Letters: May has played a blinder in calling Sturgeon's bluff

But it is also a political masterstroke, isolating Nicola Sturgeon not only from her Welsh “partners”, but increasingly from wiser heads in her own party – and the voters. Theresa May has called Nicola Sturgeon’s “material change in circumstances” bluff. They both read the polls. They both know the SNP would lose a second independence referendum. Mrs May has also placed a big, winnable bet on there being a more co-operative and competent administration after 2021, and side-bet on the SNP not even being the official opposition.

Holyrood should now focus on the “day job” until and hopefully the post-2021 parliament will take a pragmatic view of the cost, efficiency and impact of the powers on offer and cherry-pick the ones which work best for Scotland and the UK.

Allan Sutherland,

1 Willow Row, Stonehaven.

SO while the Welsh Government is poised to accept the latest Brexit compromise from Westminster, the SNP administration in Scotland is not. Why?

Easy. The Welsh Government is headed by Labour and is not attempting to use Brexit to break up the UK. If settlement is reached over powers being transferred from Brussels via Westminster to Holyrood, then Nicola Sturgeon loses one of her cherished second independence referendum triggers. Let’s not forget that, for the nationalist leader, independence transcends everything. A successful outcome for the UK from Brexit is not on her agenda.

Martin Redfern,

Woodcroft Road, Edinburgh.

ISOLATED and divorced from reality and now everyone else in every corner of the UK on Brexit and much else, Nicola Sturgeon and her party continue to plough their lone political furrow. Her predicament is self-inflicted in that she continues to put party before country as she presumably attempts to placate the SNP’s zealot wing.

Even at this late stage the SNP should reconsider its dream of breaking up and dividing the UK and instead work toward making the lives of all the people of this country better.

Alexander McKay,

8/7 New Cut Rigg, Edinburgh.

NICOLA Sturgeon and Michael Russell should be applauded for standing firm against Westminster’s attempt to dismantle existing devolution powers and it is very disappointing that a supine Labour Government in Wales has accepted a London Tory power grab. If Scottish opposition MSPs don’t support the protection of our Parliament then why should they really be MSPs?

The powers Westminster wants to control and veto for at least the next seven years include GM crops, fracking and nuclear waste disposal, over which the Scottish Parliament will have no meaningful vote.

We are now expected to trust a UK Government that refused to accept even one amendment out of 100 when the EU Withdrawal Bill was rushed through the House of Commons to take the Scottish Government’s views into account when it can pass legislation and make trade agreements directly affecting Scotland’s fishing industry, our farmers, the environment or our public sector procurement rules, or the safe use of chemicals, or food safety plus many other areas for the next seven years without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

As Mr Russell said in Parliament, “it would be an outrage if the UK Government decided to use what the people of Scotland did not vote for – Brexit – to undermine what we did vote for: devolution”.

Fraser Grant,

61 Warrender Park Road, Edinburgh.

THE present condition of Scotland is attributable to the 311-year of domination by Westminster, characterised by at best indifference to its changing and unwelcome circumstances, or at worst, in particular since 1945 and the upsurge of desire for independence, outright hostility to things Scottish, especially to aspirations of improvement.

The exposure of the UK Government’s hypocrisy regarding certain matters is long overdue. The Scotland Act determined that repatriation of many responsibilities from Brussels in the event, for example, of a withdrawal from the EU by the UK, specifically those not reserved to Westminster, would automatically be in turn repatriated to the devolved governments and assemblies. It is glaringly obvious that when that accord was achieved the possibility of its becoming effective was not anticipated. Like the result of David Cameron’s EU referendum, or Theresa May’s loss of her majority in 2017, such “catastrophes” to the Conservative were not considered possible. The chickens have now come home to roost and the dishonesty of Westminster in the guise of a Conservative government, its majority due to the purchase of support from the diminutive DUP, is plain to see. What is wanted by Scotland is simply the observance of the terms of the Scotland Act which had the support of those same parties who now regret that position and are attempting to avoid its consequences. The Welsh should be ashamed to have capitulated, but their assembly is after all dominated by a party which when it is suitable will ally itself to the Conservatives.

John Hamilton,

1 Jackson Place, Bearsden.

I WOULD suggest to Jill Stephenson (Letters, April 25) that there are many countries in the world where people enjoy free speech and can criticise governments and institutions, but that most of these countries are not permanently embroiled in foreign wars, or have behaved disgracefully towards thousands of people, decades after inviting them to their shores to help rebuild the country.

At last week’s Commonwealth Conference Theresa May stated that “no other organisation has our geographical and cultural diversity, while giving all nations an equal role, an equal voice and an equal standing”. Scotland is apparently only considered to be a Commonwealth country when it comes to sport; where was the equal role, equal voice and equal standing for Scotland at the conference?

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road, Stirling.