WITH hindsight, it is transparently clear that Theresa May and her team of civil servants and ministers were always going to be outmanoeuvred by experienced Eurocrats and seasoned political campaigners like Jean-Claude Juncker.

However, following the decision to leave the EU in June 2016, the triumphant voices of high-profile Brexiters fuelled the euphoria of their supporters by derogating those who embraced Realpolitik by insisting there was a hard road ahead in reaching a deal with Europe.

According to John Redwood it was Britain that "held all the cards" and getting out of the EU would be "quick and easy". David Davis, the then Brexit Secretary assured the public that "there will be no downsides to Brexit", and the International Development Secretary, Liam Fox, displayed an arrogant air of feigned indifference by stating that "the free trade agreement we will do with the EU should be one of the easiest in human history".

It would be kind to say that these remarks owe their existence to their authors' incompetence and ignorance of facts and process rather than any pomposity on their part.

Nonetheless, the deal Mrs May and her team have returned with looks like poor fare in anyone's book. As far as our present and future relationship with the EU is concerned, the proposed deal appears to be some form of constitutional Hokey-Cokey, with parts of the UK in and others out and the rest left to shake it all about.

With ministerial resignations, open mutiny in the Prime Minister's own Government ranks and almost no prospect of getting her deal through Parliament, there remains grave uncertainty as to what, realistically, the immediate and long-term future holds for Mrs May's Government and for Britain in its present form.

Mr Raab and Ms McVey both handed in their ministerial resignations citing a genuine fear that, the Brexit deal as it stands, may effectively break up the United Kingdom. David Mundell, Secretary of State for Scotland, himself threatened to resign last month if there was a perceived danger to the Union but, as is the dispiriting norm with this most inconsequential of politicians, he has failed to back up his sawdust ultimatum with any tangible action. Ruth Davidson, who followed his lead in this matter, has no reported comments regarding the deal at the time of writing, only a deafening silence emanating from her recent cosy domesticity.

We have reached an end game of sorts. Brexit, whatever absurd shape or form it may take now and in the months to come, is an outright catastrophe for Scotland. This country voted by a decisive 62 per cent to remain in the EU in the referendum of 2016, choosing an inclusive, forward-thinking future for our nation. We do not deserve to be dragged further into this morass of an omnishambles that the Conservative Government has fashioned. Future generations will recognise Brexit as the decisive catalyst behind the break-up of the United Kingdom. Over to you Nicola Sturgeon, it is time for a second independence referendum.

Owen Kelly,

8 Dunvegan Drive, Stirling.

ALAN Fitzpatrick (Letters, November 15) argues that a People’s Vote on the terms of Brexit would only be fair and reasonable for those who could honestly say they had read and understood the 500-plus pages of the final withdrawal agreement, and that consequently another referendum is unjustified.

By this logic presumably only those who had read and absorbed the manifestos of all parties or candidates should be qualified to vote anywhere – and that therefore the expense, time and trouble of elections of any kind is unjustified, except for a small and narrowly focused meritocracy.

In the present case, rather than being swayed by the immediate and misleading propaganda of a snap Brexit referendum, the British public have had more than two years to see at first hand – from a wide variety of sources and not simply via loud and biased persuaders in campaign mode – the inner workings of what Brexit actually entails.

In particular they have been able to witness for themselves the integrity and consistency of the main protagonists – or lack of it –exposed. It is on all these influences, and not simply dry academic documents which can easily be summarised, that people are able, when given time and space, to make up their own minds.

With Brexit the situation is quite simple: either we have No Deal, where we cut all the countless, intricate ties, carefully built up over 40 years, that have bound us to what is now the EU, and accept the chaos that ensues; or we have a compromise deal which only partially satisfies what people were led into believing they voted for, while at the same time still forfeiting a say in important decisions which affect us; or we campaign to stay in the EU and continue to enjoy real advantages we already possess, with those minor restrictions of our freedom which we necessarily and freely surrender for the greater benefits of belonging to a partnership of nations with similar values, which have the power together to be a force for good in the world.

Robert Bell,

40 Stewarton Drive, Cambuslang.

FOR the second time in a month, Andrew McKie ("There is still hope, as long as we ditch the Prime Minister", The Herald, November 16) has claimed that the UK is growing faster than the EU, without citing any sources or figures. This time he says UK growth is twice Eurozone growth. But UK growth in August and September was 0 per cent. On an annual basis, growth was 1.5 per cent compared to last year for Q3 for the UK, yet 1.7 per cent for the Eurozone and 1.9 per cent for the EU. Less bad than the figures from a year before, which was 2.5 per cent Eurozone growth compared to 1.5 per cent UK growth. But unquestionably the Eurozone has grown faster than the UK since the referendum, and we are yet to leave the EU.

Presumably Mr McKie is picking quarterly growth, trumpeting July’s good weather and 0.6 per cent growth, and also believes that David Narey’s wonder-goal is the highlight of Scottish football, ignoring the four that Brazil scored in reply. If your columnists wish to make us believe that black is white, they should not use anything that can be disproved so easily.

Alan Ritchie,

72 Waverley Street, Glasgow.

REFERENDUMS are divisive. If Denis Bruce (Letters, November 16) really thinks that his carefully thought-out proposals for a multiple-choice referendum would prevent any carping, he has, as my mother used to say, another think coming.

David Miller,

80 Prestonfield, Milngavie.