I’M a tad surprised that a day after Theresa May resigns, Tom Gordon concentrates on Nicola Sturgeon and a second independence referendum ("Sturgeon should end her dishonest referendum shame", The Herald, May 25). I would have thought the absurd positioning of Ruth Davidson and David Mundell toward a “Boris Ticket” would have been more interesting and relevant article. Of course, a lot of what Mr Gordon says makes sense regarding the historic White Paper: it will probably take a decade to fully unwind Scotland and England, but independence doesn’t need to wait until every last detail is concluded. Look at the Velvet Divorce between the Czechs and Slovaks. But to me, Ms Sturgeon's “timetable” is a political tactic; force the Unionists to continually veto a second independence vote, while these same people (Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn, Vince Cable) have conceded on the principle of a second EU vote – and if it was discussed in Mrs May's last “unanimous” Cabinet, then Mundell must also have agreed.

If, as Mr Gordon says, independence would derange British politics more than the shambles we have now (and it will probably get worse) with the Leave result, where are the alternatives to independence? The five-year-old White Paper is there to be shot at, but on the other side is a vacuum; a blank sheet which once contained all the broken constitutional promises made by Unionists In 2014. If Unionists want to keep the Union intact, then they must tell Scotland if they have any constitutional proposals other than a perpetual veto. Mr Gordon mentions the fragility of the Yes vote, but the No vote may be even more fragile, and could melt away quickly, as Westminster sinks into ungovernable minority party chaos.

GR Weir, Ochiltree.

Read more: Tom Gordon: Nicola Sturgeon should end her insulting referendum sham

TWO articles in The Herald on Saturday highlight the SNP's dilemma in making the case for another stab at “independence”. Tom Gordon provides facts and dates combined with in-depth analysis to question the legality, timetable and motivation of the SNP's plans for another referendum and find them all wanting.

Kevin McKenna ("May will come to be remembered as the woman who gave Scotland its greatest gift: independence", The Herald, May 25) eschews logic. His case is essentially an attack on Theresa May's record as Home Secretary and PM coupled with the threat of a new Tory PM, amounting in the end to: Theresa May bad, Boris Johnson even worse, therefore we must have so-called independence. No case is made for independence, no timetable is considered, no facts or arguments are presented, no problems are faced let alone addressed, no difficulties are acknowledged, no resistance is foreseen or planned for. It's just: Johnson becomes Tory leader, Scotland becomes independent.

Brexit has shown the stupidity and futility of destroying existing unions without a clear and practical plan for their replacement. And if the best the Nationalists can do is “we don't like Boris Johnson”, then the case for independence is just as weak, perhaps even weaker, than the rest of us ever suspected.

Alex Gallagher, Labour councillor, Largs.

Read more: Kevin McKenna: May will come to be remembered as the woman who gave Scotland its greatest gift: independence

LEAVING aside some of his dubious assumptions on other factors, Ian Lakin (Letters, May 24) makes a valid point on referendums, how they are conducted and what represents a valid majority. The EU withdrawal referendum was won with 51.4 per cent of the popular vote from a 72 per cent turnout while the Scottish independence referendum was won with 55.3 per cent majority from a near 85 per cent turnout. The Scottish referendum therefore had an undeniable validity in my opinion, even though I was on the losing side. I would suggest that the Scottish experience would make a fair benchmark for the required majority in future referendums. I have seen figures like 60 per cent or even 66 per cent mentioned on the basis that this (apparently) is the majority required for important changes in some golf clubs. How ludicrous.

Mr Lakin and others might also want to reflect on the fact that that the Prime Minister of the UK and the UK's future outside Europe is about to be decided by 124,000 members of the Conservative Party, a group of people purported to have an average age over 60 years and who could hardly be described as representative of either the UK or Scotland. Mr Lakin might be one of those who are quite sanguine about the prospect, but I'm not.

John Jamieson, Ayr.

IT is now a matter of record that the SNP White Paper ahead of the 2014 independence referendum was littered with misinformation and inaccuracies, a pattern which has continued in the utterances of independence supporters ever since.

One of the most prevalent of these concerns the nature and contents of the Vow which was signed by the leaders of the three main political parties. Its latest misrepresentation in your pages is that of John Edgar: "The Vow was that we could only remain in the EU through the UK" (Letters, May 24).

The truth of the matter is of course that the Vow did not mention the EU at all. Its three pledges were that Holyrood should be given statutory protection; that the Barnett Formula would be preserved; and that Holyrood would be ceded more powers.

All three of these commitments have been honoured in full.

Peter A Russell, Glasgow G13.

HOW very sad that a fine public servant like the Prime Minister has left in such disarray ("Broken by Brexit as tearful May calls it a day", The Herald, May 25). She took on a job few had the courage for. It was impossible because the EU set out to punish us for leaving and wanted to reduce us to "a colony" of it. The only deal possible was theirs. They were unyielding. Bringing down the UK to their own level has brought secret smiles to them all.

Holding an election to improve her position was a good idea. Her inflexibility as a campaigner was her undoing. Politicians need to have an ear to the people, understand what moves them and be able to influence them. Resolution is not enough. They have to be likeable, humane and inspiring. Able at best, to persuade people to do better than they think they can. That takes exceptional clarity of mind, wisdom and timing.

Her successor needs to realise that the EU will give us nothing. Our relationship can be rebuilt after we leave. Our complete sovereignty is our aim. More than any other country in the world because of our history and the blood, sweat and tears that made it. We can and will solve all the problems of leaving with no deal. It is worth billions to us and we will pay for every job lost for the sake of it.

William Scott, Rothesay.

WHAT an unedifying sight as the rats fight tooth and claw to re-board the ship they sank.

David Hay, Minard.