FIRST Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s outraged reaction to the UK referendum on leaving the European Union has been downgraded from initial repeated assertions that Scotland has always been a member of the EU, accompanied by a chorus of references to an independent Scotland re-applying for membership as though we had been a member and this inflated status was at risk from an uncaring and unrepresentative government at Westminster, to the level of more recent claims that her Government was “protecting Scotland’s place in Europe”.

Ms Sturgeon is advised by the Scottish Government’s Standing Council on Europe, which includes our very own Lord John Kerr of Kinlochard, no less, who was personally responsible for the crafting of the Constitution of Europe, under which, in a rearranged and slightly modified form now known as the Treaty of Lisbon, we are governed today. Ms Sturgeon could not have had a more competent adviser, so presumably the decision to present alternative facts was her own.

So what is Scotland’s place in Europe? It is not and never has been that of a member state – which is the only kind of member recognised in the EU – either of the original EEC or, as this body became following the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht, the European Union. Mandarins at Brussels had already divided Britain into its 12 constituent regions in 1971 before their counterparts at Whitehall presented the blueprint for membership to a Westminster government which in 1973 signed a treaty on our behalf committing this country to “ever closer union of the peoples of Europe” – an obligation with only one possible goal: the establishment of a European state. It was not until 1975 that the people of Britain were permitted a referendum, not on whether we wished to participate in this political concept but on whether we then wished to withdraw from what was mendaciously presented as merely a free trade agreement.

No time was lost. This same year the European Commission, guardian of the treaties, set up its regional office in Edinburgh and none of the EU treaties makes any provision for change of status from a region to a member state.

When Scotland voted in its independence referendum the crucial issue of our place in Europe could be downplayed. There is no way this elephant in the room can be ignored in a fresh referendum instigated, allegedly, by Britain’s pending departure from the EU. Next time, the electorate must be provided not with the views of “experts” but with rulings and decisions on the subject by Brussels itself.

Mary Rolls (Mrs)

1 Carlesgill Cottages, Westerkirk, Langholm, Dumfriesshire.

PRIME Minister Theresa May seems blissfully ignorant about the historical facts of the creation of the United Kingdom Parliament in 1707, and its proper constitutional status. It did not come about as a take-over of Scotland by a dominant England following centuries of wars and feuding, but as a freely-negotiated agreement between the parliaments of two long-established independent nations and neighbours.

On the other hand those negotiators on the Scottish side do not seem to have realised that a parliament in which Scotland would have a very small representation was always in danger of being “ruled” by English votes, and so they failed to get any provision the protection of the much smaller partner.

To be fair Scotland did very well economically to start with, sharing in the massive wealth created by the developing business with the New World, importing tobacco, cotton and sadly from supporting the slave trade. In the 19th century the industrial revolution added more strength to the Scottish economy, and rule from Westminster seemed to have been mostly benign and supportive despite the small Scottish presence there.

The disenchantment really only began in the second half of the 20th century and especially the Thatcher era. The Scottish industrial and mining industries were virtually destroyed by Conservative policies and Scotland was used as a trial area for the hated poll tax. The voting system for the limited 1979 referendum was gerrymandered by the Conservative government and then the marginal result in favour of very limited devolved powers was rejected by Mrs Thatcher.

Those were the circumstances which gave stimulus to the nationalist movement, followed by the Scottish Convention and in 1999 the new Scottish Parliament, and ultimately a Scottish National government. Since then the Westminster and Whitehall establishment has been under increasing pressure to which it has unwisely responded by merely throwing Scotland a few more crumbs of devolved powers.

Today, the more the Prime Minister thinks she is being strong by offering a stone-walling response to every reasonable request for Scottish interests including to be respected in the Brexit negotiations. She doesn’t seem to understand that this merely increases the anger and frustration across Scotland, and will simply increase the demand for another referendum and ultimately lead to full independence. Does Theresa May realise what she is doing? I hope not, and that’s she continues to be the Nationalists’ biggest asset.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

WHILST we were all saddened by the attack at Westminster week, we should not forget our own elected extremists who have contributed to current events. Bad decisions have come from recent poor Prime Ministers and Downing Street offices, yet Parliament has let them off repeatedly.

Firstly Tony Blair joined an illegal war which multiplied Middle East problems and terrorism attacks, yet the Labour party and the media still listen to his pronouncements. No thought was given to the aftermath.

Secondly, David Cameron announced a referendum – partly to deter the Nigel Farage garbage and partly due to overconfidence. Now we have adamant ladies leading us to further battles in Westminster and Edinburgh. Again no consideration of a negative outcome and its aftermath.

Whilst we all have different opinions on the decisions coming out of Brussels, no party or parliament has asked us, (or sought to), itemise these complaints for possible adjustment to Brussels decrees or laws. Therefore we missed the opportunity of constructive adaptation and went straight to an all or nothing approach. This attitude gives us little confidence in the future Brexit negotiations.

Do we know what all our complaints about Brussels are? I was surprised by ex-army relations in England who voted for Brexit because they understood that a European Army (comprising units from each country ) was proposed. What other proposed and present Brussels policies upset us? So far nobody seems to look for, or have the will to, negotiate for improved relations with Brussels.

Let’s be positive by starting with the things we like and enjoy in our present memberships, then seek to amend the less acceptable current Brussels rules – or is that an extremist idea?

JB Drummond,

2 South Hamilton Place, Kilmarnock.

INSPIRED by “Grexit” and "Brexit”, shouldn't the campaign to keep Scotland within the UK use the slogan “No Sexit please, we're British”?

Jane Ann Liston,

5 Whitehill Terrace, Largo Road, St Andrews.