Humza Yousaf has declared the Court of Session ruling a “dark day for devolution” and indeed it is. Voters of all political colours who believe in devolution should take note. The “Silent Man” Alistair Jack, who rarely opens his mouth on anything, and even less often on things supportive of Scotland, makes an unusual decree, that a law passed by a large majority in the Scottish Parliament, is unlawful. Would that he were so concerned about “English Laws for English voters” which most certainly impact on Scottish voters but clearly are not even worthy of a whisper from the Scottish Secretary who represents few, if any, voters in Scotland.

Undoubtedly, the legislation in question has caused much controversy amongst the general public, but this does not negate the fact that by a resounding majority it was passed in the Scottish Parliament, supported by MSPs of all political persuasions.

I for one sincerely hope that this will be pursued by the SNP in the Appeal Courts. At least then, more than one person will sit in judgement and there might well be more scrutiny of the issue. Tories have already questioned this possible action as a waste of taxpayers’ money. Would that those same “guardians” of taxpayers’ money were so vocal and exercised by the billions lost to taxpayers, having been handed over, without scrutiny, to Tory donors.

Would that they were more exercised by the fact that you can buy a peerage via generous donations to Tory Party coffers, thereby causing a draw on taxpayers’ money for as long as that peer should live, and then place them, unelected, into that great white elephant, otherwise known as The Scottish Office, that is a constant draw on taxpayers’ money despite the fact that its purpose is clearly questionable as voters in Scotland have a devolved parliament.

Perhaps it’s not so questionable though given the debacle over this law. Good old Ali has arisen from his stupor to pronounce and to overrule the whole Scottish Government, supported by the Court of Session that has declared the legislation unlawful.

Interestingly, Michael Gove, despite being told that it is unlawful to keep secret the results of the poll concerning Scottish independence, commissioned by the Tories and paid for by the taxpayer, had chosen to ignore successive rulings by the courts. Is there a message here for the Scottish Government? If it is OK for Westminster to break the law by failing to comply with successive rulings from the UK courts why should the Scottish Government, or any of the devolved governments bother to obey the “rules”? Now I wonder what The Silent Man Mr Jack would say about that?

Moira Gray, Kilbarchan

Who is the winner in all of this?

Unsurprisingly, the Greens and others are indignant, angry even, that the Court of Session has behaved like a court of law and not as an extension of a devolved parliament.

I support the Scottish Parliament, I support the right of trans-individuals to self-identity, but that doesn’t mean that the legislation is fit for purpose. I gently suggest that if it had been, the Court of Session would not have ruled as it did.

So, if we are intent on promoting gender self-identification for all, and indeed independence, we need to take a step back and be prepared to see how can we actually get something workable across the line. Sadly, in these days of instant judgmental “hits” on social media, it is increasingly unlikely that we will see anything other than bunker politics. And who, if anyone is the winner of that?

Michael Collie, Dunfermline

A blatant misuse of public funds

Humza Yousaf wants us to believe the Scottish Government’s latest defeat in the courts, this time over gender recognition legislation conflicting with UK-wide equalities laws, is a “dark day for devolution”. The reality of course is that this case was just part of a long campaign by the SNP government to use public funds to promote its political vision of how it would prefer the UK to work.

Time and time again SNP ministers have received legal advice pointing to the likelihood of defeat in picking a legal fight with the UK Government on a given issue but have gone ahead anyway. The logic appears to be that there might be a slim chance of the legal outcome going their way, but the likelier result will still enable them to stir grievance against the way devolution works.

Hopefully, the people of Scotland will grow tired of the Scottish Government so blatantly mis-using public funds to seek to undermine devolution and further SNP ambitions. It is one thing for the SNP leadership to keep grandstanding when they do not get their way, but it is another thing entirely when we all collectively are having to pay for it.

Keith Howell, West Linton

Read more: Scotland’s schools are much better than they used to be

Why did they really pick this fight?

The Scottish Government loses yet another court case, this time over their Gender Reform Bill. This entirely predictable outcome begs the question that they are deliberately seeking conflict and disagreement with Westminster not for the benefit of the Scottish public but to satisfy their more radical nationalist support and try to bolster their case for independence? Why else do they pick expensive fights that cannot be won?

Duncan Sooman, Milngavie

The big difference with our government

I note the letter from Douglas Cowe (Letters, December 8) and assert it follows the usual pattern of union-supporting correspondents: critiquing the Scottish government as a full government, with full powers, when it is anything but.

I could give them everything they say, and agree that every single decision ever taken by the SNP government has been the wrong one (clearly ridiculous but play along) and it still would not be a tenth of the damage inflicted on Scotland by Westminster, through Brexit, austerity, culture wars, class wars and identity politics. The difference being that at least Scotland voted for whatever damage Holyrood has done.

The latest PISA figures do not show much difference between each home nation, which is what Westminster wants and has made sure that will always be the case by limiting the powers of the devolved nations.

All these correspondents carping is only undermining the only protection Scotland has against Westminster. It may be a fig leaf, but it's better than nothing.

Iain Cope, Glasgow

No one is condoning Thatcherism

“A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on” is a quote often attributed to Mark Twain.

It has never been more appropriately applied than to the responses to Keir Starmer’s mention of Margaret Thatcher in a recent newspaper article.

Like many who have accused Starmer of having “heaped praise on Margaret Thatcher”, Jim Stamper (Letters, November 7) has either not seen the article or has only read biased reports of it.

Starmer did not praise Thatcher. He gave her as an example of a Prime Minister who “had a driving sense of purpose”. His other examples were Clement Attlee and Tony Blair.

Mussolini made the Italian trains run on time. Trump builds magnificent golf courses. Stalin defeated Hitler in the east. Does stating these facts imply that I am happy with everything these men have done?

There is no doubt that Margaret Thatcher effectively changed society and politics in Britain. Expressing that fact does not condone or support what she did during her time in government.

James Quinn, Lanark

Johnson’s signs of disrespect

I find myself at variance with Chris Fairbairn's description of Boris Johson as "almost statesmanlike" (Letters, December 8). His appearance with deliberately unkempt hair and wearing a bauble hat with the initials GTFC (Grimsby Town Football Club), seen on entry and exiting the enquiry, was the antithesis of respect for those attending having lost family members to Covid.

Jon Cossar, Edinburgh

Read more: There is an alternative to the current GP contract

People of goodwill, rise up

Like Malcolm Parkin (Letters, December 7) I too wonder where God is in heart of Gaza but really I know that war is the worst of all human activities and only they can stop it.

However, I also wonder why the religious people of the Holy City of Jerusalem do not rise up and stop their leaders escalating the violence happening on their doorstep. Couldn’t they break down the walls separating the two sides and at least allow the refugees to escape into Israel.

Perhaps I am naive but it happened in Berlin and in Belfast and who could forget South Africa and the transformation Nelson Mandela made there. We are told in the Bible that one day swords will be beaten into ploughshares but it is brave people of goodwill that will bring about peace now.

Susan Martin, Rutherglen