THE logic of your correspondent Mark Boyle (Letters, December 6) comes from the world of Alice in Wonderland. The legal status of the vote to leave was purely advisory, intended to give Parliament an indication of opinion in the country. The fact that the result was so close plus the lies, undeliverable promises and barely concealed racism of the Leave campaign should mean that, even as advice, it needed to be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

For Mr Boyle to claim that it was somehow immutable is ridiculous. On his logic, the whole vote was flawed anyway, as there had been an earlier referendum on membership of the EU which showed a clear majority in favour and it would therefore be “undemocratic” to reconsider this.

Now that the details of Theresa May’s dreadful deal are clear, anyone who is not blinded by ideology and prejudice can see that leaving the EU on these terms (or even worse, without agreement) will condemn at least a generation to even worse austerity and loss of hard-won freedoms and protections.

In the face of this, there is nothing undemocratic in allowing the public to reconsider the advice they wish to give to MPs, even if party politics means they decide to ignore it.

Dr RM Morris,

Veslehaug, Polesburn,

Methlick, Ellon.

I WAS amused to read the conclusion to the letter from Alasdair Galloway regarding life in Scotland if we became independent (Letters, December 6): “ It should not be ruled out that the two neighbouring countries – rUK and Scotland – could cooperate on matters of joint interest and to their mutual benefit”. I understood that this was the intention of the Treaty of Union in 1707 between Scotland and England and the marriage remains in robust good health in spite of the SNP.

I believe that much of the Brexit debating points suffer from the same weaknesses we heard before the Scottish independence referendum. For example, we regularly hear the soundbite, “if we leave we can make our own laws again”.

I note that such statements are never accompanied by exemplification regarding why “our” laws would be so much better or fairer than EU laws, in the case of the present Brexit comic opera. This issue is wholly to do with ownership and the illusion it gives of power when in reality laws bring responsibility rather than power.

Five years ago, writing in his newspaper column, even Boris Johnson, at that time the Mayor of London, considered: “If we left the EU, we would end this sterile debate, and we would have to recognise that most of our problems are not caused by Brussels, but by chronic British short-termism, inadequate management, sloth, low skills, a culture of easy gratification and underinvestment in both human and physical capital and infrastructure.”

While I would not wish to align all of these comments with Scotland alone, I nevertheless feel that it would be complete folly for Scotland to leave the UK only to discover that Westminster was not the source of our problems after all.

Let separatists learn the lesson of Brexit. I do agree however with Boris Johnson that, when we do leave the EU, we will still be wondering why the German economy GDP per capita is stronger than ours.

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive,

Milngavie.

THE House of Commons Library apparently contains Briefing Paper 07212 dated June 3, 2015 on the subject of types of referendum pertaining to the proposed European Union Referendum Bill; it categorically states: “The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented.”

Why then does Theresa May trumpet “the will of the people” when, by statute, any referendum is purely advisory? This is even more critical, bearing in mind that the narrow majority in favour of leaving the EU and the outcome of the Brexit vote are being increasingly subject to concerns over questionable financial matters, broken promises and half-truths.

Perhaps the Brexit result was predestined as most forecasts predict it is in the interests of the few rather than the many.

Otherwise why, as Michael Heseltine, the famous left-wing firebrand vigorously asserts, would a government act against the best interests of the people?

David J Crawford,

85 Whittingehame Court,

1300 Great Western Road,

Glasgow.

THE Westminster coalition of discontent that seeks to derail Theresa May’s compromise Brexit deal will take us into uncharted waters next week if the government is defeated in the “meaningful vote”.

At that point the fundamental flaws in this coalition will be revealed as the various factions pursue their disparate ambitions. Some hard-line Brexiters want the deal rejected, Article 50 to stand and for us to crash out with no deal.

Alternatively, there are those who want a People’s Vote, hoping to reverse the original referendum result. In between are a myriad of proponents of a “better” deal with the EU, all strong on rhetoric but weak on explanation as to how Brussels is to be convinced to make further concessions.

Added to this is a further ragbag of malcontents who primarily see Brexit as an opportunity to further their own agenda, from one who so obviously covets the Prime Minister’s job, to the SNP hoping to use all this turmoil to engineer a breakup of the UK.

We cannot know how history will judge Mrs May but, at this most challenging point in our history, it is not clear that any of the alternatives, of any political persuasion, have what it takes to genuinely lead all of us, rather than merely their own sect of dissatisfaction.

Keith Howell,

White Moss,

West Linton,

Peeblesshire.

I HAVE followed the letters from Dr Gerald Edwards for some time and respect his views on the SNP, which are not the same as mine, but I feel that, whatever one’s views on independence for Scotland are, they will have no influence on the outcome of the Brexit mess because the Scottish Parliament has been ignored so often since the vote in 2016.

My question to Dr Edwards is: “ What should the UK Government do after the inevitable defeat next week?”

I don’t have the expertise to have a view on what I think should happen next but I should welcome an opinion from him or anyone else prepared to propose an outcome that will not damage our economy and make our population less well off.

I don’t think that those who voted to leave were expecting that scenario.

Malcolm Rankin,

107 Ardrossan Road,

Seamill.