IT was both interesting and confusing to read the article by Abbi Garton-Crosbie on page four of Friday’s National (SNP MP calls on Council of Europe to help overturn S35).

It was interesting because it shows that there is some sort of recourse to the international community in respect of the way we are being treated as a subservient colony by what is supposed to be an equal partner in an international treaty. After all, what the Gender Recognition Reform Bill covers is entirely devolved and was passed by a majority vote in the Scottish Parliament, involving cross-party support. Therefore, despite the fact that I, and many others, believe it’s full of flaws, it should be allowed by Westminster to become law.

But it’s confusing because Holyrood didn’t do this with the Supreme Court ruling on a referendum. Surely if there is some sort of recourse for a law that’s been passed, then there must be a similar recourse when the Scottish Government receives a definite mandate from the Scottish people and Westminster overrules the will of the people contained in that given mandate.

READ MORE: Trans prisoners with violent history 'won't be housed in women's jail'

Could it be that the SNP are willing to investigate every means possible to get their GRR Bill onto the statute books despite it obvious weaknesses, but are unwilling to do the same to achieve independence despite the obvious mandate from the people?

Once again I find myself forced to ask the question, “Do the SNP MPs and MSPs really want independence, or are they happy as they are?” When they start causing a rumpus over the referendum issue, and take it to the Council of Europe too, then I might start to believe that they do want it. Because when they do that, they will be behaving like a government that does want it and not one that continually capitulates to whatever Westminster tells it to do – or not do. Until they change their ways and stop kicking the matter of independence for Scotland into the long grass, I will be forced to believe that independence doesn’t matter to them.

Charlie Kerr
Glenrothes

YOU report that the First Minister now entertains “some fear for the future of Holyrood” and that she “is not 100% sure” that the Tories would not try to abolish parliament. She may not be wrong. The best way to ensure the future of our parliament is independence. If perhaps the SNP had prioritised that aim over its apparent identity politics enthusiasms these past eight years, our parliament and democracy would already be secure.

Dr John O’Dowd
Bothwell

NOW the UK Government think they can overrule the Scottish Government if England is affected by any bill that is passed in Scotland, have they conveniently forgotten Brexit was passed by the UK Government against the wishes of the Scottish people and the Scottish Government? How long will it take for folk to realise that this is not a union of equals we’re trapped in but a dictatorship where the biggest country makes all the decisions while using all of Scotland’s resources?

Mary Lindsay
Glasgow

I AM beginning to wonder why SNP MPs and MSP are complaining about the UK Government’s use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act, and why they want to defend a partial parliament engineered by Labour’s Donald Dewar.

Section 35 was always waiting in the political wings ready, when needed, to put Holyrood back into its wee box. Maybe our MSPs should be asking themselves why it has taken over 20 years for the Scottish Parliament to flex its muscles and challenge the UK Government. I only wish the Scottish Parliament had picked a more relevant issue than gender recognition, a subject far from the top of the Scottish public’s agenda, and one which is very probably heading towards another inglorious double defeat in two courts.

READ MORE: Angus Robertson: Vote for Scottish independence is vote to rejoin EU

Instead of moaning and groaning about the UK Government interfering in Scottish affairs, perhaps they should be highlighting the more than obvious limitations of the current Scottish Parliament. Perhaps they have not done so as it would highlight the fact that they have spent the past 20 years simply juggling with the money handed out to them from Westminster.

It appears that the Scottish Parliament is now about to turn its attention to another subject not exactly top of the political agenda or close to the hearts of many of us, that of banning disposable vape containers in order to reduce litter. Health Secretary Humza Yousaf has promised to address this apparently massive problem when I suspect most of us would rather he try to concentrate on A&E waiting times and hospital waiting lists first.

The folk lying on hospital trolleys or currently living in cold homes with hungry children deserve a wee bit better from Scotland’s government.

Iain Evans
Edinburgh

THE Scottish Government have proposed that in an independent Scotland they would raise the pension to the EU average – which, I believe is more than £300 per week – an increase of nearly double the pittance paid as the basic state pension.

In a recent poll it was said that the over-65s are more than 60% against independence. What is it about this group? Do they not believe the Scottish Government, or is there some other reason they are denying themselves a more comfortable retirement than the one they presently have?

READ MORE: Tories met with BBC Scotland to discuss ‘pro-nat’ dossier

As a pensioner myself, I would be delighted to have my pension raised to such heights, and I dare say there are many other pensioners who would also. The UK will never aspire to raise pensions to such levels, indeed they are proposing to raise the pension age so high that a large proportion will die before reaching pension age.

Pensioners are the only group with a majority against independence. Maybe if/when they see the light, they may see a richer future away from the UK.

Graham Smith
Arbroath