter for parliament rather than the judiciary. However, his view lacks the detail that over much of my own adult life an increasingly over-mighty political elite – let’s call it the executive or the cabinet – has gradually wrested power from the remainder of the House of Commons, substantially disengaging itself. Symptomatic of this are accusations of MPs being little more than “lobby fodder”, voting as their party leadership tells them.

This disengagement of the executive from the House of Commons was the issue when Gina Miller took Theresa May’s government to the Supreme Court. Then it was determined that the executive could not by itself take the UK out of the EU, that approval by the House of Commons was necessary.

I find it a little difficult to put these two decisions together. On the one hand the executive must seek approval for leaving the EU, but not when the House may sit. The latter may seem trivial, but if the House may not sit, how could it stop the UK leaving the EU?

However, there is an even more worrying element to Miller’s case. The Supreme Court made clear that the House of Commons is sovereign, and with Doherty’s decision in mind, if there is no protection from the courts the boundlessness of sovereignty becomes clear. If we cannot rely on the courts to place limits on what a House of Commons executive may do, then what protections do we have? While I understand and appreciate the unwillingness of the judiciary to involve themselves in what they perceive to be matters for politicians, particularly when there is a government in power as ruthless as Johnson’s, what are we to do?

Kevin McKenna’s article (The elite revolution has begun, September 4) is prescient, in particular that Nicola Sturgeon “must also know they [Johnson’s government] would stop at nothing to prevent independence even if we vote for it. Scotland is facing a serious threat to its way of life here which will make all the alarams and excursions of the first referendum look like a church fete.”

We are moving into unknown territory and the issues, as McKenna also points out, should be debated at the forthcoming SNP Conference (assuming a General Election doesn’t get in the way). One piece of wisdom which should inform any such debate is Craig Murray’s view of almost a year ago, that “one day, all supporters of independence are going to be forced to get their heads round the fact that London is going for the Madrid solution, and we are not going to achieve independence without using peaceful, non-violent routes which are nevertheless going to be deemed illegal by the establishment”.

The notion of securing a Section 30 order is most attractive, but perhaps equally unlikely with the present Westminster administration. Perhaps as Charles Gray (I think) said some years ago, immediately after the 1992 election, “perhaps we need to live a little dangerously”.

Alasdair Galloway

IT was obvious from the moment the judge allowed UK Government documents that arrogantly were presented late to the court that the fight was already lost. A very worthy cause, but it’s time to let the English sort their own problems out – let us concentrate on independence now.

Lisa C

DOES that mean the refusal of a Section 30 for the SNP is a political matter and not legal? This is political territory and decision-making, which cannot be measured by legal standards, only by political judgements. Accountability for the advice is to parliament and, ultimately, the electorate, and not to the courts.

Billy Melrose