IT WAS interesting to reflect on the amount of “huffing and puffing” expressed by your correspondent when reporting the so-called “power grab” by Westminster once powers are returned from the EU to Westminster – the very returning powers which were grabbed by the EU in the first place with little or no protest from the SNP.

Worst of all, these powers would be handed back to Brussels on a plate if Scotland ever became independent and was allowed to rejoin the EU which, after all, is their policy. Rather than attempting to derail negotiations between the UK Government and themselves the SNP should realise the preservation of the UK internal market is a priority with Scottish businesses as it is where we sell around 65 per cent of our goods and services (compared to only 17 per cent of our trade with the EU) and vital for UK-wide post-Brexit global trade deals.

Furthermore, the level of trade within the UK internal market should not be a surprise to the SNP as we are joined at the hip geographically to England which allows goods to pass freely, where we share the same language, currency, business corporation tax and have a market of 60 million on our doorstep and so on.

It is, therefore, nonsense to accuse the UK of a “power grab” when it is vital for Westminster to retain the level playing field within the UK, especially when they have said the vast majority of powers will go directly to the Scottish Government, and those small numbers on hold will be held temporarily until they develop a UK-wide framework.

The real reason the SNP are playing hard to get is that any recognition of the benefits of the UK internal market would leave their economic and Brexit arguments for independence in tatters. So we should not be surprised if the so-called grievances continue unabated while the vast majority of Scottish businesses shake their heads in disbelief at the level of this anti-business nonsense espoused by the SNP and nationalist supporters.

Ian Lakin

Milltimber, Aberdeen

AS the EU Withdrawal Bill stumbles through Westminster, Mike Russell, the Scottish Brexit Minister, should be congratulated for his patience and dedication.

The SNP-led Scottish Government will not be bullied into accepting the Tory “power grab”, transferring devolved matters from Brussels to Westminster – a position also taken by the Labour-led Government in Wales.

These concerns are addressed by the Scottish Parliament’s large majority vote backing the Continuity Bill or Holyrood’s Brexit Bill to protect devolution – only the Tories voted against the interests of Scotland. Furthermore, in Westminster, amendments to the Withdrawal Bill introduced by opposition parties have been systematically voted down by the Conservative Government.

In line with devolution agreements, EU devolved powers should be transferred directly to the devolved administrations. In fact, Westminster should be increasing powers, not threatening to withdraw them and certainly not threatening to suspend the Scottish Parliament if it doesn’t toe the line.

Holyrood is definitely under threat from a Tory Government Scotland did not vote for, held to ransom by extremists, and by a referendum result Scotland voted against.

If we are to be bound by the fateful decisions of a weak Tory Government set on a hard Brexit and unrepresentative of the political and cultural views of Scotland and detrimental to its economy, then this broken United Kingdom must end. This will result in Scotland becoming a fully independent country once again and free to choose to become a full member of the EU or, like Norway, an associate member.

Grant Frazer

Newtonmore

WHILE Theresa May's actions against Russia will have the commendable result of reducing our expenditure on profligate diplomatic missions in the light of the expected tit-for-tat response to her expulsion of Russian diplomats, I fear that she really has underplayed her hand.

Whereas immediate nationalisation without compensation of all Russian-owned property in the UK might lead to a temporary downwards blip in the London property market, selling these assets off by auction could largely finance the costs of Brexit and would allow UK citizens to pick them up at a substantial discount and prices would soon rise again even without further Government subsidy of the rental market by increased housing benefit.

John Eoin Douglas

Edinburgh

YOUR page two headline says “Brown puts army service at forefront of SNP deputy race”. The Royal Marines are not, most definitely not, a unit in the Army.

Hope they don’t launch a commando raid on 200 Renfield Street in retaliation!

Doug Maughan

Dunblane

I REALLY despair at the ignorance and hypocrisy of the anti-fox-hunting lobby epitomised by Sandra Busell (Fox-hunting saga still rumbles on, Letters, March 11).

Firstly, without control, foxes have increased in numbers and we are all aware of the ubiquitous presence of the urban fox. Surely Ms Busell is not suggesting that self-control doesn't lead to these scavengers who feed on our waste and domestic cats though animal rights activists would rather we did not know this fact.

Once the fact is accepted that fox control is essential we then need to understand that flushing with dogs is the only effective way of forcing foxes to break cover. Anyone who has tried to control foxes without dogs knows how virtually impossible the task is without large numbers of guns and dogs. Fox hunting has developed over the centuries because it is the most effective method of control.

But the hypocrisy of claiming animal welfare as a motive is an insult to our intelligence. Various animal and bird charities practise vermin control on their properties but that is deemed acceptable. Also, these guardians of animals shout to ban fox-hunting yet have no concern for the animals and birds which are predated upon by foxes. If foxes are so precious why not protect rabbits or indeed rats?

If Ms Busell and her ilk were honest with themselves and us they would admit that their motivation is a hatred of people who hunt or shoot as some form of outdated class warfare.

David Stubley

Prestwick

I WAS disappointed to see such a distasteful picture on the front page of a supposedly quality newspaper (May's two fingers to Scotland, March 11). I do not think you need stoop to the level of the gutter press to make your point.

In your editorial you clearly state that "the wider respect is the issue". Is this what you deem to be respect to your readers, both those who voted Remain and those who voted Leave?

A poor show Sunday Herald.

Isobel Hunter

Lenzie

SARAH Beattie-Smith, the climate and energy policy officer at WWF Scotland, is claiming that the Scottish Government is not doing enough on Scotland's climate-change targets and wants to eliminate our contribution to climate change by 2050.

Scotland has a miniscule 0.13 per cent of global emissions and America, Russia, Turkey, Columbia, Iran and Iraq have not signed up to the Paris accord.

WWF Scotland should ask the pertinent questions: "How much extra will this cost taxpayers?" and "Where will the electricity come from for electric vehicles?".

Ms Beattie-Smith does not mention the pollution from wood-burning stoves which emit toxic particles which are comparable to those from traffic sources and account for up to 31 per cent of toxic particles in the air.

Perhaps her next press release?

Clark Cross

Linlithgow

ASSUMING, as I do, that intelligence agents are of above average intelligence, I cannot get to grips with the idea that Russian secret services would try to bump off the former spy Sergei Skripal with a poisoning agent knowing it would be like leaving a calling card, implicating them directly, when they could have done it in numerously more efficient ways. It simply does not wash.

It is even more implausible considering Russia is probably the only country that could not benefit from the attack. I hope, therefore, that the Scottish Government does not fall into the trap and embrace the London Government’s Russophobic hysteria, blaming Russia without evidence when just about any country could have made the poison agent – especially Britain where nerve gases originated.

Without establishing who committed the crime or determining where the agent came from, Theresa May and her accomplices, with their seemingly pathological hatred of Russia, laid down ultimatums which Russia quite rightly refused to accept. Sending a sample of the agent to Russia to let them inspect it for themselves could do absolutely no harm whatsoever. Why was the request refused?

Could this be but another distraction to build up support in the propaganda battle against Russia for supporting president Assad and the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party in Syria? It seems more likely to me that British agents were behind the attack in an attempted publicity murder of Putin.

William Burns

Edinburgh

WHEN questioned about the then Pope’s influence on affairs during the Second World War, Stalin reportedly asked: "How many divisions does he have?’’

I was reminded of this when Jeremy Corbyn suggested that the answer to the crisis with Russia over the Salisbury poisonings was "dialogue". How I wish he was right.

However, the same pacifist approach he advocates, if it had been used on Adolf Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot, or the dozens of other nasty men with immense destructive power that have sprung up at regular intervals throughout human history, would have been met with derisive scorn – once they had stopped laughing, that is.

Alexander McKay

Edinburgh