I READ Rebecca McQuillan’s article (“Politically, England isn’t so very different from Scotland”, The Herald, December 27) several times, trying to decide if her main point was the one made in the headline, or the one made at the end of the piece – that any PM trying to deflect the break-up of the UK should champion a more proportional electoral system at Westminster.

If the main point was this latter one, the author failed to take account of the nature of this UK Prime Minister, who is as non-consensual as any I can remember – and that includes Margaret Thatcher. Also, let us not forget the entrenched position of the British Establishment to avoid PR, devolution – and federalism – in the UK.

If, however, the author’s main point was that England isn’t so different to Scotland, I would suggest that the article very clearly outlined significant differences which contradicted this assertion.

First, in marked contrast to England, the leadership of all political parties in Scotland were united against Brexit – surely, a huge difference to be noted. Indeed, one of the most excruciating sights of the last two years has been to see Labour and Conservative politicians changing direction like little flags in the wind, as their English leaders have switched their Brexit policies from soft to hard to no-deal and back again.

Secondly, the rural/metropolitan split in England’s Brexit vote was stark, whereas the vote in Scotland was uniformly Remain – we all remember that map – whether considered in terms of rural/metropolitan, or north/south, or even island/mainland, for that matter.

In summary, I would suggest that the conduct of the Brexit campaign, the result, and the subsequent analysis of the social attitudes which led to the result absolutely do show that the Scots are different to the English, at least so far as attitudes to the EU are concerned.

Of course, the inevitable question for future discussion is how best to finesse these differences. Perhaps a topic for Ms McQuillan’s next article?

David Patrick,

Thirlestane Road, Edinburgh.

ON December 28, you published a letter from Lawrence Bell that contained the following statements: “We should have been free by now, unfettered by the third-class justice imposed by the European Court of Justice. We should also be unhindered by ties on our free trade with the rest of the world. Where are the Churchills or the Thatchers, to lead us out from bondage?”

I despair. On most occasions that a Leave voter contributes an observation to the media on Brexit, it comprises these vague and unsubstantiated statements, often with some hints at “days of the Empire”. Would Mr Bell (or any person keen to leave the EU) please provide examples of “third-class justice”, examples of the guaranteed free trade deals that await us and examples of the slavery that we are undergoing due to EU “bondage”.

I wrote to The Herald in November 2017 asking for someone (anyone) to write in citing researched and factual examples of the advantages of leaving the EU compared with the status quo. I am still waiting. Given what might lie in wait for us all after March next year, I earnestly desire to know exactly how the citizens of the UK will be better off financially, economically and in terms of our health and welfare once we leave the EU.

Jim Coley,

Calderwood Road, Rutherglen, Glasgow.

RECENT correspondents have suggested that the referendum was, after all, only advisory (Letters, December 24, 27 & 28). This, after three years of everyone being told by David Cameron and everyone else, including Theresa May, the Prime Minister for all her years in the job that it would be final. Not a single voice in any newspaper or anywhere else in the media, in all that time, has ever suggested that the democratic will of the people was only advisory, to be rejected by the House of Commons if it wished. These papers referred to have no credence, no validity, no force, for they have been over-ridden by the repeated statements of the referendum vote being sacrosanct by the current Prime Minister and her predecessor and accepted as such by everyone. Other papers have doubtless been omitted. That is how desperate the losers are to recover their position.

Many have objected that the decision was wrong, but that it was the will of the people has been accepted for three years before the vote was ever held. These letters advancing the case of the referendum are the last-ditch defence of people who think they know better than the will of the people of the country. That arrogance has been demolished many times these last three years.

We must leave and we must do so with honour. We must control our manner of leaving and not be bullied by the EU. They will come begging for a relationship after the divorce. Then it will be a decent one. We will see to it.

William Scott,

23 Argyle Place, Rothesay.

AS this dismal year draws to a close one has a sense of being led by “the mad, the bad and the incompetent”.

Having experienced the vile, divisive Scottish referendum, the bitterness unleashed by Brexit was expected.

But it’s none the less depressing and the only hope is that it’s often darkest before the dawn. Pray God it be so.

Rev Dr John Cameron,

10 Howard Place, St Andrews.

MAY I most respectfully suggest that the Conservative Party applies for associate membership of the Monster Raving Loony Party (founded in 1983). I am sure it would be welcomed with open arms.

Ian McLennan,

26 Leven Road, Lundin Links, Fife.

WHILE you are working on getting out of the EU with your Brexit talks can you please do a favour for one of your colonies? Can you please get Australia out of Eurovision? I don’t really understand why we are in it and it all it seems to do is provide a lot of hype for about a week. Thanks.

Dennis Fitzgerald,

28 Landale Street,

Box Hill, Melbourne, Australia.