MPS meddle with constitution when it suits

The Supreme Court’s judgement on Holyrood’s power to hold a referendum on Scotland’s independence was made on the basis of the Scotland Act 1998 - a change made to the British Constitution only 25 years ago. Supreme Court itself is a very recent addition to legal resources in Britain: it came into existence as a result of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and began business in 2009.

The Supreme Court is allowed to comment on whether Westminster legislation is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights but it has no power to force a change in UK law - that power remains very firmly with the politicians.

The point is, surely, that those politicians at Westminster obviously feel free to meddle with the unwritten “British Constitution” whenever they feel like it. This has included endowing that same Supreme Court with final jurisdiction over our separate Scottish legal system, including the Scottish Court of Session itself.

We should remember too that Westminster politicians have recently demonstrated, with their illegal prorogation of Parliament, that they are prepared to ignore the “British Constitution” when it suits them, to break international treaties without shame and to deliver bare-faced lies to the Constitutional Monarch.

It seems very clear, therefore, to observers, domestic and foreign, that the “Great British Constitution (unwritten)” is an extremely malleable, indeed wobbly basis on which to suppress and entrap permanently one of its last imperial colonies - Scotland.

And that is where the Supreme Court made its vast ironic error - by confirming that Scotland is indeed a colony of the British state. Now, in 2022, one of the oldest nations in Europe, Scotland is “not allowed” to vote for independence.

The British empire has never surrendered any colony peacefully, gracefully, honourably or benevolently - just ask the USA. More recent histories of how other colonies like India, Kenya and Ireland won independence, against shameless tactics, are remarkably similar as a series of steps.

It may be cold comfort for some of us who are getting too old to be patient, but Scotland is on the very same path, taking the same steps, experiencing the same gas-lighting, same amoral attempts to “divide and rule” the same relentless attacks on our political leaders.

Now that the Supreme Court has removed itself from the frame, our next step is surely to re-establish our Scottish Constitutional Convention. FRANCES MCKIE Evanton, Ross-shire