WE Remainers seem to have no redress within the context of the grossly crude constitutional aberration which was the 2016 referendum. The normal operating procedures of our former representative democracy which allowed us to change our minds and to refine and clarify the results of any outcome are totally absent. We are having to rely on the courage of a number of Conservative rebel MPs who are having to face hate, derision and threats of physical violence. If that is not enough to whom can we turn?

Certainly not the Scottish Conservatives, now that Jackson Carlaw has announced that “we must leave the EU, deal or no deal" (“Davidson ear ends as Carlaw declares: We must leave EU, deal or no deal”, The Herald, September 30).

I have reservations about the LibDems because of Jo Swinson’s role in the Coalition Government which introduced the austerity regime which, it is argued, played a part in bringing us to the turmoil we are in today. And what can one say about a Labour Party so riven by divisions over its attitude to the EU?

And so as an active No campaigner in 2014, can I allow myself to consider thinking the unthinkable? Of course I can, but only if the Yes/SNP coalition shows signs of recognising that the challenge facing it is to find a way to represent the majority of Scotland’s citizens and not just Nationalists for whom independence is an end in itself?

There will be those who will be quick to dismiss what I have just said, but given that there is a danger of the UK becoming ungovernable should we in Scotland, in preparation for that eventuality, not be looking at all our options?

John Milne, Uddingston.

CAST your mind back to the 2016 Brexit referendum. The Scottish National Party was almost invisible, having a tiny budget and doing little campaigning. Once the unexpected result was announced, Nicola Sturgeon was immediately on the offensive for another independence referendum. Since then, the SNP has done all it can, on the supposed basis of the "62 per cent of Scots who wish to remain in the European Union" to overturn this result. It could have easily used its MPs to pass Theresa May's deal to avoid a cliff-edge Brexit but did not. Now it is suddenly proposing to support a Jeremy Corbyn government to basically stop Brexit ("Sturgeon plea to ‘ramp up’ moves to force out Johnson", The Herald, Septmebr 30).

All this does is to create even further chaos at Westminster, but is that the SNP plan? It is using this paralysis of Westminster, which it is partially to blame for in the first place, to create the idea that Holyrood is so much more capable despite multiple failures from the SNP right across the board. This is "mind games" on a staggering level.

The SNP's avowed aim is independence. There is no other game in town. The SNP could have facilitated Brexit by helping Theresa May. It did not. It has its eyes on a bigger prize. This help for Mr Corbyn is purely the latest attempt to sow fertile seeds for independence by the " back door" and, using Nicola Sturgeon's own favourite phrase, this is "utterly shameless".

Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow G77.

THERE is a lot of talk of "compromise" just now as politicians from various Opposition parties seek to engineer their preferred outcome. Just as "democracy" now has multiple meanings depending on the political point being made, and the outcome of the 2016 EU referendum itself has been subject to so many different interpretations, so politicians find ways to try to spin "compromise" to their advantage.

I voted Remain in 2016, and like many I suspect on both sides of the argument, I wish we could turn the clock back, but we cannot, and must instead deal with the realities of where we are.

The SNP has sought to lead the way in blocking Brexit, yet the so-called compromise it and other parties propose, looks set to leave the country more divided than ever, not least because of the options in a possible second EU referendum being manipulated to deliver a preferred outcome. A new government negotiating with the EU on the basis of any agreed deal being put up against Remain in a subsequent referendum, will in effect guarantee the worst possible terms from the EU to ensure we have no real choice but to stay in the EU. Excluding a no-deal option from any new referendum will undoubtedly signal a stitch-up to many Leavers, who will conclude that the political classes have simply conspired to overturn the 2016 result.

Keith Howell, West Linton.

MARIANNE Taylor, in her comment on Jo Swinson’s position (“Swinson must to anything to stop no-deal – even that”, The Herald, September 30) shows no awareness of Ms Swinson's reason for requiring someone other than Jeremy Corbyn to become Prime Minister in a caretaker government. Her reason, as she has made clear, is this: for such a government to come about, the support of former Tory MPs will be needed, in order to provide the needed parliamentary majority; and Jeremy Corbyn will not be acceptable to these MPs. Ms Swinson’s position is put forward as a way of working towards a compromise position, one which will secure the needed coalition of anti-no-deal MPs.

Compromise among the opponents of the present Government’s strategy will be needed if a majority is to be brought together to fight that Government. Those opposed to that strategy must hope that a spirit of compromise prevails, and that on the matter of a leader an agreement is reached that allows an effective majority to come together and save us from a no-deal exit at the end of October.

Robin Cameron, Aberdeen AB16.

ALAN Fitzpatrick (Letters, September 30) seems to suggest there is little point in delaying a new General Election, which would then automatically trigger a no-deal Brexit on October 31. I would think anything which took a no-deal Brexit off the table, even for a period of reflection, would be a “Good Thing”. The Chancellor has just admitted this Monday morning that no one knows how much a no-deal Brexit would cost the UK economy, though it could be the £30 billion per annum his own watchdog predicted.

Mr Fitzpatrick also suggested that predicted polling for the opposition parties is behind delaying an election. Polling however, suggests the exact opposite: Lib Dems will do very well in England, the SNP is poised to sweep the board in Scotland, Plaid the best for a generation in Wales and the Labour Party to almost match the Tories (as the Brexit Party would take votes back from the Tories) if there is no Brexit before an election. We had an election in 2015. We had one in 2017. There is every chance that another one in 2019 would still result in a paralysed legislature, in spite of (and perhaps even because of) Labour at its conference and now the Tories at theirs, committing to splurging on huge new spending programmess. Indeed the Tories also want to cut taxes as well. None of this makes economic or political sense, and can only deepen the sense of malaise and alienation felt by the electorate toward Westminster and the ongoing Brexit shambles.

GR Weir, Ochiltree.

I SEE that the latest slogan braying out loud at the Tory Party Conference in Manchester is "Get Brexit Done". Maybe it is not quite so devoid of meaning as "Brexit Means Brexit", but it runs it pretty close. This childish call to action implies that Brexit is something like having the front of your house painted, or finishing the washing up. Doubtless it invites applause from all those Leave voters who absolutely knew what they were voting for, but who will soon – assuming it will be "done" by October 31 – be furious to discover that it will take years to set up a new trade relationship with the EU and to finalise new deals with the rest of the world. Get Brexit Done? Leave voters will have been truly been done.

Arthur F Jones, Dumbarton.

I NOTE that Jacob Rees-Mogg, so-called Leader of the House, has said that the Speaker, John Bercow has "damaged the standing" of the House of Commons. The picture of JR-M lounging on the green benches in a semi-conscious repose surely did more damage.

Steve Barnet, Gargunnock.

JOANNA Cherry affects coyness about her SNP leadership plans, stressing it's impossible for her to be leader since she sits in Westminster, not Holyrood ("Cherry says her critics inside party driven by misogyny", The Herald, 30th September)

It's seemed for some time that she's positioning herself as an SNP leader who'd be more assertive than Nicola Sturgeon on driving for indyref2 – and dyed-in-the-wool SNP members adore her for that. It's telling that, as the Supreme Court outcome was announced, Ms Cherry's role was barely mentioned in Ms Sturgeon's endless interviews on the ruling – Derek Mackay is Ms Sturgeon's favoured successor.

Naturally we don't know what impact the Alex Salmond trial could have on Ms Sturgeon's longevity at the helm but it's surely a racing certainty that Ms Cherry will stand at the 2021 election to secure the Holyrood seat she feels she needs for her leadership aspirations.

Martin Redfern, Edinburgh EH10.

I AM puzzled by an item in “Your views online” (The Herald, September 28) in this one writer Allistair Waddel on Facebook stated that the SNP should not have put down three times in the White Paper that the “vote was a once in a generation”.

I read the White Paper, all 649 pages of it, think it took me about eight weeks, but do not recall anything about a generation stipulation. As far as I remember Alex Salmond used the expression during the campaign to emphasise how long it might be before we got another chance; judging how the Unionists are behaving now, he was not wrong.

I have had another look at the White Paper, but I baulk at trying to find the words in the aforesaid 649 pages, and as an octogenarian do not know if I will have the time. Perhaps Mr Waddel can give some pointers please?

Jim Lynch, Edinburgh EH12.

Read more: Opposition leaders plot to stop Boris Johnson's no-deal Brexit plan