IAN Lakin claims (Letters, February 23) that President Trump would put the UK "front of the line" for a bilateral trade deal. Actually, Mr Trump said no such thing, but rather, as the Huffington Post reports was “incredibly vague”. Faced with a question by Michael Gove about how quickly a bilateral trade deal between the UK and the US could be agreed, what Mr Trump did say was: “Absolutely, very quickly. I’m a big fan of the UK, we’re gonna work very hard to get it done quickly and done properly.” When Mr Gove pushed again, asking if Britain was “at the front of the queue”, all Mr Trump said was: “I think you’re doing great.”

The claim about Britain being “first in line” for a trade deal with the US was made by Boris Johnson, but I suppose, to be fair, it might not be too difficult for Mr Lakin to confuse Donald Trump with Boris Johnson.

As for a bilateral trade deal between the UK and the US being good for the UK, many respected commentators would dispute that judgement. For instance, Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute of International Economics in Washington and former member of the Bank of England’s interest rate setting committee, has said that he could say “with very great confidence any gains made from such [a deal] will be a small fraction of what they [the UK] will lose.”

Nor is it likely that an agreement will be reached quickly, as these will focus on rules and regulation, which are often the most difficult issues, with the particular difficulty in this case that the UK typically has higher standards of consumer, employee and environmental protection than the US does. Therefore, a future trade deal is more likely to involve American corporations demanding the British conform to their product standards than the other way around. This is likely to raise a string of issues in regard to for instance, the environment (fewer restrictions on pesticide and herbicide use for instance), health (if US insurers and health providers pressing for open access to the UK “market” in medical care this could fatally undermine the NHS), and farming (would we really be happy being sold hormone treated beef, or chicken washed in chlorine?).

So, the next time, when Alex Salmond or Nicola Sturgeon act to defend Scotland’s interests against President Trump, perhaps we should remember what his real agenda is.

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue, Dumbarton.

THE second largest net contributor to the EU budget has picked up its ball, and stalked away. It is only to be expected that the remaining 27 countries will do their best to drive the hardest bargain possible, if nothing else with a view to discouraging other large donors following suit.

With the benefit of hindsight, the best time for genuine negotiations to have begun regarding the UK's relationship with the EU would have been in the window from late 2015 to early 2016, when Mr Cameron, the then Prime Minister, and a number of other members of the government made several trips to various European cities. they were photographed smiling and shaking hands with assorted European political leaders and EU functionaries, all of who, we were assured, shared HM Government's view of the need to reform various structures and functions of the EU.

Only they didn't. So all Mr Cameron had to show were a few trivial concessions relating to peripheral issues. Even these were grudgingly offered, and could potentially be rescinded by various EU bodies.

At the same time, Messrs Draghi, Junker, Tusk and others were publicly working on a decade-long plan to further deepen economic, financial, social and political links within the EU. While the main participants would have been the Eurozone countries, it would be naive to believe that these changes would have no impact on the UK

We are repeatedly reminded of the narrowness of the Leave victory. I often wonder that, if Mr Cameron had returned with evidence of some more weighty concessions, such as an undertaking to rebalance the relationship between the European Commission, its parliament, national, devolved and local legislatures or review the Common Agricultural/Fisheries policies, and so on, then perhaps some of us who eventually voted Leave would have decided that we were not such bigots/racists/xenophobes/”little Englanders” after all, and put our crosses in the Remain box instead.

Christopher W Ide,

25, Riverside Road, Waterfoot, East Renfrewshire.

A WISE man once said: "With great power comes great responsibility".

In the case of the Tories in Scotland it's more like: "With great power comes the swaggering sense of entitlement that we can do what we like to Scotland and get away with it because we think you'll just meekly accept it".

Last May the people of Scotland elected a majority of MSPs committed to keeping open the option of another independence referendum. Why? Because we were facing a referendum on EU membership and the Scottish Tory leader promised in 2014 that voting "No means we stay" in the EU ; a referendum before which the current Prime Minister also promised a "future" where Scotland would be "equal partners" in the UK.

Those promises by the Tories have been broken with other parts of the UK voting Leave and Scotland voting 62 per cent Remain with every council area backing that option and many of those who voted Leave did so as a backlash against Tory policies.

So what's happened since? The Scottish Government has offered a compromise: that if the UK or Scotland stays in the single market to protect jobs then there will not be a referendum.

The Tory response? To dictate on high that there will be no compromise and the people of Scotland will do what the Tories dictate. To add to the arrogance Scotland’s sole Tory MP is the only MP from Scotland that voted to give Theresa May the power to impose a hard Brexit on Scotland.

It is the Scottish Government which is keeping its manifesto pledge by keeping open the option of an independence referendum and has offered a compromise. The Tories have broken their promises to the people of Scotland by failing to ensure a No vote meant Scotland remained in the EU and abused their power to treat Scotland like some branch office and not an equal partner in the UK.

The people of Scotland have a chance this May in the local elections to send the Tory Party a powerful message. The alternative is waking up the next morning to hear gleeful Tories crowing that every vote they won was an endorsement to treat Scotland the way they want.

Bill Wallace,

120 Wynford Road, Glasgow.