IT has been reported, on heraldscotland.com and elsewhere, that Theresa May's proposals for the Irish border after Brexit have been comprehensively rejected in Brussels. This comes as no surprise to me. Similarly, it was quite predictable that other EU member states might not be averse to free trade with the UK in manufactured goods, but certainly would concede nothing on agricultural goods, fisheries, and, by far the most important, in internationally tradeable services (particularly finance and investment). There is no free trade in these areas currently anyway.

It is naive to believe that a free trade agreement with the EU would ever have been possible, for the simple reason that it would always have conflicted with the over-riding political objective of the Berlin/Brussels/Paris oligarchy: the complete political and economic union of "Europe". This was sanctified 30 years ago when the leading neo-Marxist philosophers Jacques Derrida (France) and Jurgen Habermas (Germany) had blessed "Europe"' as morally superior to the individual nation-states. Donald Tusk, as President of the European Council, did so again last week in Dublin. Little wonder therefore that the self-regarding lefty UK chattering classes in the public sector, education, media and the arts are Remainers: they, too, think themselves better than the rest of us.

So what is to be done, especially in Ireland? Precisely 100 years ago, Nationalist Ireland was roused by and against the threat of conscription to fight the war against Imperial Germany. In December 1918, Sinn Fein won 73 of the 105 Irish seats at Westminster, and by 1922 the Free State was born, but Northern Ireland remained part of the UK. That settlement was fully endorsed in the Belfast Agreement of 1998.

At the insistence of Brussels, it would seem that we are now heading for trading with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules, which is hardly a "cliff edge" for a competitive economy like that of the UK. That is how we trade with the rest of the world now anyway. If the Republic of Ireland is forced to erect the EU's common external tariff along the Irish border, then so be it, and let Brussels take the blame.The UK will respect Ireland's sovereignty but does not have to respond with tariffs. It is not worth the fuss when only five per cent of Northern Ireland's gross domestic product is traded with the Republic.

Richard Mowbray,

14 Ancaster Drive, Glasgow.

WHEN MSP Joan McAlpine told a Holyrood committee that devolution did not work within the UK single market her claim was ridiculed by Scottish Conservative MSPs. Yet fast forward a few weeks and we have had these same Scottish Conservatives telling another Holyrood committee that it was "unacceptable" for Westminster to retain powers under Clause 11 of the Withdrawal Bill. The expectation had been that following Brexit these specific powers would return directly to Holyrood from Brussels. Theresa May’s explanation for declining to devolve these powers directly was that the integrity of the UK single market would be jeopardised. In other words, Joan McAlpine was right. The UK single market can’t cope with devolution.

The EU single market is all about convergence. This is required in order to facilitate the free movement of goods, people and services which form the basis of the market. That means a common set of rules, tariffs, and border controls are necessary, ideally accompanied by a single currency to form one market entity controlled by a European Parliament and Council representing all the member states.

Devolution on the other hand is all about divergence. It’s about each member state of the UK having separate rules created by themselves to suit their own particular circumstances and without interference from Westminster. The problem with such a framework is that it cannot function along single market lines like that in the EU. Take student tuition fees for example.

The decision of the Scottish Government to abolish these whilst they were retained in England should mean that English students studying in Scotland are also not liable for these fees. This is the case with EU nationals studying in Scotland. Under single market rules regarding the provision of services you cannot discriminate on the grounds of citizenship or nationality. However that requirement applies to other member states of the EU only, and not to the rest of the UK.

If a genuine single market operated between the member states of the UK, then the services provided by the Scottish Government would be available to those students from England living in Scotland just as English citizens studying in Spain can avail themselves of the Spanish healthcare system on the same basis as Spanish citizens.

It is also worth noting that tariffs to trade between member states within a single market are normally prohibited. MSP Richard Lochhead’s recent discovery of firms operating an effective tariff system for the delivery of goods to Scotland despite them claiming otherwise is further evidence that the claimed UK single market does not function as such. The argument that a Scottish tariff is required to "cover extra costs" could be resolved by simply increasing the item price to cover this in much the same way that a letter posted from Lerwick to Westminster costs the same as one posted from Camden to Westminster. Scottish consumers are effectively being penalised by the UK single market.

Robert Menzies,

2 Burnbrae Gardens, Falkirk.

IT would seem that Dr Gerald Edwards (Letters, April 20) can find no good points in the SNP.

He accuses the SNP of a lack of transparency over any contact with the newly revealed Cambridge Analytica; Nicola Sturgeon stated clearly that a consultant acting on behalf of the SNP had met with the firm in 2016, probably at their request as they were going the rounds touting for business. The report back was that they “were a bunch of cowboys”.

Dr Edwards also mentions the Police Scotland Chief Constable row, created by the aforesaid Chief Constable having been accused of bullying and almost being cleared before the investigations were completed. These decisions were taken by the Scottish Police Authority, and when the Justice Secretary queried this decision the Chairman of the police authority resigned; a full explanation was given to Parliament. The NHS Tayside row resulted in the chief executive being fired and the chairman resigning, all in the glare of publicity.

For some strange reason he queries the Community Bill which was given credence by the Lord Advocate, James Wolfe QC; it is noted that the Holyrood Presiding Officer did not think the bill was legal, but the Cardiff Presiding Officer said that it was. No lack of transparency there.

Jim Lynch,

42 Corstrophine Hill Crescent, Edinburgh.