IN light of the revelations concerning the legality of Boris Johnson proroguing parliament, doesn’t this present an irrefutable case for another independence referendum?

Only a fool would argue that Boris Johnson has not been exposed as a serial liar. This is the same man who told us – during the EU debate – that if Britain left the EU there would be an extra £350 million to spend on the NHS. Like most of the promises of Johnson and his Tory lackeys, this seems to have been based on wishful thinking if it was not a deliberate falsehood.

And why don’t any of the Three Stooges (David Cameron, Ed Milliband, Nick Clegg) speak out over this issue? Remember, they were the ones who gave the Scottish people a cast-iron guarantee that we would remain in the EU if we voted to reject independence. Did this promise apply only to those particular individuals, or was it not a firm commitment on behalf of their political parties?

Surely it would not be racist to suggest that all three Englishmen (like Mr Johnson) are opportunists more interested in their own short-term careers than in the best interests of Scotland?

Stephen McCarthy

THE definitive decision by the Inner House that the current prorogation of parliament is unlawful is quite clear, and under Scots Law the prorogation is unlawful pending a decision by the UK Supreme Court. The creation of the Supreme Court was in blatant defiance of the Treaty of Union but was accepted by Scots lawyers because it was in accord with European law. If the Supreme Court overturns the decision of the Inner House there arises an exceedingly novel and difficult issue among European, English and Scots laws for it falls within those conflicting jurisdictions.

Scotland’s highest court has found that the Queen was fraudulently advised by her Privy Councillors. I am no monarchist but I have sworn two oaths of loyalty to our Queen, whom I hold in high regard. It is intolerable that she should be dragged into the perfidy of the current right-wing attempt to drag our four nations into an undemocratic pit.

I fail to understand why parliamentarians do not immediately resume their seats given that Scotland’s supreme court has ruled that the prorogation was null and void. That would accord with the Treaty upon which this now fragile union is based. The Yellowhammer papers reveal that there is much that the current UK Government wished to conceal. Scotland’s Highest Court clearly is of the view that the true motivation of prorogation was precisely that concealment. We are living in dangerous times: the propaganda red-tops so eloquently described by Speaker Bercow the other night and the potential defiance of the rule of law by this Prime Minister at a time of national crisis and division bring us perilously close to serious problems.

Scotland’s solution is simple and obvious, but I fear for my kin and friends in England and Wales. Northern Ireland, like us, has her own way to escape. When people in Downing Street challenge the impartiality of our most senior judges the threat to the decency of our society is all too clear.

K M Campbell

EVERY day, the news is filled with bizarre goings-on surrounding Brexit, from the illegal suspension of Westminster to Johnson’s rejection of a Northern Irish-only backstop and his intention to create a “buccaneer” low-tax, low-regulation state. It’s hard to believe there are many people left who still want to trust chaotic Westminster with our future.

But the Unionist scare is always that independence would be worse: there are too many matters to solve all at once and there is too much uncertainty about Scotland’s immediate financial position. And if Brexit is bad, they say, why compound it with the myriad issues involved in setting up a new state? Scots are naturally cautious and the idea that even a No Deal will create mass support for an independent country is wishful thinking.

Not every Remainer Scot will vote Yes either, so a clear majority cannot be guaranteed.

This week, Mike Russell stated that there is no need to change the indyref question from last time. I think this would be a fatal mistake. The phrase “independent country” implies the instant creation of a new state and having to answer endless questions about what that state should look like. In 2014, Scotland’s Future was a vast SNP manifesto which nevertheless failed to answer basic questions about EU membership and currency.

This time, we need to focus on the narrower but key step of empowering the Scottish Parliament to take all decisions for Scotland, dump Westminster’s reserved matters and presumably dissolve the Union of Parliaments. We must re-assert our country’s right to determine its own future. Otherwise, we become a region of greater England, meekly following its disconnected, hard-right, xenophobic path.

Initially, a Yes vote might lead to a confederation of two separate parliaments and legal systems within the UK. That’s heady enough, but then we must address the bigger question of whether Scotland should re-join the EU or EFTA or follow Brexit, given the border and trade issues that may arise. The EU or EFTA may be able to accommodate sub-state membership and cross-border arrangements, but it is not guaranteed. It’s also possible that a pro-London Scottish Government might wish to stay closely aligned with rUK, but that would be our decision, not Boris Johnson’s.

So instead of trying to paint an ideal future for Scotland, let’s concentrate on why we need to regain full self-government now. Once we have taken back political control, we can address all the other questions as they arise.

Robert Fraser