WITNESSING the intransigence of the EU as well as possibly the over-optimism of the UK in the war of words about Brexit shows the respective positions at this stage to be poles apart (“Brexit talks hit deadlock with no sign of deal on divorce settlement”, The Herald, September 1). Obviously there is gameplay here on both sides as an amicable solution is in both parties’ essential interests. The position in all of this by the Scottish National Party is intriguing. It obviously doesn’t want to leave the EU so is trying to make it difficult for Westminster.

Has it considered just how hard a bargain Brussels would seek should the situation be that it was an independent Scotland seeking admission to the EU? The SNP has revealed its hand very clearly and in any game that is a loser unless you possess an unbeatable winning combination.

Since the SNP disapproves of the Westminster "secrecy" surrounding the terms of the Brexit negotiations perhaps it would like to tell Scotland what ace it has up its sleeve to get the EU to admit an independent Scotland (with currency, debt and high social security payment issues) with open arms unless Nicola Sturgeon has been sufficiently refreshed by her holiday (and bearing in mind her poor General Election results) to quietly drop independence and hence the need to re-apply to the EU anyway.

Dr Gerald Edwards,

Broom Road, Glasgow.

IS there a psychosis which manifests itself in being unable to forgive a person's good deeds?

The political posturings in Europe over this country's determination to leave a European Union in advance of its own self-destruction must surely indicate the need for some medical tag.

It may, however, be that there are people who have a problem with the British and her allies bailing them out twice in the last century. In which case a medical tag is the last thing they need.

George Murray,

113 Dundonald Road, Troon.

ONE wonders what pleasure Jean-Claude Juncker is deriving from sitting like an exam adjudicator on the position papers, dealing with aspects of Brexit, recently submitted by the British negotiating team and marking them “room for improvement”.

He is, perhaps, viewing it as pay-back time for the views expressed by David Cameron, when Prime Minister, at the time of his appointment as European Commission President. Mr Cameron described Mr Juncker as the ultimate Brussels insider, who would oppose change, and that his appointment would mark a “worrying moment for Europe and for Britain”. In spite of Mr Cameron’s objections, the EU voted 26 to 2 in favour of Juncker’s appointment.

Another of David Cameron’s unfortunate legacies is having an EU President who feels that he owes no favours to the UK.

Ian W Thomson,

38 Kirkintilloch Road, Lenzie.

WITH each update on Brexit talks it appears that David Davis and his team are out of their depth and that their cunning plan of fingers-crossed and “constructive ambiguity” leaves the well-organised EU negotiators unimpressed, with the risk that failure to progress will encourage our peeved UK team to throw our Brexit toys out of the pram (most likely made in China anyway).

Disillusionment, a rethink, and by this time next year calls for a referendum on final terms seem increasingly likely.

R Russell Smith,

96 Milton Road, Kilbirnie.

KEITH Howell (Letters, September 1) includes a significant misrepresentation of my position which requires a response.

He declares neither Peter Russell, John Cameron nor Kevin Hague would claim to be “suggesting the GERS figures mean that an independent Scotland would not survive as a separate country”. It is Mr Howell who is disingenuous here, for I never said that they did. What I did say, quoting Mr Hague, was that the GERS figures do not “show what a future independent Scotland would look like”. Indeed, that point is confirmed by GERS itself, as in its Executive Summary we are told GERS “estimates the contribution of revenue raised in Scotland towards the goods and services provided for the benefit of Scotland under the current constitutional arrangements”. Thus, Mr Howell’s argument that I consider GERS “irrelevant” is itself irrelevant, for GERS makes clear the limitations of its own relevance.

This though does nothing to prevent those opposing independence to make almost ex cathedra pronouncements that the deficit of a future independent Scotland will be whatever the GERS deficit for that year happens to be, with complete certainty, no questions asked, even though GERS itself is clear, and always has been that its remit is limited to “current constitutional arrangements”.

Does Mr Howell dispute that Mr Russell asserted the purpose of Andrew Wilson’s Growth Commission is to show “how Scotland will thrive economically when the £13 billion UK subsidy is removed”? Or that Dr Cameron suggests the Scottish deficit would not be £3bn as forecast by the 2014 White Paper, but £13bn? Both these are matters of record.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting the public finances of an independent Scotland would not pose challenges, but suggesting we would be starting from the situation described by GERS ignores that it is intended only for current constitutional arrangements. Mr Howell himself ignores this by demanding a plan to take Scotland to sustainable public finance from a “starting point of such a substantial imbalance”.

GERS makes all manner of assumptions that might or might not hold good on independence. Would the amount of debt an independent Scotland would take, a matter to be negotiated, be a population share? Surely economic and other policies – for instance defence – would differ? How many choices made by the UK Government for Scotland, would be followed by an independent Scottish Government?

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue, Dumbarton.

I'M sorry Douglas Mayer (Letters, September 1) regards my criticism of the SNP as “venom”. May I respond by suggesting his defence of the SNP's lacklustre management of the NHS is naive?

Or possibly not. I have a suspicion Mr Mayer knows as well as I do that SNP ministers compare the performance of public services in Scotland with elsewhere in the UK principally as a tool of division.

The primary agenda of the nationalist government and its extensive team of tax-payer funded spin-doctors is separatism. It's regrettable the NHS is used by the likes of Health Secretary Shona Robison to engender such divisive “them and us” attitudes.

Martin Redfern,

Woodcroft Road, Edinburgh.