SIR John Major is the latest Unionist politician to warn Theresa May that the result of her hard Brexit will be a second independence referendum in Scotland, following Jeremy Corbyn's threats of a hard border if Scotland votes for independence (“Major warns May hard Brexit will fuel calls for referendum”, The Herald, February 28). I find it revealing that none of the Westminster-based politicians who are so concerned about Scotland leaving the UK shows equal concern about Scotland being dragged out of the EU after voting overwhelmingly to remain, and that none of these politicians is giving their backing to Nicola Sturgeon, who offered to compromise by taking a second vote on independence off the table if Mrs May agreed that Scotland could stay within the single market.

As every local authority area in Scotland voted to remain within the EU, this year's council elections provides the opportunity for every local authority area in Scotland to ask themselves; who really has Scotland's interests at heart?

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road,

Stirling.

THERESA May’s hard-line leadership in support of right-wing led Tory intransigence over Brexit is not solely the cause of pubic demand for a second independence referendum. Jeremy Corbyn’s inept leadership of the Labour Party needs to be added.

Together they form a pair akin to the Twa Corbies, picking away at the flesh of the credibility of the UK as a unified state.

The Labour Party under Mr Corbyn has lost all credibility as a governing entity. This had led many former Labour voters to join the Yes movement as the only realistic alternative to a near permanent Tory future under a hard Brexit.

Brexit has layers of complications and complexity with surprises yet to come whose impact across Scotland is wholly uncertain. That is why I was shocked to find not a single mention of Brexit in a locally-produced (Clydesdale) Conservative Party brochure featuring Ruth Davidson, David Mundell and five Tory council candidates.

Is it Scottish Tory Party policy to hide Brexit and attempt to ignore the impact of leaving the EU on communities and councils across Scotland?

Thom Cross,

18 Needle Green, Carluke.

KEZIA Dugdale has handed a blank cheque to the Tories to treat Scotland like they want by adopting an unconditional Unionist position.

She claims she is standing by Labour's principles. Obviously she is not someone who was in the Scottish Labour Party in the 1980s and 90s when it dominated Scottish politics by telling the Tories they had no political or moral mandate to impose policies on Scotland.

Maybe she needs a reminder – or even her first lesson – as she sounds like someone who has no knowledge of those years.

In July 1981 the then Labour Shadow Scottish Secretary Bruce Millan said the Tories "did not have a mandate after the General Election in Scotland" (Hansard, July 21, 1981).

Labour MP John Maxton continually made comments like those he said in July 1983 that "the Labour Party believes that the Government have no mandate in Scotland" (Hansard, July 21, 1983).

The late Labour MP Bob McTaggart also said legislation had been "laid before the House by a minister with no mandate from the people of Scotland, and it emanates from a Government whose policies have only recently been rejected by more than 70 per cent of the Scottish electorate" (Hansard, July 21, 1983).

There are numerous examples throughout the 1980s and 90s of Labour MPs from all ranks saying the Tories had no mandate in Scotland. Yet Kezia Dugdale never utters such a position and nor do any other Scottish Labour politicians these days. They appear to now be saying the Tories can impose any policies on Scotland and they will support the Tories’ right to do so.

Labour's support for the Westminster Union was never unconditional as a party. It was conditional, as comments from the 1980s and 90s show. How could it be any other way considering unconditional support just sends a signal to Westminster that it can do what it likes to Scotland?

Maybe it's time Ms Dugdale was asked if she thinks the Tories have a political or moral mandate to impose policies like hard Brexit on Scotland, because that's one party principle she appears to have ditched by turning Scottish Labour into the Westminster Tories' little helpers.

Bill Wallace,

120 Wyndford Road, Glasgow.

KEZIA Dugdale is quite right to highlight the need to do something about the governance of Scotland as the situation has changed dramatically with the advent of the possibility of a hard Brexit, which would cause severe difficulties for the Scottish economy. The two obvious solutions are independence or a federal constitution.

Brian Wilson ("Labour veteran: Dugdale's federal vision a ropey idea", The Herald, February 27) is right that England would be dominant in a federal system – but it is now. The difference would be that Scotland would be self-governing apart from foreign affairs, defence and currency.

You published my letter of April 9, 2012 on this subject in which I acknowledged that the various constituents would vary in size. I quoted the example of Prince Edward Island in Canada with a population of under 200,000 compared to Ontario with a population of more than 13 million. Both are provinces of equal standing and run their own affairs under a written constitution.

Recent correspondence refers to the fact that England has no interest in a federal system. However if the Government is as concerned as the Prime Minister seems to be about the break-up of the UK then federalism is perhaps the best choice for the English Tory Government. Home rule would not be a good choice as Westminster would still be dominated by England and the national TV news would mostly talk about health, education and other matters in England as it does at present. Newfoundland was governed by Westminster until 1948 but had no representation in Parliament.

In my submission to the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee (PCRC) in 2014 I suggested that an English Parliament should have the power to create regions with devolved powers and in recent years there has been a move towards this idea involving city regions such as Manchester.

Perhaps the time is right for Ms Dugdale’s proposal of a Constitutional Convention and a written constitution which the PCRC was set up to consider. The report to Parliament was put aside when the new Government took power in 2015.

John J Blanche

Delting, Boquhan, Balfron.

THE Labour Party motto "We're stronger together" seems strangely at odds with a recent statement from Kezia Dugdale intimating that Scottish Labour will not join forces with the Conservatives in a joint campaign to defend the United Kingdom if Scotland held a second referendum vote (“Dugdale rules out new Tory alliance”, The Herald, February 25).

Presumably that means that the SNP can now look forward to independence being achieved, since any disunited approach by opposition parties is almost certainly doomed to fail.

Rather than gift the SNP victory it might be best if Ms Dugdale (albeit in a difficult political position with resurgent Tories and Jeremy Corbyn) considers and reflects on the following sayings/mottos – divide and conquer, united we stand divided we fall, where there is unity there is victory, and so on.

John S Milligan,

86 Irvine Road, Kilmarnock.