BY summoning her potentially rebellious Cabinet members to Downing Street one by one, Theresa May brings to mind the head of an unruly school hauling the bad boys into her study, to cajole, threaten or bully them into submission (“Brexit deal done but nobody’s buying it, Mrs May”, The Herald, November 14). Of course, Margaret Thatcher did the same thing with her Cabinet, and look how well that turned out for her.

As the Conservative Party's civil war drags on, with Brexiters and Remainers unhappy with Mrs May's deal, and with the DUP livid, it should be remembered that ever since the EU referendum result, when David Cameron and his Chancellor, George Osborne were nowhere to be seen, and while Labour was busily infighting and blaming Jeremy Corbyn for not doing enough during the campaign, Nicola Sturgeon was the only leader to keep calm, travel to Europe and hold meetings with EU leaders to ensure that Scotland's voice was heard and to remind Europe that Scotland had voted to remain.

If Mrs May was really interested in her "precious Union" she should have made sure that the devolved governments of the nations that make up the UK were fully consulted and given immediate sight of her proposed deal; but as she has spent the past two and a half years turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the fact that Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain within the EU, this latest display of her contempt towards Scotland's democratically-elected government is not surprising and is nothing new.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road, Stirling.

Why was SNP MP Kirsty Blackman’s intervention through a point of order after Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons necessary ?

This intervention was regarding the proposed Brexit deal, currently only with the PM and her Cabinet as we all thought. However, Ms Blackman informed the House of Commons that Gibraltar had been briefed by the Minister of State for Europe on the details of the proposed deal, yet the devolved parliaments of the UK remain in darkness. This is surely contempt of the highest order, an injustice not only to the devolved parliaments of the UK, but to the population at large.

Catriona C Clark,

52 Hawthorn Drive,

Banknock, Falkirk.

SO, though the Brexit deal proposals have not been published, Nicola Sturgeon yesterday morning insisted that "it's not a good deal for Scotland". The SNP's Westminster leader, Ian Blackford, has already confirmed that his party's entire cohort of MPs would oppose the Brexit agreement in its current form – though none of them knows what it is either. Says it all really, doesn't it?

Martin Redfern,

Woodcroft Road, Edinburgh.

THE mess the UK is in is all due to European Union intransigence and Theresa May's lack of a clear majority at Westminster. The EU is exploiting Mrs May's weakness for its own ends.

There is a lesson here for Scots. The current minority SNP Government wants its own form of Brexit in the shape of leaving the United Kingdom and, eventually, joining the European Union. The sheer difficulties of this course of events are being graphically portrayed right now. The UK will not be a willing partner to a break-up, nor will the EU be willing to admit Scotland on anything other than its own terms, if at all. It is a lose/lose situation for Scotland.

Nicola Sturgeon is beginning to appreciate this, hence her reticence to commit to a second independence referendum. Labour is all over the place on both Brexit and Scottish independence. This is not simply a Tory party problem, it is a real problem for all the political parties given that no party can expect to win by a comfortable working majority either in Holyrood nor Westminster.

Batten down the hatches.

Dr Gerald Edwards,

Broom Road, Glasgow.

THOSE calling for a second referendum on Brexit justify that call on the basis that voters had insufficient information on the consequences of Brexit at the time of the 2016 referendum so another referendum should be held when the terms of any deal with the EU are published.

At present the only proposed deal is reported to run to some 500 pages of detail, so it is not unreasonable to expect any final deal will be at least as long. For there to be sufficient justification in incurring the expense, delay and trouble in holding a second, no doubt divisive, referendum to consider the terms of a final deal, presupposes that everyone voting will now be better informed by having read and understood those terms. How can we be sure of that? I doubt most voters would have the appetite to read the 500 pages of the deal nor would they be agreeable to being honour-bound to validate their vote by ticking a box confirming that they had read and understood all the terms of the deal they were being asked to support or reject, so in reality where is the justification for a second referendum?

Alan Fitzpatrick,

10 Solomon’s View, Dunlop.

I HEARD Boris Johnson refer to the "thousand years of history in this place" as he cast his hand round Gilbert Scott's fine Victorian building. It would be quibbling to argue that the UK Parliament has only existed since 1707, that the Thrie Estaitis or their ilk were around well before Simon de Montfort's famous parliament,or that a union means equal partners. Boris Johnson's observations betray a historical, political and cultural illiteracy that he, as one of our imperial elite, feels entitles his caste to lead us into whatever folly they think of next to maintain their grouse moors.

KM Campbell,

Bank House, Doune.

I NOTE your report on the Brexit legal proceedings, and your previous reports on the issue ("New appeal in Brexit legal battle prompts claim of delaying tactics", The Herald, November 13). It is scandalous that the UK Government is abusing the Scottish legal system and trying to bypass the Court of Session and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which amounts to a delaying tactic, to prevent the MPs having the opportunity to rescind Clause 50 should they wish to do so.

I congratulate you for keeping this matter in the public's attention as I have not seen a report of it in any of the other British press. Furthermore of great concern is the fact that the Scottish court has written an opinion which is being considered by the CJEU, but this has not been reported by BBC TV and radio, or other media news reports, such as What the Papers Say. Perhaps the Scottish MPs, MSPs and MEPs can be more forceful in objecting to what is a flagrant breach and disregard of the Scottish legal system.

Cecil Robertson,

2 Wester Inshes Crescent, Inverness.