IAIN Macwhirter again pens an excellent article ("Get set for an all-or-nothing constitutional power struggle", The Herald, April 18). There has been scant coverage elsewhere of Theresa May invoking the Supreme Court to invalidate the Scottish and Welsh Continuity Bills, but that is to be expected.

It is now going to get very interesting. Westminster will probably try to use the Supreme Court (even before any ruling) as leverage to reach a negotiated position with Holyrood, but that is highly unlikely to succeed as long as the gulf between "consult" and "consent" remains. Mrs May’s Government has amply demonstrated through the Brexit negotiations just how much Holyrood would be “consulted”.

If the Supreme Court rules in favour of the Tories, there is no way the SNP will consent (nor indeed should the Scottish Government as a whole) to devolved powers being undermined and indefinitely controlled by Westminster and it obvious recourse is to announce the second independence referendum with Brexit and powers grab as the primary triggers.

If the Supreme Court rules in favour of the Continuity Bills and returning powers being transferred to Holyrood, that indeed paves a way for a federal solution, starting to look a lot like devo max. While that would undermine some of the case for independence, it would also be unacceptable – it would say unworkable – to the Westminster Government.

Ultimately it looks like all roads lead to a second independence referendum. While support for independence remains around 45 per cent, that has been sustained in the face of relentless mainstream media headwinds and close to zero Yes campaigning. Against the backdrop of austerity's failure, the Brexit shambles, poor economic performance, growth and pensions, and Tory contempt for Holyrood, it is easy to envision sufficient swing to Yes. The division within independence supporters over Brexit can be circumvented, as many have suggested, by committing to an early EU referendum post-independence.

It is highly unlikely that any Westminster Government will agree to another Section 30, but that will not and should not deter Nicola Sturgeon from going ahead. London will make it difficult – very difficult – but a Yes vote should allow us to dissolve the Treaty of Union and regain the independence lost in 1707.

Dr Ron Dickinson,

12 Kirklee Gate, Glasgow.

I TOTALLY agree with Iain Macwhirter's insightful column on the Supreme Court challenge by the UK on Wales and Scotland’s ability to legislate Continuity Bills, to prevent the removal of already devolved responsibilities from their respective legislatures to London. BBC Scotland tries to insist this is “temporary”, but the UK, by refusing a sunset clause, makes that doubtful.

I cannot, for the life on me, understand the politics. Sharing power structures in the UK should be a principle of Unionism, not its enemy. Quasi-federation makes more sense in the modern world than, often, unrepresentative governance from London.

But with Westminster insisting on its “sovereign” hegemony on all matters, this removes potent arguments for the Union used in 2014 (partnership, respect, equality, entrenched powers), if there is a second independence referendum.

It certainly simplifies things. Rule from London or independence – no more “devolved power” fudge.

GR Weir,

17 Mill Street, Ochiltree.

IAIN Mcwhirter fairly sets out the differing motivations and arguments of the various sides in the tussle between the UK and Scottish governments over dealing with returning EU powers. Yet while some would readily recognise the portrayal of a constitutional crisis in the making, is that based more on wishful thinking than reality?

The First Minister wants us to imagine there is a point of principle here that threatens the very foundations of devolution. Yet another perspective is that this is simply a temporary difference over "consultation" versus outright veto, on those powers where UK-wide frameworks are essential to enable sensible arrangements across the UK after Brexit.

With the SNP Government so clearly determined to make as much political capital for the cause of independence as possible out of the Brexit process, the UK Government can hardly be blamed for being cautious about handing the SNP a sequence of vetoes to use against them. Equally, if the SNP is determined to engineer a constitutional stand-off, there is perhaps not much anyone can do to stop them.

Keith Howell,

White Moss, West Linton, Peeblesshire.

IF Bill Brown (Letters, April 16) seriously believes that “in 1707 England also gave up her independence” (Letters, April 16), then, in his own words, helpfully, he really does “believe in magic beans”. Does he not know that the Scottish Parliament was then dissolved and that Scotland lost any meaningful influence in the Westminster Parliament, which to all intents and purposes was a continuation of the former English Parliament, a situation which continues to the present day?

In much the same way, Peter A Russell shoots himself in the foot on the same day when he blithely informs us that all of the pledges made in the Vow of 2014 have been delivered, including among them “the permanent status in statute of the Scottish Parliament”. In the very next sentence, beginning with a telling “However”, he goes on to talk about “the best way of achieving greater safeguarding of Holyrood”. Does Mr Russell not see the contradiction in these two statements? Or is it the case that, deep down, he does not really believe that the pledge of “the permanent status in statute of the Scottish Parliament” has been delivered and that, as an arch-Unionist, he does not really want to admit that it hasn’t, and needs “greater safeguarding”?

Ian Boyes,

5 Laurelhill Place, Stirling.

PETER A Russell appears to welcome the protection of the union of the UK and suggests that this is the situation which exists in the United States. I refer Mr Russell to the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.” This clearly states that just as a group has a right to form, so too does it have a right to disband, to subdivide itself, or withdraw from a larger unit.

Hardly the tablets of stone Mr Russell desires.

David Stubley,

22 Templeton Crescent, Prestwick.