APPARENTLY Nicola Sturgeon's General Election campaign is based solely on a so-called “material change” due to Brexit which (in her view) would be a mandate for a second referendum and for Scotland to somehow remain in the EU. However, most Scots understand that at best she is being misleading and at worst dishonest. For example, the eager signatories to the Edinburgh Agreement (Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon) understood that the Scotland-wide vote would be a “once in a generation” opportunity for Scotland to separate from rUK but with the full knowledge that they would also have to “crash out” of the EU without a deal if they won.

In fact the only “material change” which has occurred since 2014 is the dramatic deterioration in our finances as a result of the slump in oil revenues and the much higher public spending than south of the Border – only currently sustainable through the Union Dividend (UD) worth around £35 billion during the past four years alone.

So the next time we hear Ms Sturgeon talk about a “material change” she should explain how under independence would the Scottish Government continue to fund free prescriptions, free student tuition fees and so on, given we would have lost the UD (in day one of “freedom”) whilst also being out of the UK internal market, the EU single market (for an indefinite period) and without a stable currency. Time for the Unionist parties to vote tactically to reflect the majority view from the people of Scotland.

Ian Lakin, Aberdeen AB13.

INCREASINGLY the SNP spokespeople are telling us that the number of votes cast for the SNP in the General Election will give an indication of how strongly the people of Scotland are demanding a second referendum for independence. I presume this means that everyone who does not support independence must vote other than SNP to avoid inadvertently supporting the cry for a repeat referendum on independence.

James Watson, Dunbar.

LIKE Jill Stephenson (Letters, November 13), Murdo Fraser has been critical of the Green Party’s decision to put forward no candidate in two Scottish constituencies. He recently tweeted: “Just in case there was any lingering doubt that the ‘Greens’ are now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the SNP….”.

Yet on Monday, the Brexit Party announced it would not stand a candidate where there was a sitting Conservative MP.

While the Greens’ decision concerns only two constituencies, will the Brexit Party’s decision be of no consequence for the 13 Conservative MPs, including Stephen Kerr in Stirling, defending a majority of 148? Many opinion polls suggest the Conservatives could be reduced to one or two MPs, at least before Mr Farage’s assistance.

Is Mr Fraser merely being inconsistent, or a hypocrite? And if the Brexit Party is now a “wholly-owned subsidiary” of the Conservatives, has it also acquired its commitment to the hardest of hard Brexits?

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

I WAS surprised that Iain Macwhirter in his article about electoral pacts ("These grubby electoral pacts are just a form of vote-rigging", The Herald, November 13) should write that "an electoral pact between the Scottish Tories and Scottish Labour stretches credulity to breaking point" as the Scottish branch offices of the Conservative and Labour parties stood shoulder to shoulder during the 2014 Scottish referendum campaign, along with those perennial bandwagon-jumpers, the LibDems. What stretches my credulity to breaking point is how these three Unionist parties can countenance putting Scotland's future into Boris Johnson's and Nigel Farage's hands, rather than putting Scotland's future into Scotland's hands.

Ruth Marr, Stirling.

I THINK there is no need for your correspondents (Letters, November 13) to be exercised about Nigel Farage, his Brexit Party and whatever policies apart from Brexit that that party may have, if any. Both he and his party are beginning to look like spent forces and the decision to stand down candidates (so far only) in Conservative-held seats is their first pragmatic step in recognising the dwindling support they have as reality dawns on many Leave voters that support for them in the coming election is likely to damage rather than assist the chances of achieving any Brexit. That pragmatism will be confirmed if and when they have the courage to take the next logical step of improving the chances of achieving Brexit by standing down their party candidates in any Labour or Liberal Democrat-held marginal seats which voted Leave in the EU referendum and consequently which might be gained by the Conservatives.

If, as some suggest, Mr Farage would be rewarded for this support by entry to the Lords, is it too much to hope that if that happened he would enliven that establishment (as he has done in the European Parliament ) by shaking up the noble Lords and Ladies by seeking change of its undemocratic existence as presently formulated ?

Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop.

EVERY day I read about the amazing spending promises being made by the major political parties. So far as I can see, about the only promise not yet made is free beer for the workers, but I suppose that there is still time.

Alan McGibbon, Paisley.

Read more: Let us find out exactly what Farage stands for