ON Saturday morning on Radio Scotland a suggestion was made that I have previously come across, but which is still being ignored by our Holyrood politicians, though it could turn the power grab of the Internal Market Bill to our advantage.

It is obvious that the reason behind this bill is to give Westminster the total freedom to impose on Scotland any conditions that can weaken Holyrood powers or facilitate a trade deal with the US – and if possible, achieve both. We know from the TTIP talks between the US and EU that the removal or diminution of certain standards were the US “red lines” which caused the EU Parliament to reject the deal. If the US refused to budge for the 27 countries of the EU, they will certainly insist on these conditions for a weakened UK. So forget high food, animal welfare and environmental standards, as well as the strict definition of “Scotch” whisky and the safety of our NHS and pharmaceutical procurement.

READ MORE: European Movement in Scotland blasts Tories' 'reckless' Internal Market Bill

However, for the very short time before this iniquitous bill is passed at Westminster, Holyrood does have the legal competence to pass emergency legislation protecting the current standards in perpetuity, or at least until the people of Scotland demand a change. What are they holding back for?

If they had the courage and foresight to act thus, once the Westminster bill is finally passed Boris, his backroom manipulator and his cronies would be seen very clearly to be usurping Holyrood’s powers and undermining existing Scottish laws. They would be breaking another legal treaty, that of 1707, and proving clearly that they never had any intention of honouring the promises of 2014, that both Holyrood and Sewell would be enshrined in law in perpetuity.

It would surely wrong-foot the Tories and boost the cause of independence. Complaints and argument only prove the success of their plans. Come on, Holyrood, make this pre-emptive strike while there is time!

L McGregor

JOANNA Cherry hits the nail on the head when she asks “how to deal with a rogue state” and ‘is it reasonable to continue with a strategy designed for dealing with

a state that obeys the rule of law and respects democratic mandates, or is something a little more innovative required?” (Scotland needs a more innovative strategy in dealing with a rogue state, September 11).

READ MORE: Joanna Cherry: UK is a rogue state, Scotland needs a more innovative strategy

She also asks, “What will we do if court action fails or if we win but this rogue government refuses to respect the judgement of the court?”, then states, “For the time being at least, it has been made very clear to me that these decisions are above my pay grade, but they are decisions which will require to be taken nonetheless.”

I’m sure that all of us can identify with the frustration behind these questions, and it would be good to know what “innovations” are open to us and when the decisions will be taken by the appropriate pay grade.

Dennis White

I SEE the chancers behind the English regime are now cynically trying to sow internal division within Scotland by spreading propaganda about Shetland independence so they might keep their hands on the oily cash cow and the English regime on its life support mechanism.

Let us be clear. Orkney and Shetland entered the union with England as integral parts of Scotland, and Orkney and Shetland will exit the union with England as integral parts of Scotland.

READ MORE: FACT CHECK: Do Shetland Islands really want to break away from Scotland?

If the English regime wants to threaten the territorial integrity of our country, like they did Ireland and India, then let us respond in kind by reviving our claims to the former Scottish territories of Berwick, Cumbria, Northumberland and the Isle of Man.

Let us call for referendums allowing those territories the option of rejoining their Scottish homeland. And we’ll see how far Westminster likes playing funny buggers then.

Linda Horsburgh

WHILE Norrie Paton (Letters, September 11) is correct to say that Terence MacSwiney died on hunger strike in Brixton Prison, his predecessor Tomas Mac Curtain was assassinated by agents of the British state.

Ned Larking in his Long Letter on September 9 merely said: “In the early hours of March 20 1920, in Cork city, agents of the Crown entered, by force, the home of the Lord Mayor of Cork and shot him dead.” He didn’t distinguish which republican Lord Mayor of Cork was shot.

Edward Andrews

I HAVE checked out the facts of the Lord Mayor of Cork’s assassination in March 1920, but have done so too late. Ned Larkin was absolutely correct, and the murdered Mayor was replaced by Terence MacSwiney, who, as I stated died on hunger strike in October.

My apologies to Ned, and warning to myself to check the facts in future instead of taking things off the top of my head.

Norrie Paton