IT would appear that the experts’ predictions of problems and difficulties in all areas, commercial and personal, following the Leave vote are coming home to roost (“Recession highly possible in the aftermath of the Brexit vote”, The Herald, July 28). Close attention to the media over the last month has revealed the extent of problems ahead in practically every aspect of life.

Yes, GlaxoSmithKline is about to invest a substantial sum (“GSK invests £110m in Montrose plant“, The Herald, July 28) and there has been a trade agreement with Australia, but apart from those very small rays of sunshine considerable gloom has descended elsewhere. The EU has now appointed a “hardball” negotiator, which would seem to indicate that the UK’s planned gentle approach to the situation will be frustrated. Business and tourism have good reason to be angered. Students and youth feel sidelined, restricted in their mobility and genuinely concerned by the likely difficulties ahead. General consensus suggests Brexit is a very bad idea.

As the Westminster Parliament has sovereign power and the vote is “advisory”, increased rumblings of discontent could yet reverse the vote and, despite the childish problems in the Conservative party that would ensue, a return to where we were to carry on negotiating to correct all the perceived shortcomings in the EU may well be for everyone’s benefit and indeed safety.

Nigel Dewar Gibb,

15 Kirklee Road, Glasgow.

YOUR lead story today together with the excellent letter from Dr RM Morris (July 28) simply confirm what many ordinary mortals are thinking. Why on earth are we pursuing this course?

Any decision based on false evidence would and should be overturned as soon as it is clear that the evidence on which the decision was based was false or inadequate and/or if new evidence becomes available. That is now the case in spades. Surely at the very least the flimsy Brexit decision needs a proper debate in Parliament (with a free vote) to ascertain if it is in the best interests of the country to proceed.

And the main proponents of Brexit who distorted the truth have vanished into thin air, which tells its own story.

John Spence,

32 Commonhead Street, Airdrie.

WHY do so many of your correspondents keep referring to the possibility of a second "independence" referendum when what is envisaged is no such thing? Any further referendum would not be to decide if Scotland could be an independent nation, but rather would be to decide if Scotland wished to separate from the UK, which would involve swapping its present dependence on Westminster for dependence on Brussels.

Should the Scottish Government ever call for a second referendum, the question to be set by the Electoral Commission must reflect this reality.

Alan Fitzpatrick

10 Solomon's View, Dunlop.

IT is troubling to see another report of poor performance in an area of public policy that is supposed to be a Scottish Government priority, in this case underspend of money by its anti-poverty fund initiative (“£1.5m of welfare crisis fund unused”, The Herald, July 27). There appears to be a common problem of a lack of attention to detail in the SNP’s oversight that is not improving over time.

It cannot be helping that such an overwhelming focus is being given just now to finding ways to engineer a second independence referendum off the back of the EU Brexit result. Scotland and some of its most vulnerable communities suffer meanwhile. When will the SNP leadership get back to concentrating on its day job?

Keith Howell,

White Moss, West Linton, Peeblesshire.