I THINK it is time that all Remainers, instead of railing against the fence-sitting of the Labour Party and ridiculing the presidential antics of Boris Johnson and his minions, need to start actually saying why we want to be part of the EU.

We feel this way for various reasons. The young who voted overwhelmingly to remain did so because they are internationally-minded, have come into contact with European students at college, have travelled more and are far more open-minded than their seniors. Older Remainers have a historical perspective which says to them that after the 20th century wars we want Europe to be together. Middle-aged folk simply think it is daft to be a small economic unit in the face of America and China to name but two.

Marching for a second referendum is great and I hope it succeeds. but it looks like we are coming up to an election and it needs to be a Brexit versus Revoke election, a substitute for a referendum. It does not want to be an obfuscated Labour election, talking about nationalisation and the like, nor does it need to be a Tory give-away to the well-off election. It needs to be an election about leaving the EU or remaining in the EU.

John Cruickshank, Whiting Bay, Isle of Arran.

AS in Scotland the people rather than Parliament are considered to be sovereign, and as a General Election in December seems increasingly likely, to minimise endless post-election divisive argument, can the impact or influence of the Scottish electorate on any demand for Indyref2 in that election be agreed in advance ?

The SNP and the Greens will stand on manifestos committed to seeking Indyref2, and the SNP is expected to return the most MPs from Scotland. What happens if in Scotland those parties with manifestos opposed to Indyref2 poll more votes in total than the total of those parties in favour of Indyref2? Should that, rather than the number of MPs returned for particular parties, be taken as the true expression of the sovereign will of the Scottish people, thus removing any justification for Indyref2, and of course vice versa if there are more votes in total for those parties seeking Indyref2?

Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop.

DAVID Williamson (Letters, October 28) believes that the Scottish Tory MPs are acting dutifully in supporting Brexit. I think his view is questionable on various grounds. First, the referendum on EU membership was advisory only, not binding. The Government was not obliged to shape its policy on the referendum result; and on any showing the idea of initiating as massive a constitutional change as departure from the EU on the strength of a wafer-thin majority vote was absurd. In a parallel universe, a sensible government would have responded to the referendum result by conducting a serious and academically respectable investigation into the various forms a “Brexit” might take and the likely results of each of them, and putting the findings before the electorate, before even initiating the process of leaving the EU. It is nobody’s duty to support a misguided and mishandled policy that can only lead to disaster.

Secondly, it is surely a first principle of parliamentary democracy that members are elected to serve their constituencies. Every one of our Tory MPs is going directly against the majority of the voters they represent in their sheep-like obedience to their party line: hardly an example of democracy in action.

However, this issue is really academic, since none of the MPs in question is likely to remain in office beyond the forthcoming election.

Derrick McClure, Aberdeen AB24.

YET another extension and delay to the farcical Brexit saga, this time to January 31, 2020. The rest of the world must be looking on in astonishment at the ineptitude of our “democratic” institutions and conclude that we are a complete basket case.

This whole mess could have been settled once and for all by the end of this month if the EU had just acted as requested to by the PM and refused to change the October deadline.This would have resulted in Parliament having to vote the new deal through, leave without a deal or rescind Article 50, thus remaining in the EU. Unless a complete zealot one way or the other I’m sure the majority of the electorate, especially the business community , are so fed up with the whole process that they just want it finalised without further dithering by our so-called politicians, who as a group surely must be the worst privileged bunch to have occupied the green benches.

As it is, on and on it goes and as the end of January approaches yet another extension could be requested and granted. And so the spiral of uncertainty continues.

James Martin, Bearsden.

AS the damage likely to be inflicted by leaving the EU becomes daily clearer (“Scots natural environment at risk from “inadequate” Brexit plans”, The Herald, October 28) it is even more horrifying to re-read Saturday’s front page headline, “Give us a break: Public is fed up with Brexit delays” (The Herald, October 26). It seems that boredom and apathy among the electorate may yet do what no amount of rational discussion could and encourage Parliament to vote through any awful deal in order to end the uncertainty.

This desire for a conclusion is obviously in the interests of the tax-avoiding billionaires, racists and delusional believers in the lies about the EU peddled by much of the press during the referendum campaign. It also accords with the views of the apathetic group who, unbelievably, did not vote in the referendum. What is less

comprehensible is that a single Remain voter could feel this way. The damage already sustained from the vote is obvious, and is nothing compared to the social and economic damage likely to follow leaving the EU whatever deal is or is not reached.

Most horrifying of all is the attitude expressed by Lord Haughey (“Glasgow peer hits out at state of UK politics”, Herald Business, October 26) and by many other

business leaders. They seem to prepared to accept any deal, however bad, whereas they claim they cannot cope with uncertainty. As the future is never certain, it is curious that they think leaving the EU will somehow make it more predictable. One has to suspect that for some, at least, in the business community, slackening of workplace, consumer and environmental protection outside the EU may actually be what they want.

Lord Haughey goes further, and repeats the dreadful mantra about leaving the EU being a democratic decision which must be honoured. Even he must realise this is a nonsense; a decision based on a gerrymandered electorate, illegal expenditure, lies and undeliverable promises must not be allowed to dictate our future.

Dr RM Morris, Ellon.

WITH the prospect of a General Election in the offing, political parties are beginning their campaigns. We now know what will be the centrepiece of the SNP’s campaign. Both the party’s leader and deputy leader at Westminster, Ian Blackford and Kirsty Blackman, announced in television interviews in recent days that the choice before Scots would be to vote for Scotland “in Brexit Britain” or “an independent Scotland remaining in the EU”. To say that this is an untruth is to put it very mildly. The EU Commission and other EU representatives have made it very clear that Scotland, as part of the UK, will leave the EU as part of the UK.

The SNP leadership knows this very well. Its claim that an independent Scotland would remain in the EU is an appeal to many Scots, like myself, who deplore the fact that the UK is leaving the EU. The SNP expects to make gains in any election, based on their appeal to anti-Brexit Scots. However, Scots need to be aware that SNP literature and word of mouth propaganda that claim that Scotland could “remain” in the EU is thoroughly dishonest. A separate Scotland could apply to join the EU – that is another matter. But Scotland is not a member state of the EU: it is a part of a member state, the UK. If that member state leaves, all of it leaves, including all of its constituent parts. A Scotland that had left the UK could not “remain” in the EU. That is not merely my view; it is the view of the EU’s leadership.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh EH14.

BREXIT chaos reigns, a major contributory factor being that next to no recognition has been given by the Conservative Government and its Brexiter supporters to the fact that in the referendum Leave won a majority of votes over Remain amounting to a tiny 3.79 per cent of the votes cast.

In that context a hard Brexit with the alternative of No Deal should have been absolutely unthinkable. Boris Johnson’s divisive strategy has resulted in the citizens of the UK being unable to come together to heal the schisms not only within but between our nations.

Who would have thought that it would be the Conservative and “Unionist” Party which would do such potentially irreparable damage to the unity of our country? The legs on which the Union stands are shaking, even showing signs of crumbling, and that party must accept a significant element of the responsibility. In spite of all the talk of how important the Union is to the likes of Theresa May, polls have shown it means little in any meaningful sense to a dwindling number of the English.

I campaigned for a No vote in 2014 only to see the result being thrown away by so-called Unionists in the party of that name. I wonder if they are making independence inevitable.

John Milne, Uddingston.

IS anyone keeping count of the number of times our Prime Minister has had a photo opportunity in a primary school?

I speculate that this is because he knows he won’t be asked any awkward questions. But it is that generation who will miss out on the opportunities and security that the EU has provided to mine.

Willie Towers, Alford.

AS John Donne might have put it when faced with a disastrous future:

Brexit done

Britain undone.

J McCall, Glasgow G43.

HAVING surveyed many ditches round Kilmacolm I am in a unique position to advise Boris Johnson which one to chose on Wednesday.

Dave Biggart, Kilmacolm.

Read more: Johnson eyes SNP-LibDem plan to get his early election