I AM regularly puzzled when I read of Henry VIII powers still being available to the current Westminster Parliament.

These powers were introduced about a couple of centuries before the Treaty of Union and applied to the English parliament of that time. As the treaty of Union, an internationally recognised treaty, enshrined the disbandment of the existing English parliament and the creation of a new, joint English/Scottish one, I fail to understand how powers held by the previous one can possibly still be legally held by the new one. Is this not a blatant breach of the Treaty of Union, open to legal challenge?

READ MORE: All Scottish political parties should fight the Union’s injustice

If, however, powers previously legal in the erstwhile English parliament are still legal today, does this mean that any or all powers previously legal in the defunct Scottish parliament are still equally legal at Westminster? If so, surely one of these continuing powers must be the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, who must therefore retain the right in law to alter or abolish parliament, which exists only by their consent, and institute new government of their choice?

If Henry VIII powers are still legal, then the people of Scotland legally need no-one’s permission to decide to change their government.

L McGregor