Letters Special: Johnson's lack of contrition is cause for concern

His response to the court's judgement is that he will comply with what it says and in the same breath states that what it has said is not right; hardly the signs of contrition one would expect from a man who has misled Her Majesty and been found in breach of the law.

It would appear that the UK Government has its narrative ready to proceed with the identical policy which has driven its programme thus far, if we are to trust the spokespersons who have spoken in the PM's defence and in defiance of the judgement.

Indeed, his words suggest that he will try his hand again at prorogation, making the Queen a pawn once again in his Machiavellian game.

What can be deduced from all of this, is that Mr Johnson is but a British Trump with an Oxford degree.

Hardly a cause for optimism.

Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs.

IN New York today Boris Johnson has let us know that he does not agree with today's unanimous Supreme Court judgement.

Surely the point is that a final court decision, reached after a rigorous appeal process, is not a matter for agreement, but compliance with the law?

Ian Brown, Giffnock.

BORIS Johnson's reaction to the unanimous decision of the 11 Lordships almost amounted to a contempt of court. No remorse, no apology especially to Her Majesty. He has occasioned the coinage of a new word, namely pro-rogue (a scoundrel by profession).

Allan C Steele, Giffnock.

THE Plan. Bring back control: but not to Parliament, as it does not agree with you. You want to be ruled by our laws in our own courts; but then you find you “strongly disagree” with the most senior judiciary. Mislead the monarch (though why did she accede to him, given her experience?) Prorogue Parliament illegally, have complicated relationships with women, which might involve public money or the police. Be best pals with a dysfunctional POTUS. Never admit faults, apologise or quit. The Bullingdon Way for spoiled rich brats.

Alas, being “King of the World” is not the rattling good wheeze it seemed when you donned your Ashurbanipal socks. Perhaps you are really Samson, pulling down the Tory Temple.

GR Weir, Ochiltree.

THERE are surely logical and semantic difficulties with the Supreme Court’s ruling in particular that our Prime Minister has acted illegally in having Parliament prorogued.

One can, logically speaking at least, only act against the law when there is a clearly defined or discernible pre-existing law or legal precedent. I know the legal adage that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” but that presupposes an already existing relevant law or legal convention. In this case patently there was none such; for one superior court had ruled against, and one superior court for legality. Indeed it was the Supreme Court’s partial remit to rule upon this opaque and arcane mystery which it has done, to my mind at least, with little more legal persuasion than fiat.

To then hold the Prime Minister to have acted illegally in light of its judgement smacks of retrospective justice. That, as a notorious President elsewhere might claim, is “a bad thing”.

Darrell Desbrow, Dalbeattie.

THOSE who brought this action to the Supreme Court, especially the politicians, will be congratulating themselves on a major victory. But is it? To the man or woman in the street, the legal niceties of this case will be lost. What will not be lost is that first Parliament, and now the judges, have "betrayed" their majority democratic vote to leave the European Union. Judges, who frequently make puzzling decisions as far as the public are concerned, have now joined in with many at Westminster whose actions are in a similar vein, normally for their own party's gain.

There will be a General Election in the very near future. The Supreme Court judges have a mere total of 11 votes in the outcome amongst many millions. The genie is out of the bottle. The judges have ensured the next election will be fought on the grounds of who rules this country, the people or the politicians/judges. Battle lines have been drawn. This judgement has far wider ramifications than anyone can yet imagine.

Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow G77.

I FOUND the ruling of the Supreme Court surprising because, unlike European courts and American courts, our legislature and judiciary have always been separate institutions.

It was especially surprising in this instance, because Parliament had redress to the prorogation. It could have moved a vote of no confidence in the Government for the reasons outlined in the Supreme Court judgment – stopping legislation, answering electorate questions, etc, but the Opposition parties did not take this action because it was not in their ideological interest to do so.

Our country is divided, with the possibility of riotous behaviour if the referendum result is abandoned and, in effect, we have no functioning government.

Unfortunately the ruling made by the Supreme Court (without equivocation) has further exacerbated the situation.

Iris Clyde, Kirkwall.

NICOLA Sturgeon predictably takes the moral high ground regarding the Supreme Court’s judgement against Boris Johnson and calls for his resignation, claiming he lied and acted unlawfully by proroguing Parliament. I do not defend Mr Johnson but do wonder what is different in this case from that of Alex Salmond lying to the Holyrood Parliament and the Scottish people during the referendum when he claimed to have legal advice regarding an independent Scotland being eligible to have automatic entry to the EU. It was subsequently found that no such advice existed after Mr Salmond had spent £20,000 of taxpayers' money in an aborted court action to prevent his so-called information being publicised.

Does Ms Sturgeon not see a parallel and does she not think that Mr Salmond should have resigned when his lies were exposed?

Donald Lewis, Gifford.

MANY of us will be delighted by the Supreme Court’s judgement that Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament has been declared null and void. This does, however, raise interesting questions for the SNP. Joanna Cherry has been hailed as a heroine for bringing a successful case at the Court of Session in Edinburgh – not least by Alex Salmond, who tweeted; "Oh, Jo-anna Cherry" in an all-too-familiar rhythm. Ms Cherry is a Salmondista, favouring the former king over the water. Where does this leave Nicola Sturgeon, whose profile on this issue has been subterranean? Yes, she is still First Minister, but for how long? Answers on a postcard, please.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh.

JOANNA Cherry is understandably cock-a-hoop that the Supreme Court has decided in favour of Scotland’s Court of Session's decision that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful.

While this may or may not yet prove to be a good day for Remainers, it is implicitly less positive for Scottish nationalism. What the Supreme Court ruling also demonstrates is that Scotland has the ability to perform a demonstrably powerful pan-UK role, particularly if we had a Holyrood Government willing to use its powers appropriately, and other than to create division.

Martin Redfern, Edinburgh EH10.

MINISTERS cannot legislate a government programme from a parliamentary minority of 40. The Incredible Chancer snookered himself weeks ago. There is therefore no point in the ceremonial introduction of a programme.

Parliament assembled can occupy itself with the impeachment of privy councillors who oblige the head of state to sign off dishonest manoeuvres hostile to democracy.

Tim Cox,

3000 Bern 6, Switzerland.

THE findings of the Supreme Court rubber-stamps the findings of the Scottish Courts; the Westminster Government and in particular the Prime Minister have broken the law. No ifs, no buts, a clear and overwhelming verdict. The country is plunged into even more chaos, where do we go from here?

The main Opposition at Westminster (the Labour Party) has responsibilities to the country that must be addressed. But evidence of divisions and turmoil at the Labour Conference this week in Brighton fills me with no confidence. Yet Labour must move a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister; not to do so will certainly be interpreted as an endorsement of Boris Johnson’s silencing of Parliament.

Catriona C Clark, Falkirk.

CLEARLY, proroguing Parliament was as unwise and unnecessary as the 2017 General Election – prime ministers ignore the inevitable law of unintended consequences at their peril.

John Birkett, St Andrews.

THERE cannot be many unaware of the pronouncement, by Baroness Hale, of the Supreme Court findings on the prorogation of Parliament as being unlawful. A finding made by all eleven judges.

What may have escaped many is that their findings, which follow that of the Inner Court of the Court of Session, are in line with the long-held concept in Scots law that neither monarch nor government are above the law. The Government is subject to the scrutiny of Parliament, the representatives of the people.

Democracy, the unwritten constitution, and the rule of law were upheld. Those principles first iterated in AD1320 with the Declaration of Arbroath are set in stone by the UK Supreme Court.

This victory was not just that of Joanna Cherry QC MP, the SNP or the Good Law Project, it was one of the people of Scotland and our constitutional arrangements.

This may be the route by which Scotland can lead the UK, as promised in 2014's Vow.

Roll on the next weeks and months where guid Scots guile may win the day.

Brian Kelly, Dunfermline.

Read more: Nicola Sturgeon: Boris Johnson has brought shame on his office and must resign