ISN’T Keir Starmer and Gordon Brown taking themselves to Leeds to pronounce on their plan they intend to dictate to and inflict on we Scots the ultimate political calumny to this Scotland they are intent on denying its democratic right to self-determination within this so-called “voluntary partnership” that is the UK union?

They claim intent to abolish the House of Lords (for the umpteenth time in their history), promulgate other measures from within the 150 pages of unbridled tosh in their highly partial report and, without a by-your-leave, inform Scots we don’t really want independence and then claim they know better and what we do really want is just a better deal within the Union.

READ MORE: Gordon Brown's wishy washy reform plans are easy to ditch

They then claim this will be satisfied by casting off more morsels from the “bountiful” Westminster table with a demeaning pat on our national heads to pacify the rebellious Scots.

Should we be surprised by now that our “colonial master” (as it treats us, although the Supreme Court does recognise us as a nation – albeit subjugated and without a clear democratic “legal” route to express its sovereignty) would act in such an arrogant manner, from a party that has lost the plot in Scotland, has successfully cast off the bulk of its electorate here and lost all relevance to represent the views and interests of working people or Scotland the country?

Here’s the challenge for this Labour Tweedle Dee and Tweedle very Dum, and their Scottish counterparts. If these so-called reform-within-the-UK plans that “Scotland really wants” are presented in Labour’s election manifesto, and Scotland rejects them wholesale – which we can expect – then will Labour in Scotland recognise that their position is a busted flush, join with politically and economically ambitious Scots to win release from the UK hegemony and actively campaign for Scotland’s freedom?

And will Gordon Brown then shuffle off to languish in the obscurity he assuredly deserves?

Jim Taylor
Edinburgh

I CAN certainly contain my excitement at Labour’s proposed “fundamental change” to the UK constitution. As Monday’s Wee Ginger Dug blog remarked, we heard from Brown in 2014 how his proposal would give us “quicker, more certain” change than independence, and look where we are now.

I am old enough to remember the Kilbrandon report on local government in Scotland, that left us with the unloved system of regional and district councils. The report made clear that its terms of reference explicitly ruled out one all-Scotland authority, but it felt more powers and responsibilities should be devolved, and that by creating larger local authorities these powers could be devolved to them. That was the whole point of the regional councils.

READ MORE: Wee Ginger Dug: Yet another underwhelming intervention from Brown

Of course, once the Westminster establishment got hold of the proposals, one by one the extra powers were pared away, and we were left with large, remote councils with no more power than the county councils they replaced. Westminster will never willingly let go of control.

Much the same happened with the Smith Commission after the 2014 referendum. Let’s not forget that the party that blocked the most new responsibilities for the Scottish Parliament was the Labour party. I foresee much the same happening again, with the loudly trumpeted proposals being watered down; indeed it seems to have started even before the report was published.

In any case, whatever eventually gets legislated, under the UK “constitution” (ie whatever the government of the day says), there is no way to entrench the changes. The next Tory government can undo any or all of them at the snap of a finger.

Robert Moffat
Penicuik

KEIR Starmer stated on Monday that a vote delivering a Labour majority at the next General Election will provide a mandate for the far-reaching constitutional change in Gordon Brown’s proposals. Would that result constitute a de facto referendum? Would it need a majority of votes or just a majority of MPs?

Surely a change of this magnitude would provide a perfect opportunity to develop a proper, written constitution to ensure the next government can’t chuck it all in the bucket if they don’t like it.

READ MORE: Why Labour, Brown and Starmer can’t break with the ancien regime

Oh wait, that would require popular assent to the constitution, and how would that work? What if one or more of the “nations and regions” don’t approve of what’s to be imposed on them?

Cameron Crawford
Rothesay

HERE we go again! Gordon Brown has recommended abolition of the House of Lords, and Stuttering Starmer takes it on to fool the Scottish voters (yet again). Just as Tony Blair promised in 1996 and Labour promised in 1898! Result: nothing happens. Movement of civil servants from London, just as was mooted in the 1960s and every decade since, and the civil servants do not intend to move. Result, nothing happens. Scotland to get control of Jobcentres (don’t make me laugh) was another Labour “promise” of 2014. And so the list goes on, and on, and on, and on ad nauseam.

The only way ahead is for Scotland to be free of Westminster. Independistas must pull together.

Paul Gillon
Leven

IS the STUC looking for ways to scupper a Yes referendum by publishing a Robin Hood tax paper? If the Scottish Government is seen even reading this nonsense they are about to lose 50% of their votes. I guarantee that a huge number of people will leave the country before 2026 if this is Scotland’s future.

The STUC should concentrate on how to improve productivity in the economy, which is currently well below the average in the developed world.

Mike Underwood
Linlithgow