THE Internal Market Bill has rightly been the subject of much condemnation, but what is our Scottish Government actually going to do?

Forfeiture has a long history as a penalty for those who act against the interests of the state. Rather than impotently complaining in the face of Johnson’s 80-seat majority at Westminster, why does the Scottish Government not introduce legislation to make it clear that anybody seeking to enrich themselves through the Tory power grab is making a very risky investment?

One basic principle could be that if any actions are taken contrary to the devolution settlement, the Scottish Parliament may resolve that any assets involved shall be (re)nationalised without compensation while all liabilities and costs for reinstatement will remain with those who owned the asset. All related contracts shall be void without compensation – no PFI-style bills for future taxpayers. Severe penalties could be applied for supplying goods that do not meet Scottish legal standards – a £10 fine for every pack of chlorinated chicken offered for sale in Scotland.

READ MORE: Tories face court on claims Russia interfered in EU and independence ballots

There could a presumption against any developments attempted using the power grab bill, by, for example, refusal of planning permission.

OK, it needs lawyers to fine-tune the text and there may well be legal challenges, but putting this into law within the next two months will send a robust message that there are no profits to be made by acting against the democratic will of the Scottish people.

Mike Baldry
Haddington

CAN I take this opportunity to thank Tim Clancy (Letters, October 27) for his incredibly important assertion that we must not allow Westminster to dictate, in any way, how we treat the result of the May election?

This is OUR Scottish Parliamentary election and if we are to be able to proceed with a Plan B, should the SNP Plan A fail (after the inevitable refusal of a Section 30 order), then every pro-independence vote must count.

READ MORE: Why are we letting the Unionists dictate to us what constitutes a mandate?

It is looking increasingly likely that there will be around six pro-independence parties standing in the election, and should every one of their manifestos declare an intention to dissolve the 1707 Treaty of Union in the case of a pro-independence majority then every vote must count.

To even consider for one second letting the Unionists dictate terms at this stage would be disastrous – like after the “once in a generation” nonsense, they would move to trap us.

I know the SNP will be shouting loud their mantra “both votes SNP”, and that is their prerogative, but I think this election will definitely be more about our independence this time than SNP party politics.

We need steady nerves and clear heads – this is our last chance for at least four years.

Alison Brown
Pitlochry

TIM Clancy’s letter concerning whether Johnson’s government would allow a mandate for independence based on our next national election is neither here nor there. This is a Scottish election for a new Scottish Government and nothing to do with Westminster, whatever the manifestos of the different parties involved are.

It does not matter if the mandate is won by an independence majority or an SNP majority. However, so far as Scotland is concerned an SNP majority is preferable in order to continue where it left off, not just governing the nation as at present, but with the inclusion of the independence mandate.

It is a bit rich for Johnson to try and stop an indyref2 in any which way he can, given his own 2019 election figures. With a turnout of a reasonable 67.3% he won only 43.7% of that vote. Ironically, the collective opposition vote was 52.3%, which managed to give him a majority of 80. A huge majority from less than half of the voting population.

If he thinks that is a mandate from his now dis-united kingdom, then he has no right to interfere with how Scotland organises its national election.

Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife

I SYMPATHISE with people who are frustrated and angry about the proliferation of “independence-supporting” parties. As one reader suggested, beware Westminster’s oft-practised tactic of divide and rule. My own instinct for May 2021 is vote SNP first and foremost, and where a successful vote for the SNP on the list looks dubious, support the well-established Greens. Constituency polling would help us to make a decision.

Richard Walthew
Duns

EVEN our allies have swallowed the fiction of a Scottish deficit. Fine Gael European affairs spokesman Neale Richmond refers to “Scotland’s current budget deficit” (Richmond urges Holyrood to make EU preparations, October 28).

He’s undoubtedly referring to the 8.6% deficit reported in GERS, a fictional number concocted by Westminster. GERS would have us believe that with just 8.2% of the UK population, Scotland is responsible for 54-60% of last year’s UK deficit. Absurd.

READ MORE: Scotland urged to open offices in all EU states ready for re-entry into bloc

By law, Scotland has to balance its budget so cannot have a deficit. As Business for Scotland has pointed out, over the last 40 years Scotland’s share of UK debt interest – a debt we did not create nor benefit from – totals £133.4 billion. Last year, Scotland was charged £4.5bn in UK debt interest. If Scotland had been an independent country, it would not have had to borrow a single penny over that period and its finances would be in surplus today.

With a population of 5.5 million, tremendous natural wealth, a well-developed economy and a highly educated people, Scotland would prosper. Now we just need to get on with the job of restoring our independence.

Leah Gunn Barrett
Edinburgh