My recollection of the formation of the Scottish Parliament was that it was set up following a referendum to devolve defined areas of government to a “Scottish Parliament”. The Scottish Parliament assented to by the people of Scotland was limited in its power. “Sovereignty” was not at that time assented to by the electorate, the UK Parliament remained “sovereign”. This remains the stated will of the people of Scotland, having been tested by Referendum since.

The “contract” was that the Scottish Government governed within the terms of its statutory powers. If the Scottish Parliament moves beyond its set powers, and indeed if Westminster oversteps its powers to limit the powers of the Scottish Parliament, either party is acting correctly and democratically to challenge in law.

The UK Government has initiated a process by which these issues can be tested in the courts, according to Statute, presumably eventually to the Supreme Court. The SNP followed a broadly similar path in trying to hold an independence referendum..

Humza Yousaf has launched a court battle over the UK Government’s blocking of Scotland’s controversial gender reforms

The issue now at hand is, does the Scottish Parliament have the powers under law to pass the Gender Recognition Act in its current form? We will find out at our great expense in due course. Nobody is preventing the Scottish Parliament passing a Bill that is within its powers. It is for the Scottish Government to ensure this is so. The SNP has decided after receiving advice from its legal advisor to let the Courts decide. So be it, if the Section 35 is found to be deficient the Bill should go to Royal Assent, if not it should be amended or dropped.

Empty political rhetoric about overriding Scottish democracy to distract focus from current SNP internal disturbances only further cheapens and demeans the Scottish political establishment.

Gavin Findlay, Boghead, South Lanarkshire

Right to challenge

It is a democratic outrage that Governor General Jack used Section 35 to veto the democratic will of Scotland’s Parliament, as supported by the SNP, Green, Labour and Lib Dem parties, for purely political reasons.

If you support devolution, whatever your position on GRR, you should at the very least support Humza Yousaf’s principle of standing up for Scotland’s Parliament, if only to establish the limits of Holyrood’s rights to legislate within its remit.

The GRR Bill clearly states that nothing in it impacts on the Equality Act. Westminster didn’t ask for amendments to the Bill through its nine-month passage in Holyrood and have refused Scottish offers to work with the UK Government on potential changes.

If Alister Jack and the UK Women and Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch were confident in their positions, they would not have refused the invitations extended to appear before Holyrood committees where they could be cross-examined by MSPs from all parties.

The UK currently accepts Gender Recognition Certificates from over 60 countries that operate a self-ID procedure but apparently not for the handful of transgender people from Scotland who might move to England.

If Section 35’s use isn’t challenged, it will soon become the norm and result in even further erosion of the powers of our Scottish Parliament that have been reduced since Westminster’s power grab following Brexit.

Mary Thomas, Edinburgh

Continuity

With his announcement of a legal challenge to the UK Government’s Section 35 order against the Gender Bill Humza Yousaf has confirmed his role as SNP continuity leader. Continuity of wasting taxpayers’ money, pig-headed decisions and flushing his party down the electoral pan, that is.

Alan Sutherland, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire

Diversion tactics

It has been clear that The First Minster Humza Yousaf was in all likelihood going to challenge the decision by the UK Government to block the Gender Recognition Reform Bill passed in the Scottish Parliament.

The recent calamitous headlines round the SNP have made his decision purely as a diversionary tactic regardless of the waste of public money and time that will be the result.

Only Humza Yousaf could ignore the eminent Lord Hope, former Deputy President of the Supreme Court who commented that the Scottish legislation “most certainly does’ impact on the Equality Act 2004. Further he notes that a court challenge is “risking wasting a lot of time and money” and that the “prospects of success were very low”. Humza Yousaf will come to regret not following this sound advice.

Richard Allison, Edinburgh

Power grab

Clearly, Humza Yousaf believes that asking the same people the same question for a second time and expecting a different answer is a good idea.

Am I missing something? I would have thought that a second attempt at a power grab by the SNP and paying for it out of the public purse could be construed as a misuse of public funds, because you can bet that he and his administration will want to pay for their lawyers in the proposed action out of public money, but that is not what it is there for, is it?

The money that the SNP are given through the Barnett Formula is not there for spurious purposes.

If it is spent on superfluous legal cases in which a decision has already been reached, surely that is misuse of public funds?

Surely, Mr Yousaf's cabinet and any others who are also involved in any spurious legal actions should pay the legal costs out of their own pockets?

Andrew HN Gray, Edinburgh

Baillie’s cure

Jackie Baillie ascribes all the problems of the NHS in Scotland to the SNP and in particular to the previous Health Minister, now First Minister (Scotsman, 11 April), ignoring the similar difficulties arising in England where the Scottish Government’s writ does not run.

All would be well, in her view, if Scotland had a Labour government.

Might I suggest that in her next column she sets out a few of the measures she is confident would bring this about. I don’t mean just wish lists or vague statements like engaging more staff but detailed and costed improvements.

S Beck, Edinburgh

Islands strife

The islands of Scotland are a treasure and are cared for by those who live and work there. They are enjoyed by visitors and tourists. However, our very way of life is threatened.

First by a ferry fiasco which has been used for political point-scoring where announcements and photo opportunities were put in front of building work. The fact that CalMac really needed new ferries was a secondary consideration. Given this and the overspend surely someone should be held accountable for this debacle?

Second by the proposed introduction of Highly Protected Marine Areas. This will stop many coastal activities and will devastate communities. The clearance again.

This is another ill-thought policy from SNP/Green coalition. Edinburgh officials again thinking they know better. Can they please listen to the islanders.

The ferry scandal would not have arisen if islanders had been involved. Please do not make the same mistake again.

Dot White, Isle of South Uist, Eilean Siar

Murray’s appeal

Assuming Mark Boyle (Letters, April 12) wasn't writing on April 1st then his suggestion that Ian Murray is elected because of his – certainly sterling – work in “keeping Hearts alive” puts me in mind of a former Tynecastle favourite: Tosh McKinlay!

If Mr Boyle wants to know the reasons Mr Murray accumulates so many votes I would suggest he should join in on some door knocking in Edinburgh South. He might be surprised by the high number of "natural” Labour voters in the area.

But even they as well as others who are not strongly committed to a given party need to be convinced they are voting for the right candidate. And they are convinced in droves by the fact that Ian Murray is one of the hardest working MPs not only in Scotland but in the whole of the UK.

He also of course espouses a Labour philosophy which puts people’s needs and wishes first and foremost rather than the divisive approach of the other major parties. More and more Scots throughout the country are seeing this as the way forward and will vote for like-minded candidates who like Ian Murray can be trust ed to demonstrate an exceptional commitment to servin g all constituents regardless of their political persuasion.

Incidentally, Mr Boyle may have forgotten that Michael Stewart also played for Hibs!

Colin Hamilton, Edinbu rgh

Broad church

May I remind Peter Hopkins (Letters, 13 April) that the SNP is a broad church and will accept even repentent unionist Christians.

Elizabeth Scott, Edinburgh

Biden’s ‘peace’

Joe Biden seems to have a very odd idea which he expressed in his visit to Northern Ireland (Scotsman, 13 April).

Apparently, he sees the United States “keeping the peace” which is a strange thought, coming as it does from a nation in which over 10,000 people have been killed in multiple shootings since January of this year alone!

Dave Anderson, Aberdeen

Readers' letters:

Comments