THE definitive decision by the Inner House of the Court of Session that the current prorogation of Parliament is unlawful is quite clear: under Scots Law the prorogation is unlawful pending a decision by the UK Supreme Court. The creation of the Supreme Court was in blatant defiance of the Treaty of Union but was accepted by Scots lawyers because it was in accord with European Law. If the Supreme Court overturns the decision of the Inner House there arises an exceedingly novel and difficult issue among European, English and Scots Laws for it falls within those conflicting jurisdictions.

Scotland's highest court has found that the Queen was fraudulently advised by her Privy Councillors. I am no monarchist but I have sworn two oaths of loyalty to our Queen whom I hold in high regard. It is intolerable that she should be dragged into the perfidy of the current-right wing attempt to drag our four nations into the undemocratic pit they are leading us.

I fail to understand why Parliamentarians do not immediately resume their seats given that Scotland's Supreme Court has ruled that the prorogation was null and void. That would accord with the treaty upon which this now-fragile Union is based. The Yellowhammer Papers reveal that there is much that the current UK Government wished to conceal. Scotland's Highest Court clearly is of the view that the true motivation of prorogation was precisely that concealment. We are living in dangerous times: the propaganda redtops so eloquently described by Speaker Bercow the other night and the potential defiance of the rule of law by this Prime Minister at a time of national crisis and division bring us perilously close to serious problems. Scotland's solution is simple and obvious but I fear for my kin and friends in England and Wales. Northern Ireland, like us has her own way to escape. When people in Downing Street challenge the impartiality of our most senior judges the threat to the decency of our society is all too clear.

KM Campbell, Doune.

WHAT is democracy and what role should the judiciary play in it? The Parliament of the UK is already biased (by the Upper House) against representative democracy: now we have a minority Government proroguing Parliament to prevent oversight of its conduct by the majority. In England the courts have so far asserted this proroguing decision is not justiciable, being political. In Scotland the Court of Session has come down on the opposite side, though we must await their legal reasoning. Disgracefully, the integrity of the Scottish judiciary have been impugned by No 10 and their media outriders, because they don’t like the judgement.

The Supreme Court will rule on this important case and may well follow English precedent. Fair enough, but if that happens the question is; what legal remedy does the ordinary citizen have in the face of an over-mighty government executive? What is to prevent the proroguing of Parliament for five years or longer, and rule by fiat? The concept of the rule of law is only equitable if specific legal redress exists and cannot be recast or ignored by those in power. Time for a written constitution.

GR Weir, Ochiltree.

THE Court of Session has ruled that the proroguing of the Westminster Parliament is “unlawful”. Even so no statutory sanction or penalty is applicable to either government, Parliament or individuals therein. By ignoring this ruling of the court the Government thus merely lays itself open to award of interdict, damages or restitution etc to aggrieved third parties, if I understand correctly.

To what parties and to what effect? Is the court going to interdict the Government upon request and to impose monetary penalty upon the Government if it fails to comply; that is,. ultimately upon you and me including their Lordships? To whom is the court going to award damages against the Government if requested? To offended or damaged Members of the Parliament; once more ultimately at your and my including their Lordships' expense? Is the Prime Minister, as mere ringmaster of this circus, to be carted off to prison for non-compliance subsequent to direction from the court?

This situation is farcical and the court’s ruling, should it be simply ignored, null and void for all practical and logical intents and purposes.

The law is an ass for allowing itself to become embroiled in this pantomime.

Darrell Desbrow, Dalbeattie.

WHILE no one should want to see the Prime Minister actually physically dead in a ditch, many will agree that his political death is now overdue. Let us therefore hope that the Supreme Court deepens the political ditch which the Court of Session dug for him this week and that Boris Johnson then has the decency to jump into it.

And is it too much to hope that the ditch is dug deep enough to provide room as well for Jacob Rees-Mogg , who took the Prime Minister’s message to the Queen? It could be argued that many others should join them in meeting their political end in that ditch, but Messrs Johnson and Rees-Mogg must surely be the first in.

Alistair Easton, Edinburgh EH12.

BESIDES the Queen, there are figureheads in other bodies – for example Chancellors of universities and some national presidents are essentially also such - for example in the Republic of Ireland or Germany. Those few of the former whom I have known were never reluctant to give advice when asked.

When asked to authorise what might be controversial issues, such advice might perhaps be to consult more widely, or to bring in a wider body of opinion. It would not, surely, be any breach of the monarch's constitutional role to have advised the Prime Minister that a better-considered approach to prorogation might meet with approval, or that a meeting of the full Privy Council (rather than the bare quorum which attended Balmoral) be consulted before a decision were made?

Stefan Kay, Edinburgh EH4.

IAIN Macwhirter ("Democracy under threat from a system that no longer works", The Herald, September 11) explains convincingly that the Westminster Parliament has reached an impasse on Brexit. He is, however, far too sanguine when he states "We aren't under threat from fascism". All the key features that lead to totalitarianism are present in the Johnson Government: misleading propaganda (saying a no deal Brexit is the will of the people when the people voted to leave having been promised they could have their cake and eat it); persistent lying and deception (pretending to be approaching a deal with the EU when in fact they are just stalling); overriding democracy (proroguing Parliament for an unnecessarily long time to avoid democratic debate, suggesting they will disobey a law they dislike); and blatant disrespect for democratic institutions (the Leader of the House lounging on the benches like a nightmarish simulacrum of a Titian nude).

But most disturbingly of all violent mobs are already intimidating democratic protesters and attacking the police. Last Saturday supporters of the so-called Democratic Lads Football Alliance and other neo-fascists marauded through Westminster intimidating Remain protesters, insulting journalists and eventually they attacked the police. They were giving Nazi salutes and singing the praises of Boris Johnson; he has yet to condemn their actions. Now is no time for appeasing such people. Unless their actions are made widely known and they are subjected to the rule of law they will, like their predecessors such as the Sturmabteilung in Weimar Germany, gain in strength to the point where only the brave dare stand up against them and those they support. There were too few brave people in Germany. Can we really be sure we have enough here?

Peter Martin, Muir of Ord.

PERHAPS we are witnessing a rehearsal for the stooshie which would follow the SNP narrowly winning an independence referendum by 50per cent plus one or more of votes cast, but by a minority of the electorate.

Will that vote be broken down by areas, perhaps with a majority in Borders, Orkney and Shetland voting not to join an independent Scotland? Will these area votes be heeded or ignored? If the latter, there will be a crowd-funding process to meet court costs.

These are questions which the SNP would prefer not to acknowledge exist; and certainly not answer unless compelled. When Nicola Sturgeon looks in a mirror does she see Boris Johnson’s face?

William Durward, Bearsden.

LES Reid (Letters, September 11) attributes all of recent UK population growth to people coming from the EU. This is incorrect. Two-thirds of the incomers come from outside the EU. Importantly, he makes no comment on the contribution to the UK economy of the incomers.

John Fleming, Glasgow G61.

WITH a constitutional crisis, a compromised Prime Minister, the Irish border backstop, Brexit No Deal fiasco, and an expected General Election, I agree with Malcolm Rankin (Letters, September 12 , that focus on the SNP and Indyref2 during current turmoil should be relegated to the touchline meantime.

”Each day has enough trouble of its own” ( Matthew 6:34).

R Russell Smith, Kilbirnie.

TOM Watson, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, has talked of cold winters affecting the poor whilst ignoring the fact that it was the EU’s European Court of Justice that ruled against the UK Government this year when it wanted to buy standby power generation to offset any risks from brownouts or a cold winter, on the grounds of state aid.

Apart from the fact this now increases the risk to the UK electricity consumer, the cynical might see it as a ploy by the EU to oblige the UK to buy French electricity at enhanced prices rather then use our own. Even this may be difficult if the French also have a cold winter and lack of surplus electricity to sell us.

EU rulings on state aid also hurt other parts of our economy and affect our other strategic industries such as specialised steel producers and manufacturers which employ many people. It is clearly a cardinal error to presume the countries of the EU such as France and Germany are our friends and not our industrial competitors, capable of making laws that do not favour the UK.

Elizabeth Marshall, Edinburgh.

Read more: The House of cards begins to collapse