Letters: Do not expect a bout of Brexit bravery from the Tories

My guess is that it will fizzle out and Mrs May will remain in situ.

None of the rebels is really ready to fire the starting gun to precipitate a General Election. They all want to cling to power and its perks.

This current unrest, which has long been voiced but never acted upon, reminds me of the school staff rooms of yesteryear where teachers would let off steam and fulminate about the incompetence of the administration.

However, in the presence of the panoply of power, they would always quietly capitulate to protect their hopes of promotion.

So don't hold your breath about Brexit bravery.

As for the can of worms which is infesting the Labour Party, I will leave that to those who have an axe to grind on so many different issues. I do feel, however, that conference will also be a damp squib with the stranglehold Jeremy Corbyn's supporters have there.

Denis Bruce,

5 Rannoch Gardens, Bishopbriggs.

MAYBE I was not paying attention at the time, but I cannot remember being told by the Brexiters during the referendum campaign that leaving the EU could mean needing a new licence to drive in Europe ("Drivers face applying for a European licence under no-deal Brexit", The, Herald September 14.

I also seem to have missed out on being told that I could be denied entry to the EU if my passport was close to the expiry date. Further, free mobile phone data roaming could be prejudiced and trains and planes from the UK could be turned back from the border with the EU. Then we have the Governor of the Bank of England intervening to say house prices in the UK could be reduced by a third. All of those cautionary pieces of advice point to some of the actual benefits of remaining in the EU.

The British electorate clearly voted previously in ignorance of all the possible implications of withdrawal from the EU. If such a state of affairs arose in a court of law, that is, relevant evidence being withheld from a jury, a mistrial would be declared and a new trial fixed. The case for a new referendum is becoming more and more compelling with the possible implications of departure becoming clearer as day follows day. The people should be asked the question again rather than being left to believe the "it will be alright on the night" assurances coming from the ranks of our politicians.

Ian W Thomson,

38 Kirkintilloch Road, Lenzie.

GEORGE Dale (Letters, September 13) conflates the populist logic of a “second-thoughts referendum” regarding our membership of the EU with his suggestion that we should likewise also have a second Scottish independence vote.

I would have thought that it would be apparent to any sympathisers of this view that the turbulent Brexit negotiations we have had to suffer would be a mere zephyr on a gentle summer's day compared with the devastating hurricane any Scottish separatist negotiations would be, and which would affect us all to our detriment. The EU negotiators behave entirely as I would imagine from the injured party in a divorce settlement and we could expect no less from the rest of the UK.

The flawed reasoning I hear from some commentators such as Mr Dale for another EU membership referendum is that the consequences are now becoming apparent and therefore part of the UK who voted to remain, namely Scotland, should be given the opportunity to opt out through an independence vote.

To be applied consistently, this bifurcated path of reasoning would entail a second Scottish referendum having the voting question next time, altered to “should part of Scotland be an independent country”. If the “yes” voters won, the only practical solution would be the partitioning of Scotland.

I would suggest a boundary between southern Scotland (UK) and an independent northern Gaelic-speaking Alba could be established a bit north of the course of the Antonine Wall perhaps at the foot of the Campsie hills.

I confess I suggest this amendment to a possible dividing line of Roman origin, otherwise I as a Unionist, would find my home to be on the wrong side by a mile or so.

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive, Milngavie.

VINCE Cable argues that a “confirmatory referendum” would be required to follow a second independence referendum ("Cable: Two polls needed", The Herald, September 14). Surely he is missing a trick. If there was to be a confirmatory referendum, it should be on the referendum held in 2014. Then we could confirm it was “the only way to guarantee Scotland’s place in the EU”: that Scotland did indeed have the “most powerful devolved parliament in the world”: look at the promises made of “federalism”, “modern Home Rule”(Gordon Brown and others) or devo max (Alistair Darling). That Scotland’s voice would be heard. Scotland would be “an equal”.

I’m starting to warm to Sir Vince's idea of confirmatory referenda. There were a whole lot of commitments made to Scotland in the 2014 referendum. A follow-up referendum would allow us to consider how honest these promises were. Go for it, Sir Vince.

GR Weir,

17 Mill Street, Ochiltree.

DR Gerald Edwards (Letters, September 14) needs to learn how democracy works before wasting space on the Letters Pages with an anti-Corbyn rant that read like it had been plagiarised from Daily Mail editorials. I hated the late Margaret Thatcher (and still do) but I knew that millions loved her. Which is why I never had the arrogance to declare her unfit for office.

In a democracy fitness for high office is determined by the number of votes cast – not the outraged indignation of political opponents. About the only thing Dr Edwards said that I agreed with is "Mr Corbyn's Labour Party in power would upend the status quo". And not before time. Mrs Thatcher's dead hand has been strangling debate in this land for nearly 30years. Now it has been removed the Left can breathe freely once more.

This is another lesson for Dr Edwards. The health of any democracy is measured by the depth of its political tolerance – not the amount of hysteria generated by people afraid of change.

Sean Pigott,

Flat 2/L, 13 Wilson Street, Largs.