AND so it begins. I noticed that our esteemed Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently stated that he intends to “introduce measures to compensate for the grave inadequacies of the Scottish Government”. I wonder just what “measures” he is considering introducing and what “inadequacies” he is intending to compensate for?

This statement, coupled with the construction of the brand new, multi-storey UK Government hubs in Edinburgh and Glasgow to accommodate thousands of UK Government civil servants, should perhaps raise a few eyebrows? According to the UK Government, the hubs are “a key part of [its] commitment to delivering excellent public services for people in Scotland”. Aye right, of course they are!

READ MORE: SNP lambast Boris Johnson for attack on Scottish Government record

It’s no secret that the Tories in Westminster have never been fans of Scottish devolution and would jump at any chance to dissolve the Holyrood parliament. Brexit might just give them that chance. The predicted post-Brexit chaos could justify “extreme measures” being adopted “to protect the provision of essential goods and services to all parts of the UK”.

The Scottish Parliament is not enshrined in law and could easily be suspended or even dissolved at the whim of Westminster, with the hubs conveniently already in place to seamlessly take over the governance of Scotland. This of course would be presented to the Scottish public as a necessary short-term measure, with devolution to be restored as soon as economic conditions normalised. Is it paranoid or cynical to suspect that once our parliament is gone it will never be restored? The Tories, particularly the current administration, have shown themselves to be ruthless, callous and dishonest. They just can’t wait to have Scotland and the unruly and pestilential Scots firmly and permanently back under the Westminster thumb (or jackboot). Any excuse will do.

Time, I feel, is now of the essence. The cold reality is that it doesn’t matter what mandate the Holyrood government has and how many seats the SNP have in the Commons. Whichever colour of party sits on the government benches in Westminster, there will be no Section 30 order for us. Scotland is far too valuable to the UK economy. England just cannot afford to lose us. They need, among other things, our oil, our water, our food, our drink, our timber, our electricity and, of course, somewhere far from English cities to house their weapons of mass destruction. We simply can’t afford to wait until the next General Election and hope that a minority Labour government is elected which will then depend on conditional support from 50 or so SNP members.

There has to be an alternative way for Scotland to achieve independence without having to go cap-in-hand to Westminster and beg for a permission which will never be granted. Hopefully, behind the scenes, the Scottish Government is seriously and urgently planning some strategy that will take Scotland out of this dysfunctional, discredited and frankly embarrassing Union. Maybe it’s the “Plan B” that apparently is not to be debated at conference. Maybe it’s indyref2 without “permission”. Maybe it’s a statement of unilateral withdrawal from the 1707 Treaty of Union. Maybe it’s some “cunning plan” that the rest of us haven’t even thought of. Whatever it is, an alternative to Section 30 has to be found, and found soon, because the signs are that the very existence of the Scottish Parliament is in jeopardy.

Alex Henderson

WE should all very pleased that the UK Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the Scottish Court of Session in such a spectacular fashion. SNP MPs seem to be taking the initiative to challenge this government more than any other, and Nicola Sturgeon has been praised by Europe politicians for her voice of reason and moderation. It will have been revealed to many non-Scots that we have an importance and identity of which they were (or chose to be) unaware.

My first and continuing reaction is one that I do not see mentioned by anyone else. I have always had the uneasy feeling that no matter what we demonstrated and proved in our pursuit of independence, the Westminster government would find a way of negating it; I regret that I had less than full faith in the judiciary. I feel now that I have been mistaken. We were all greatly impressed by Lady Hale, and as long as people like her and the other judges of the Supreme Court and Scottish Court of Session are able and willing to confront and punish illegality, we have now been given the reassurance of that ultimate recourse. I believe that in itself that will sway many of our wavering supporters.

Victor Moncrieff

THE LibDems should realise that if they have ambitions to ever form a government, this is the time to put country above party.

Anyone who sincerely believes that the country needs to get rid of Boris Johnson and postpone or avoid Brexit couldn’t care less if the Downing Street cat became temporary prime minister.

Irrespective of their party allegiance, all these MPs have united in a common cause – so why waste time arguing among themselves? Why not put the name of every MP who agrees to support the move in a hat, and if the vote to oust Johnson succeeds then draw the name of the MP who will be temporary prime minister?

John Jamieson
South Queensferry

I CANNOT be the only one outraged by current events, but which one to write about. Well, today it’s this one – is it not disgusting that while an American “business woman” and friend of Boris Johnston is showered with thousands of taxpayers’ money, American and other nationalities who have created successful businesses in Scotland have been callously forced out of the country by a hostile Home Office.

How much longer is this apology for a human being, our lying PM, going to be allowed to trample over everything decent still left in the UK? His equally obnoxious predecessor Thatcher destroyed so many respected institutions which contributed to a civilised society and the Tories seem determined to get rid of the rest.

I just cannot understand why support for independence is not above 65%; how much more abuse are some Scots prepared to absorb?

Richard Walthew

IN response to Andrew M Fraser (Letters, September 28) I agree with his points, which would have been clear had my original letter not been heavily edited. In my original I pointed out that “Acts of Union” and “Act of Union” are confused with the Acts of Union (Wales 1536-1543) and Act of Union (Ireland 1800) and that what took place in 1707 was a negotiated Treaty of Union. Clearly different things. Yes, acts were passed in the parliaments to confirm the treaty articles, just like acts passed countless times before confirming other previous treaties. I hope this clarifies.

Linda Horsburgh