I’M afraid, in an otherwise thought-provoking article, Cat Boyd has unwittingly perpetuated the myth of the “Tartan Tories” of the SNP bringing down the Labour government in 1979 to issue in 18 years of Tory rule (Tribalism may be back, but cheer on your own side with some caution, The National, November 21).

The facts of the political history of this event are a bit more complicated, as the actual authors of Labour’s downfall were what Churchill once described as the “enemy behind”.

In 1979 these enemies were Brian Wilson, the co-ordinator of the anti-devolution campaign, and George Cunningham, the instigator of the infamous 40 per cent turnout rule that defined the 1979 devolution vote and meant that voters who did not vote, and even voters who had died, counted as votes against devolution.

When the vote went narrowly for devolution, PM James Callaghan was pressured by Wilson, Cunningham and others not to agree to devolution and the SNP and the Liberals indicated their intention to initiate a vote of no confidence.

Exercising her prerogative as leader of the opposition and showing opportunism Theresa May has since emulated, Mrs Thatcher hijacked the no-confidence motion. At the time, Jim Callaghan quipped that she “had discovered the courage of their convictions”.

In the subsequent election, the Labour government was defeated and the SNP paid a high price for naively adopting the moral high ground, losing eight of their seats. However, the last word should be reserved for Callaghan, who asked Wilson, Cunningham and their ilk if, “They had any idea of what damage they had done to their party and the country?”. Well we know now, which is why this part of history is regularly rewritten.
Douglas Turner
Edinburgh

WHEN I read your front page headline (Lord wants Westminster to oversee Holyrood, The National, November 21), my first reaction was fake news and then a spoof. Alas, I was wrong on both counts, but after reading Lord Empey’s comments in full I realised he did not have a clue.

I would have thought that as a former leader of the Ulster Unionist Party he would have enough problems to keep him fully occupied. Northern Ireland is still without a government and would appear to be facing major challenges. It may have to face up to the reality of either, having a hard border with the Irish Republic, or joining with the Republic, creating a united Ireland and remaining in the EU. Given Ireland’s history it will not be easy to reconcile the various deeply held beliefs.

It may also be appropriate for Lord Empey to reflect on the fact that a number of his colleagues in the House of Lords are former MPs sacked by the Scottish electorate. To suggest that a Scottish Government, irrespective of its political make-up, is answerable to Westminster, is an affront to the voters in Scotland. Perhaps given his input Lord Empey should be re branded as Lord Empty!
Thomas L Inglis
Fintry

I FIND it astonishing to read of an unelected Northern Irish lord calling for scrutiny of Holyrood and the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff by Westminster.

He quotes the case of Ireland in 1921 not being properly scrutinised by Westminster. Apart from the fact that this happened almost 100 years ago and that this was to solve the Irish Problem, he appears unaware that Scotland and Wales have had parliaments for 18 years, and no roof as yet has fallen in.

The fact that he is an Ulster lord, UUP not DUP, might mean he is attempting to screw some more money out of Westminster and is giving Theresa May further ammunition as she carries on with the power grab from the EU.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Jim Lynch
Edinburgh

THE disgusting hypocrisy of individuals like Empey really beggars belief.

Here we have:

1. An individual that has been parachuted into an unelected seat by a political party and not precisely because of his merits but because of patronage

2. An individual whose seat is not accountable to the electorate of the UK nor to the House of Commons, even when this is allegedly a democracy

3. An individual who does not represent or speak for Scotland in any way or form.

Individuals like this dinosaur that appear to remain in some form of time warp of imperial past brings to the fore just how ridiculous, outdated and completely out of touch with the 21st century reality the time warp of the House of Lords is.
Maria Carnero
via thenational.scot

GIVEN that “justification” appeared to be required to hold a second independence referendum, it certainly came when Scots voted to remain in the European Union but were to be dragged out on the basis of English votes.

I would have thought that to be sufficient. Not interested in a “soft Brexit” or access to the single market. We voted to remain. However, our First Minister (whom I accept may well be wiser than I) has counselled that we wait to see the terms of Brexit before any indyref2.

Now we hear that the UK is to pay £40 billion to leave the EU. If we give Westminster the benefit of the doubt, Scots will be required to cough up 10 per cent – £4bn – for the privilege of being hauled out of the EU against our wishes.

Have we now seen quite enough of the terms of Brexit to justify another referendum?
Billy Scobie
Alexandria