THE yawning chasm between what was offered by Vote Leave before the EU vote and what Theresa May's much-maligned deal is proposing now has resulted in a major clamour for a second confirmatory referendum to give the people the final say. Repeated polling also shows there is a majority for a confirmatory EU vote, which leads one to suspect that the confirmatory vote genie is now well and truly out of the bottle.

The clamour for a confirmatory vote also reflects where current academic thinking on referendums is coalescing around.

The Independent Commission on Referendums – the gold standard academic authority on referendums, recommends that any future Scottish independence referendum should come as a two-vote package. This should be set out clearly in the White Paper preceding the first vote, alerting the electorate to the fact that the SNP Government would have the right to call a confirmatory referendum if there had been a ''material change'' between what was promised in the independence manifesto and what was delivered after the final separation talks had been signed off between Westminster and Holyrood.

The confirmatory vote opens a new line of debate as to what constitutes a ''material change''. Let's apply the confirmatory vote retrospectively to the last independence referendum. Would a drop in the price of a barrel of Brent crude from $100 in September 2014 to around $50 per barrel on independence day (March 24, 2016) constitute a material change? Of course it would have, especially as the whole independence economic case was predicated around a barrel of oil being $113.

What independence supporters are really asking for when they demand indyref2 now, is a rerun of the one-vote 2014 referendum. They are in for a shock, as Brexit has now rendered a one-off referendum option for any future indyref 2 as obsolete, The strategically inept First Minister, who has been clamouring for a confirmatory vote for the EU referendum would be accused of brazen hypocrisy if a second Edinburgh Agreement didn't include a two-vote indyref2 package.

What a confirmatory vote means in reality for indyref2 is that the next economic case for independence will have to be absolutely rock solid and be able to sustain 3-5 years or so of the most intense in-depth critical scrutiny until the final deal between Westminster and Holyrood is agreed. The portents for this happening do not look good. The SNP-endorsed Growth Commission's recommendations for an independent Scotland's economic future was three years in the making and it took a non-economist three days after its publication to expose its major failings. Failings which have since been endorsed by a slew of economists as an accurate analysis of the Growth Commission's weaknesses,

Unlike September 2014 it will no longer be possible for the SNP to punt a weak economic case to the electorate in any future independence referendum as the electorate will now be able to scrutinise what was promised before the first vote and compare it to what was signed off on independence day.

Could it be that a confirmatory vote has raised the bar of public scrutiny so high now that it might mean that the referendum route to Scottish Independence is now closed, due to a perennially weak economic case?

Robert Hoskins,

5 Parkhill Road, Shawlands, Glasgow.

Read more: Scottish independence: How and when Scotland could rejoin the EU

AFTER much prevaricating Nicola Sturgeon has announced (no doubt to appease her restless followers) that a second referendum vote "should" be held within the next two years to "protect" Scotland against Brexit. She went on to suggest that a choice between Brexit and a future for Scotland as an independent European nation should be on offer. What absolute balderdash.

First, most people would accept that even if the UK leaves the EU as in a "soft" Brexit, it will be very challenging, but at least Britain has its own currency, a very low fiscal deficit and has many years of experience exporting (around 56 per cent) to countries under WTO-based rules. Scotland on the other hand has the worst fiscal deficit (due to too many freebies) in all the OECD countries, does not have its own currency and relies on selling around 65 per cent of its goods and services direct to the rUK internal market – whereas it is only around six per cent the other way round.

Furthermore, the idea we can simply leave our 300-year-Union and "cook the books" (like Greece) in order to meet the strict EU criteria for new joining countries is complete fantasy. Not only would we have to wait an indeterminable time to join the EU (referenced in the Growth Commission report) all new members are required to join the euro, creating decades of economic uncertainty. Nicola Sturgeon loves to talk about a "cliff edge" – given her aim is to be outside the UK and EU markets at the same time I now know exactly what she means. No, thanks (again).

Ian Lakin,

Pinelands, Murtle Den Road, Milltimber, Aberdeen.

KEITH Howell (Letters, April 26) writes that Nicola Sturgeon’s plan to hold a second referendum “is no more than playing to the nationalist gallery ahead of this weekend’s SNP Conference”. His speculation is a bit fanciful, as the SNP has been calling for advancement in the Brexit shambles, and this will chivvy along the English Tory and Labour parties, while they continue to ignore Scotland

Lord North has been named by some as the worst Prime Minister ever as his indolence in office led to the loss of the American Colonies; Mrs Theresa May is now rivalling this description.

Once the dust of Brexit has settled, I hazard a guess that she might adopt the soubriquet of “Lady South” for her peerage.

Jim Lynch,

42 Corstorphine Hill Crescent, Edinburgh.

BROWSING my iPhone in a waiting room recently, I spotted in the Letters section of The Herald either letters from the usual suspects, lambasting the SNP, or references to them. It occurred to me that “vexatious” might explain their motivation.

The definitions included: Annoyance, frustration, irritability, irritation, exasperation, anger, rage, fury, temper, bad temper, hot temper, wrath, spleen, chagrin, pique, crossness, indignation, displeasure, discontent, dissatisfaction, disgruntlement, ill humour, peevishness, resentment, and umbrage.

I challenge any or all of the candidates to volunteer which one, or several, of these definitions best suit their individual temperaments, or is it simply a collective case of sheer detestation of the SNP?

Douglas R Mayer,

76 Thomson Crescent, Currie.