ALAN Fitzpatrick (Letters, July 15) places the phrase "taking back control" in quotation marks as if this was an SNP slogan; if it is, I've never heard it. I think Mr Fitzpatrick is confusing the Brexit campaign's sloganeering with the SNP's more considered argument for Independence. Nevertheless, he does admit obliquely that Scotland is controlled by Westminster.

As for his suggestion that Scotland's laws will be controlled from Brussels, well, try telling that to the French or Germans or any of the other independent nations of Europe. The European court of Justice is fine by me, however it's indicative of the controlling nature of the Westminster government that many there object to their ultimate control of Scottish laws being interfered with, but let's not forget that the European Union is a union of independent nations, unlike the United Kingdom.

Mr Fitzpatrick is correct in suggesting that any treaty with other nations requires some loss of control. If he or anyone else thinks that abandoning our EU membership will give the UK more control of its future when negotiating with the US or China then they have another think coming. We currently have a voice in Brussels, we will have none in Washington, Beijing or even Brussels for that matter.

As for an independent Scotland taking its orders from Brussels rather than Westminster, well that's OK by me. From where I sit Brussels looks like a beacon of good governance, compared to the basket case which is the UK governed by an English parliament (for such it is) at Westminster.

John Jamieson, Ayr.

THE difficulty of Alan Fitzpatrick’s letter is summed up in one sentence, “Why can they not come clean and admit that by the former what they are seeking is separation from the UK, and by the latter they mean the substitution of control from Brussels to that at present from Westminster?”

Westminster and Brussels are by no means identical. Westminster is an all-encompassing political union which can legislate on any matter it chooses, but the European Union is a treaty-based economic union with powers limited and controlled by member states. These include product standards and composition, product labelling, rights of movement and residence of EU citizens, company law, banking regulation, consumer protection, animal welfare, farm payments and managing the fish stocks in member states’ fishing grounds. This sounds like a lot (and arguably it is), however its main purpose is to ensure trade can be carried out fairly, and that for instance, no country attempts to achieve success by limiting employee rights or producing goods and services to a lower standard than others. It does not, however, include such as education, welfare, defence or foreign policies.

Mr Fitzpatrick’s claim that the EU is on a “march … toward an ever-closer union” is hypothetical at best, requiring the future agreement of the member states. In contrast Westminster’s powers, within the UK, are to all intents infinite

Lastly, he raises the issue that “in the UK Scotland doesn’t get the government that they themselves voted for, how is that going to change in the EU?” and there is no doubt that there would be times when the balance of members we elect to the European Parliament will not be reflected in its final majority. That though is not the most important point.

The fact that one member of the UK – England – constitutes almost 85 per cent of the population means if that there is clarity there about their aims then, pretty much no matter what the other member states think, they will achieve their aims. This could be clearly seen in the EU referendum, when even if we deduct the Leave vote in Wales (which overall voted Leave) and in Northern Ireland (which overall voted Remain) there would still be a majority for Leave in the UK! To repeat, if there is a difference of opinion between the member states of the UK, England is well large enough to get its own way even if there is only a slight majority there. Even Germany lacks that power in the EU. The UK is anything but a Union of equals.

Mr Fitzpatrick claims that by “take back control” independence supporters mean “the substitution of control from Brussels to that at present from Westminster”, when the reality is we seek control returning to Scotland while sharing our sovereignty with the EU on its agreed range of issues, securing access to one of the world’s largest markets, which the UK is minded to sacrifice.

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

ALAN Fitzpatrick is missing the point re dressing up spades. If Scotland were independent, we could decide to apply to join the EU or not - our choice. Whatever was decided, it would be Scotland's decision, no need to go cap in hand to Westminster to seek permission.

That is taking back control: our decisions made by us and us alone.

John McCallum, Glasgow.

ALAN Fitzpatrick contends that Scotland would not be independent if a member of the European Union; by that reasoning, Mr Fitzpatrick must also believe that Denmark, Portugal, Finland, Estonia, Ireland and all the other EU member countries are not independent nations. I would remind Mr Fitzpatrick that during negotiations with the UK, every EU country had the right of veto, and all of them stood solidly behind Ireland in its particular set of circumstances, while Scotland's overwhelming vote to remain within the EU was pointedly ignored by the UK government at Westminster.

And though membership of the EU is of vital importance to Scotland, there are other benefits of being an independent nation on the world stage; Monaco, with a population of 38,000 actively participates in the United Nations, and is a member of many international organisations, including the World Health Organisation, and Unesco. There is a big world out there, and as Winnie Ewing, who served in the EU, Scottish and UK parliaments, and who celebrated her 90th birthday last week, famously remarked "Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on".

Ruth Marr, Stirling.

JACOB Rees-Mogg’s crass comment on Twitter that “we clearly don’t need Europe to win” in reference to England’s win in the Cricket World Cup has backfired spectacularly given the international make-up of the team.

The 15-man squad includes five players born outside the UK, including the Irish-born captain, Eoin Morgan. Tom Curran and Jason Roy are originally from South Africa, while Ben Stokes and Jofra Archer, who bowled the super over, were born in New Zealand and Barbados respectively. In addition, Moeen Ali and Adil Rashid are the grandchildren of Pakistani immigrants and both belong to the Mirpuri community.

So, the team was captained by an immigrant, with batting led by an immigrant, the fastest bowler an immigrant, the leading all-rounder was an immigrant and the main spinner son of an immigrant.

Perhaps instead of making a silly Brextremist point Mr Mogg could have offered congratulations to the Irish captain, the New Zealand-born Man of the Match and the Barbadian bowler who got England over the line.

Alex Orr, Edinburgh EH9.

Read more: Independence will not take back control