It is time all those deploring the S35 action by the UK Government woke up and smelled the coffee. Devolution, as Enoch Powell pointed out many years ago, is power retained at Westminster. That reality was signalled in the White Paper that led to the 1997 referendum, and contained in the 1998 Act setting up the Scottish Parliament: with a number of legal checks built in which prevent it having the ability to legislate freely. Holyrood is a creature of a Westminster statute, not a stand-alone body built on the concept of sovereignty. That is why I did not vote for it in the referendum.

It appears that Humza Yousaf and other leaders of the SNP are unaware that when they seek to defend devolution, they are lending support to an instrument of union. Therein lies the fault in so much of what Mr Yousaf, and his predecessor, have failed in – the application of intellectual rigour. It should not be the job of the SNP to defend devolution, but to lay bare that on many matters, especially how Scotland is funded, how inadequate the so-called settlement is in terms of the power needed to address the needs of this nation. It is called sovereignty.

Jim Sillars, Edinburgh

Let Scotland have its voice

As the UK becomes smaller, less significant and respected on the world stage, Westminster it seems is more determined than ever not to let Scotland have a voice.

When First Minister Humza Yousaf secured a quick chat with Turkish President Erdogan at Cop 28, Westminster went wild. Why? Because the UK's Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) didn't have its own representative there to make sure Scotland's First Minister didn't say anything the UK (English) government's unelected Foreign Secretary David Cameron might object to. This smells of colonialism.

A UK government spokesman said "Foreign affairs is reserved under the Scotland Act and in such turbulent times the need for the UK to speak on the world stage with one consistent voice is more important than ever."

But on an increasing number of occasions that voice is Westminster's and Westminster's alone.

Ceasefire in Gaza anyone? Yes immediately, says Scotland. No says the UK government, and Sir Keir Starmer's Labour Party in England, as thousands more Palestinian civilians are killed by Israeli attacks.

Westminster has also tried to ban members of the Scottish Parliament talking to counterparts in Europe about new trade deals, post-Brexit, without a UK snoop being present.

Scotland has a different attitude to immigration and welcomes new blood. The UK government is determined to send asylum seekers to Rwanda at enormous cost to all UK taxpayers.

Where is Scotland's voice on the world stage? If David Cameron (sorry, I'm not going to call him Lord) is upset that Mr Yousaf had a chinwag with Mr Erdogan, Rishi Sunak's government has just sunk to new depths.

Andy Stenton, Glasgow

Shameful record in court

We learned recently that Lady Haldane at the Court of Session had ruled decisively that the Secretary of State for Scotland’s action to veto the SNP Government’s gender self-ID plans was legal.

The record of the SNP Government in respect of litigation has been much less than impressive when one considers the following cases of failure – the ruling of the Supreme Court to the effect that part of the plan, to approve a named person to safeguard the welfare of every child in the country, breached human rights laws.

The action, raised by Alex Salmond, which found that the Scottish Government investigation into alleged sexual misconduct claims was flawed with Mr Salmond later being awarded legal costs.

The attempt by the SNP Government to secure another independence referendum without the consent of the UK Government was declared illegal by the Supreme Court, and the Court of Session rejected the appeal of the Scottish Government and found that key documents, with details of Nicola Sturgeon’s conduct during the investigation of sex misconduct allegations concerning Alex Salmond, should be released.

With that track record, the chances of the Scottish Government successfully resisting the £3million legal action, recently raised by Alex Salmond in relation to the ill-managed investigation of sex harassment complaints against him , are unlikely to be rated high.

The pronounced lack of success in the court rooms in Scotland and England for the SNP Government is now proving to be somewhat vexatious for the taxpayers who have been underwriting the SNP’s litigious adventures. I suspect that vexation will be reflected in the ballot boxes when voting opportunities arise.

Ian W Thomson, Lenzie

Read more: Letters: Only diehards are opposed to new nuclear power stations

Labour’s chances for 2026

Mark McGeoghegan (“The election that could build the path to victory for Sarwar”, The Herald, December 11) hits the nail on the head, as Scottish/UK governments are bogged down with, to quote Macmillan, “events dear boy, events”.

Mr McGeoghegan states that 2024 is about “changing the government at Westminster”, but Sir Keir Starmer has been changing the narrative that Labour will be the “change” party that both countries really requires. With diminishing aspirations under a Starmer government, the two years to arouse public disillusion (between elections) may remove any boost Scottish Labour could normally expect.

While Anas Sarwar has undoubtedly had a good year of PR, he has never been under any serious media scrutiny and the 2026 election would require policy answers (not just attacks on the SNP record) and put him head to head with Humza Yousaf who has been toughened up by a torrid baptism of fire in public office.

It may be that Scottish Labour has to do well in 2024 to give it the headwind to do well in 2026. I dare say the increasingly disturbing Operation Branchform inquiry will be done with, one way or another. It has taken far too long, has damaged reputations through media speculation without rebuttal being possible, and given rise to distrust of the police because of the singular political nature of the inquiry. Nothing of a similar character has ever happened elsewhere in the UK, in spite of known “dodgy” donations, fraud, dark money and the like.

GR Weir, Ochiltree

Get the Letter of the Day straight to your inbox.


Where is the UK in all of this?

Why were Conservative benches in the House of Commons empty, barely a dozen MPs present during a debate on the crisis in the Middle East? This debate was calling for the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development (Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell) to make a statement to the House regarding international diplomacy surrounding the Israel-Hamas war.

Both Conservatives and Labour who have yet to call for a ceasefire must hear the cries of the innocent, the cries of the bereaved and the demands for a humanitarian ceasefire by those of us who are watching on in horror. SNP MP Anne McLaughlin told the Commons the current situation in Gaza was, hell on earth, people displaced, no access to medical aid, charities struggling to support civilians, people starving, so where is our UK Government?

Over 100 countries in the UN recently voted in favour of an immediate ceasefire, yet unbelievably the UK Government was not one of them. Instead, the UK representative to the UN abstained on the call for an immediate ceasefire, action certainly not in my name.

Catriona C Clark, Falkirk

Read more: Letters: Do we only legislate by the grace and favour of Westminster?

Do not legitimise hostage-taking

Like most decent people, I find it disturbing to see pictures of the extreme conditions in Gaza and long for an end to the fighting, but I cannot forget the unheralded atrocities of the attack on innocent civilians in Israel by terrorists.

It is also hard to reconcile the understandable votes of the United Nations for peace and the absolute silence on the fact that murdering terrorists have taken hostages and are using them as bargaining chips. It used to be a given that one never bargained with ransom demands as it only encouraged further ransom acts, but that is exactly what the silence of the United Nations is achieving and thus encouraging further hostage taking all round the world.

It unfortunately seems to me that the non-action of the West in many areas of the world over the years has been founded on selfish interests like trade and sponsorship deals. The price is often paid by civilians in the outbreak of war incidents (32 in the world at a recent count) but with the apparent legitimising of hostage taking it might soon well hit our own streets.

James Watson, Dunbar