IF Scotland’s people are sovereign, how can Scotland’s proportionately-elected democratic parliament be overruled by what is in effect England’s parliament?

This conundrum confounds the aspirations of all who support self-determination because most of us do not wish to condone the route of armed struggle which proved necessary for Ireland to break free from the chains of London rule.

The Court of Session ruling that Alister Jack’s Section 35 order was legal in spite of dubious arguments that “it would have an adverse impact on the operation of GB-wide equalities legislation” simply confirms Scotland’s current debilitating confinement.

READ MORE: Legal expert: Gender reform block has huge implications for devolution

Andy Anderson (Letters, Dec 9) makes good arguments for exploiting our “sovereign authority” and with the UK Government, in spite of Brexit, denying a second constitutional referendum (even after ten years have elapsed and seven years has been endorsed as an acceptable frequency for constitutional referenda in Northern Ireland) and now overruling the will of the Scottish Parliament, we are increasingly on more solid ground to argue the case for independence in international courts.

This case will undoubtedly be improved with the backing of wide support expressed through a constitutional convention (or “convention of estates” as suggested by Andy) along with sustained polling well above the 50% (hopefully reflected in results of the next General Election).

In the meantime it seems rational and logical that the SNP and the Scottish Government, on behalf of all of us, be encouraged to become more assertive in frustrating the intentions of those who would

not only deny democracy but who seem prepared to drive the people of Scotland down the same tragically fraught path as the people of Ireland were driven down more than a century ago.

Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian

THANK you once more, Andy Anderson, for your reply (Letters, Dec 9) to my previous letter.

I do understand your argument about sovereignty being essential for the application of laws, especially with your example where laws passed in Westminster are not applicable in France. Digressing slightly, with this week’s Section 35 court decision, what does it say about our sovereignty if a law passed by the Scottish Parliament is deemed inapplicable for Scotland?

I also follow your argument that laws require the support of the affected community. I am aware of your own involvement in defying the attempted implementation of toll charges to cross the Skye Bridge. Your bravery and determination to face the consequences of refusing to pay penalties with others led to the defeat of its implementation. On behalf of so many, I express my gratitude to you.

READ MORE: Andrew Tickell: Legal elasticity of devolution may mean further court referrals

Anyway, enough of the smoochy stuff, you have not answered the questions I asked you.

The SNP’s proposed route is to regard winning a majority of Scottish Westminster seats, even if they lose some, as authority to negotiate independence. Alba propose having a referendum to demonstrate a mandate for a referendum. Good luck to both parties. Why are neither of our independence parties adopting your argument? Are they lacking your proven bottle or is there another reason for them not following your advice?

You talk about sovereignty being exercised by a convention of estates. Why is the Scottish Government with its current majority not going down the routes you advocate?

Finally, as I previously stated, clearly demonstrating a people’s majority for independence is essential to give authority to counter anyone showing the same belligerence you did in defying a law. An assembly of those in power in 1707 got us into this Union without reference to the populace. How would you propose to demonstrate the sovereign will of the people for independence ?

Campbell Anderson

YOU report the Court of Session ruling that the UK Government CAN block the Scottish gender reform bill (Dec 9).

Shouldn’t we remember this case is founded on the influence of a vocal tiny minority who were allowed to sneak this under the electorate’s radar by lobbying MSPs, who have acted without full public support, a resulting in widespread antipathy to the bill?

READ MORE: UK Government CAN block Scottish gender reform bill

The specifics were not included in any manifesto so the public didn’t vote for it. In a democracy, shouldn’t important out-of-manifesto issues either be deferred until the next manifesto or be placed before the electorate in a plebiscite when, if they agree with it, and then Westminster imposes a Section 35 order, that’s the time to take the UK Government to the courts?

The Scottish Government is pursuing a proposed law for which there is no demonstrable public clamour and clear antipathy.

How does this effective Scottish Government “diktat” ever comply with even the most basic principles of democracy?

Ordinarily it would be right to pursue the Section 35 case, but in the absence of full public support this is completely the wrong issue to pursue it with.

Jim Taylor

YOU’D think that Ms Truss would be keeping out of sight after the embarrassment of being kicked out of the Prime Minister role after only 40 days in which she trashed the UK economy and inflicted serious harm to people on low incomes. But no! “Woke” people (those who believe in justice and no discrimination for all) are now the. She says they should be banned from peaceful demonstrations because they are a challenge to economic growth.

The reality is that people like Truss are afraid of the truth and believe that lies and bullshit should rule the world.

Mike Underwood