IF I correctly understand it, the basis of Richard Mowbray’s argument about last year’s European referendum (Letters, June 26), is that the majority of people chose to vote Leave because “they believed the institutions of the EU to be profoundly unaccountable and undemocratic, its elite (and that of the UK too) to be in need of being taken down a peg or two, and they wanted control of the UK back”.

As far as control over UK affairs is concerned, as a UK resident I have been marginalised for virtually the whole of my voting life under the current undemocratic and backward two-party, first-past-the-post system at Westminster. Given that, under this system, Scotland has been represented by only one Conservative MP in the last seven years, there is no “mystery” at all in our collectively feeling more comfortable with Brussels than with London.

With all the current faults of the EU, including its democratic deficits, I still see Europe as much more forward-looking, democratic, and, in principle at least, enlightened, generous and humane, than Britain under its present system and particularly under its present Government. The idea of justice, human rights, and safety and environmental standards being taken back and neutered under the likes of Theresa May and Boris Johnson frankly appals me.

With regard to the 580 MPs elected this month “on manifestos to leave the EU single market and customs union”, this was a General Election on a wide range of issues, not a referendum on one issue. Neither of the two largest parties, between which all the other parties under the present system were inevitably squeezed, offered the electorate any clear choice on the subject.

I prefer to interpret this month’s outcome, resulting significantly in a hung parliament, as evidence of the perplexity and confusion of the British people, now faced with the reality of an increasingly uncertain future under a Theresa May-style Brexit. “Taking back control” is already being exposed for the lie it was, as the British people, too astute to be fooled twice, immediately recognised with the other lie, “strong and stable government” under the Conservatives.

Robert Bell,

40 Stewarton Drive, Cambuslang.

JIM Sillars asserts that the Scottish Government was wrong to go to the Supreme Court over the Sewel Convention when it was seeking to oppose Article 50 so that Scotland could not be withdrawn from the EU and single market against its will (“Sillars urges Sturgeon to stop ‘grandstanding’ over second independence poll”, The Herald, June 27). He concludes that the Scottish Government should have left matters vague. An opposite conclusion can be drawn.

Many people had faith in the Sewel Convention, dating from July 1998 when the UK Government asserted that it would "not normally legislate on devolved matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". "Normally" turned out to be the weasel word. The Scotland Act 2016 then repeated this supposed pledge but it turns out not to have been worth the paper it was written on.

We therefore now have clarity that we cannot trust the Westminster Government on anything meaningful, including on our place in Europe. It points to independence as the only way for the Scottish people to make their own decisions. We have to trust ourselves. It is no use trusting Westminster.

Susan Grant,

Mansfield Cottage, Scotsburn Road, Tain.

I’D like to know how the First Minister can honestly complain about a “Brexit” effect on Scotland.

The Scottish economy has been teetering on recession since before the Brexit vote. It’s underperforming compared to the UK average. Both consumer spending and business confidence is lower than the UK. Wages are still lower than they were a decade ago.

Since the Edinburgh Agreement was signed in 2012, Scotland has been suffering from a pernicious “independence referendum” effect, which, at a minimum has been compounded by Brexit.

At the insistence of the SNP this effect could last up to a generation despite the fact that the issue was democratically resolved in 2014.

Most people are now getting on with their lives, even if they didn’t vote for Brexit. Most political parties have also accepted that some form of Brexit will occur rather than campaigning for another referendum on the EU.

Such acceptance, sensible politics and reconciliation has never really occurred in Scotland, much to our detriment.

David Bone.

1 Ailsa Street West, Girvan.

BEFORE the EU referendum, the term “Brexit” was used as a rallying cry by those wishing for withdrawal from the EU. Now that the die is cast and we are leaving, the negotiations in progress will decide how this country will sit in relation to Europe. As we will at the end of the day be out of the EU, I suggest dropping the term Brexit and adopting the term Eurout.

Lawrence Laing,

151 Peveril Avenue, Glasgow.