THE Scottish Parliament is letting us down. It may be a mutually convenient diversionary tactic for Theresa May and Nicola Sturgeon to battle over a second independence referendum. The real issue is that last year Scotland voted by a clear majority, and in every council area, to remain in the EU. That decision is constitutionally and legally binding on both parliaments and both governments.

An Article 50 notice may only be competently given upon a decision by a member state to leave the EU made "in accordance with its own constitutional requirements". The relevant constitutional requirements are in the Acts and Treaty of Union of 1707. They created "one and the same Parliament to be stiled the Parliament of Great Britain". They included a special protection for Scotland against being outgunned by its larger partner in the Union. The competence of the Parliament then created was limited by the stipulation "that no alteration be made in laws which concern private right except for the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland".

The Supreme Court confirmed in January that a valid Article 50 notice would irretrievably deprive UK citizens, including Scots, of "private rights" which they enjoy as EU citizens. Who decides what is for our evident utility? Hitherto, perhaps only the UK Parliament itself could do so. That has changed for two reasons. Firstly, "There shall be a Scottish Parliament", the opening words of the Scotland Act 1998, is not a rhetorical ornament. It was a game changer. It introduced separate parliamentary democracy in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament can decide what is for our evident utility within its devolved powers, which cover most areas of "private right". But it cannot violate our human rights. On the basis of Strasbourg jurisprudence, removal of citizenship rights would do that. So in relation to Brexit the Scottish Parliament can assert our rights, but it cannot be complicit in removing them.

Secondly, we now have constitutional decision-making by referendum. In relation to Scotland itself, we have had referendums in 1979, 1998 and 2014. By the time of the 2016 referendum, decision-making upon Scotland's constitutional future by referendum was well established. That has been reinforced, for example, by latest amendments to the Scotland Act. They provide that the Scottish Parliament and Government cannot be abolished "except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum".

So only the Scottish electorate can decide. We have decided. Do the pillars of human rights, democracy, constitutional government and the rule of law, all now under threat, continue to apply to Scotland? Will our Parliament now unite to defend them? Meanwhile, an invalid Article 50 notice will change nothing.

Adrian D Ward,

23 Arthurlie Drive, Uplawmoor, Glasgow.

MARIA Fyfe (Letters, March 21) appears not to understand the meaning of "adjourn" – that is, to break off and re-convene at a later date

The English Parliament of 1707 also did not grasp the meaning, as it continued to carry on as before, merely absorbing the Scottish members into the existing Parliament.

Ms Fyfe would in her time at Westminster have had many contacts with the Speaker.

According to all reports he is the 150th individual to hold this title, the first being in 1376.

How does this square with a new Parliament being formed in 1707?

Westminster is seen as the English Parliament continuing by most of the Westminster Establishment.

It is time for it to re-convene, minus the Scots MPs, and becomes a truly English Parliament again

Willie Douglas,

252 Nether Auldhouse Road, Glasgow.

I NOTE the irony of Scotland’s Brexit Minister Michael Russell complaining that the UK Government had forgotten to tell him the date on which Article 50 was to be triggered and the manner in which he found out (“Anger as May reveals Article 50 date without telling Scotland”, The Herald, March 21).

One wonders what he would do without the much (SNP) maligned BBC.

Gregor McKenzie,

19 Allendale, Stewartfield, East Kilbride.