JILL Stephenson (Letters, July 22) claims “Scotland has become an uncivil place”. What does she mean? That we should not seek to make clear our opposition to a man who has prorogued Parliament to prevent debate on his proposals for withdrawing from the EU, having to be dragged to the Supreme Court to bring this highly undemocratic act to a close? He then withdrew the Conservative Party whip from 21 MPs, including former senior Cabinet ministers, effectively ending their political careers, just because they didn’t support him. In the last six months, the Head of the UK Civil Service and the Permanent Secretaries of the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office have all “resigned”. Coincidence or what?

However, Boris Johnson of course has little to lose in Scotland – only six MPs, without whom his majority of 80 would scarcely be dented, something that shows in a number of aspects of his Government’s policies. For instance, the Institute of Fiscal Studies has been critical of how consequentials for the devolved administrations are worked out. It said: “Unfortunately, as it stands, a lack of illumination leaves significant scope for misunderstanding and even misrepresentation of the UK Government’s plans. So, can the UK Government please turn on the lights?”

At the same time, there are proposals for Westminster to remove powers and/or resources from Holyrood. Mr Johnson’s Government’s Internal Market White Paper will remove, or render ineffectual, Scottish Government powers over standards, state aids and subsidies and begin to dismantle its procurement powers.

It also proposes a "Shared Prosperity Fund" (UKSPF), which is the UK Government’s proposal to replace resources Scotland has been receiving from the European Union’s Structural and Investment Funds. However, none of these resources will be given to the Scottish Government for allocation, rather it will be administered directly by the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

As well as taking Scotland out of the EU, contrary to our votes in 2016, Mr Johnson is set upon putting in place processes that will bypass devolution or diminish it by denying resources which properly ought to come to Scotland.

I agree with the spirit of Ms Stephenson’s letter as far as it advocates good manners, but at the same time, those of us who disagree with the above actions and proposals have the right to make that disagreement crystal clear.

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

IN response to Jill Stephenson's letter, I will assume that she has never attended an independence rally, or witnessed the counter-demos at the same events.

Whereas the pro-independence marches are peaceful, joy-filled events, with all age groups and many nationalities represented, the opposite can only be said of the counter-demos. These are almost entirely composed of hate-filled loyalists, shouting sectarian and racial abuse at independence marchers.

As was witnessed recently in George Square, where "statue defenders" turned up in numbers to prevent a peaceful Black Lives Matter march, these same campaigners proceeded to use violent and abusive behaviour towards anyone in the vicinity. The "mob" hate that Ms, Stephenson describes is not from "nationalist rowdies".

To infer that Scotland is an "uncivil place" is partially accurate, but the blame lies not with Nicola Sturgeon or the independence movement, but with the unionist/loyalist hate "mob".

Boris Johnson being unwelcome here is to do with his disastrous handling of the pandemic crisis and his far right politics and absolutely nothing to do with the Scottish Government or its supporters.

Kevin Orr, Bishopbriggs.