I HAVE been puzzled that the reporting of the Westminster “power grab” has concentrated almost entirely on the ongoing disagreements and stand-offs, without analysis of what lies behind this attempt to expropriate, even temporarily, specifically devolved competences ("SNP hopes for last-minute deal with May on Brexit Bill", The Herald, April 26). Even without interim EU involvement, these powers would never have resided with Westminster after devolution.

First, Westminster has already put a time limit upon the period during which it will continue to support farming on a decreasing scale after Brexit, and the seven years of the “sunset clause” more than covers this. So by the time it “might” pass on these powers to Holyrood, farming support will have ceased, along with the funding that Holyrood might have expected for it – big saving for Westminster and reduced budget for Scotland. If anyone doubts this, they need only consider how the EU grant allocated two years ago, specifically for Scottish hill farmers, has seen only 20 per cent passed on and 80 per cent retained by the Treasury.

Secondly, anyone who watched the progress of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTiP) negotiations on trade with America will know that one condition on which the US refused to budge was the right to export to us foodstuffs that our more stringent regulations banned, most notably chicken washed with chlorine and other disinfectants as a substitute for hygienic husbandry and meat from cattle fed growth hormones and other antibiotics. Another was that major US companies would be able to sue any government that passed a law that hit their profits – think of the smoking ban here. The EU Parliament, on our behalf, voted this deal out, but Theresa May knows that a UK deal with America cannot be achieved without these conditions being included, and Holyrood would never agree to endanger public health in this way.

Thirdly, leaks from civil servants working on Brexit reveal that Scotland’s fishing “must be regarded as expendable” and Theresa May herself has said publicly that “the deal must not disadvantage EU fishermen” and “Spanish fishermen should not be left poorer”. Again, there is proof of this hidden agenda in the fact that the promises to fishermen about returning powers after Brexit Day have already been broken.

That this power grab is necessary to protect the internal UK market just does not wash. It has functioned perfectly well for 40-odd years while Westminster had no control over the exercise of these powers, so why would that change? This is not about protection of the UK market or anything else. It is that Theresa May desperately needs the powers to dilute some of the conditions that benefit us and our food producers, protect us from unhealthy, tainted imports and our Government from legal attack, so that she can, at whatever cost, forge the trade deals she so desperately needs. And these are daily becoming more and more illusory.

Let no-one be fooled that this is just a simple, temporary measure to ensure “regulatory convergence” within the UK – we would have that on day one anyway if the powers came straight to Holyrood.

P Davidson,

Gartcows Road, Falkirk.

I SUPPOSE it was only a matter of time before the “Red and Blue Tories” got the band back together, and went back out on the road – this time beating the drum for the stripping of already devolved powers from Holyrood to London for seven years. So far, so predictable.

What the Unionists (and journalists in general) haven’t considered is that the SNP has nothing to lose by refusing a deal. When the deal is imposed on Holyrood by London, it will still get exactly the same deal as they would by agreeing, and they will have forced Westminster to break normal constitutional conventions to do so..

What the SNP gains by its tenacity is “purity and face”, electoral gold for politicians.

It cannot be then complicit for any bad support deal suffered by farmers, any trading away of fishing stocks or grounds (and Westminster has form with this), any lowering of food/animal welfare standards due to trade deals. Any results which upset the public will be laid at the door of the Unionist parties, who are now as one on this.

This whole episode points out, not the strength of the Union, but its weakness. There should have been negotiations between the four parliaments to reach common grounds on the “internal market”. There was and is, plenty of time for this. Now we will have imposed settlements on all, which reflect only one country (albeit the biggest), and its priorities.

GR Weir,

17 Mill Street,

Ochiltree.

NICOLA Sturgeon's continuing opposition to the UK Government's flagship Brexit bill has little real substance other than her constant pursuit of grievances. Surely the UK Government has every right to ensure that these powers,which after all have been regulated by the EU for nearly 40 years, are initially held in Westminster to ensure the necessary consistency before being devolved?

The First Minister, ever ready to highlight a grievance, seems reluctant to express any gratitude that the welfare budget which should have been implemented by her Government from 2017 is actually being administered in Westminster until 2020 because Holyrood still lacks the essential IT systems and infrastructure support. It is good to have a friend when you are in need.

Ronald J Sandford,

1 Scott Garden, Kingsbarns, Fife.

THE Rev Dr John Cameron’s quality of mercy seems a bit strained as he blames us oldies for his pessimistic view that we have consigned future generations somehow to a future he thinks they don’t want, whilst we sit around whingeing about immigration as we watch repeats on the TV (Letters, April 25). His view seems to boil down essentially to believing they will have greater difficulties in working, studying and travelling in the EU countries. So what? Even if he is correct, are there not other non-EU countries as well as all the Commonwealth countries for them to consider, as many have done over the years, if they feel as apparently he does that post-Brexit the grass is greener elsewhere?

I believe that Brexit inevitably will offer opportunities as well as challenges, and I have greater faith than he appears to have in the ability of coming generations to rise to those challenges, as have past generations.

Alan Fitzpatrick,

10 Solomon’s View, Dunlop.