AS the House of Commons prepares to vote on a series of amendments to the PM's plans, we would urge MPs to back a People’s Vote.

Interestingly, while we are aware of the current strong resistance to a public vote on the Brexit Deal by influential Brexiters, it should be noted that a number of those previously supported such a referendum.

For example, during the 2011 Commons debate on an EU referendum, arch-Brexiter and Chair of the European Research Group, Jacob Rees-Mogg argued: “It might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed”.

In a speech in 2012, former Brexit Secretary David Davis said that the Government should spell out what relationship it was seeking with the EU before putting it to the public in a “mandate referendum” and following up the outcome with a “decision referendum”.

It is utter hypocrisy for these major Brexiters who previously backed the holding of such a referendum, to then argue so ferociously against it. What it does do however is to highlight that they have changed their minds.

If MPs can change their minds as these individuals clearly have, then so too can the public.

There is a clear public demand for the holding of a referendum on the deal and given that Brexit will affect the current generation, and even more so future generations for years, to come it is vital for our democracy and our country that we now have a People’s Vote on the final Brexit Deal.

Mark Lazarowicz,

Chair, European Movement in Scotland,

4 Queen Street, Edinburgh.

WHEN Doug Clark (Letters, January 28) asked if Remainers really understand the no-deal Brexit case I thought that he was going to clarify the position and provide a detailed explanation of how the no-deal departure from the EU was going to work. Unfortunately, my expectations were not met and all that Mr Clark did was list four European institutions which he believes stifle freedom, transparency and democracy. Like so many in favour of leaving the EU he provides no information regarding how the UK might leave the EU under a no-deal scenario. This information is urgently required for both Remainers and Leavers. In the latter case they need the information in case the no-deal arrangements do not meet their expectations. The views of an expert on this topic would be welcome, even if the Leavers are fed up with the experts.

Sandy Gemmill,

40 Warriston Gardens, Edinburgh.

I SYMPATHISE with Joseph Black (Letters, January 28), whose German wife is caught up in this completely unnecessary Brexit mess and is, understandably, upset by it all. This kind of "collateral damage" of Brexit is something for which those who voted Leave show little consideration. Like Mr Black, I’m deeply embarrassed to belong to a country which treats its hard-working immigrants as political pawns and, even if unintentionally, fans the flames of xenophobia. It seems as if we have learnt nothing from the fascist attitudes of the 1930s.

Contrast this with the policies and attitudes of Germany, now a mature social democracy which shows a welcoming attitude to immigrants who are keen to contribute to the quality of life there. I have a friend who was born in Scotland and is now married to a German. They stay in Leipzig. After the Brexit vote, my friend decided that it was time to take defensive measures, so he applied for German nationality. This was a simple, inexpensive process which involved a language test and the completion of a straightforward application form.

He is now the proud possessor of a German identity card, having passed the language test and attended a moving ceremony in Leipzig City Hall presided over by the Oberbuergermeister (Lord Provost) who shook hands with all the new immigrants. Like all the other applicants, my friend was encouraged to wear the national dress of the country of his birth, so he attended in his kilt to the delight of those present. He also gave a speech in German on behalf of all the new immigrants. A string quartet played during the colourful ceremony which was reported in the local newspaper.

It would be inconceivable for such a ceremony to take place in the UK where the Government position on EU nationals (and immigrants, in general) seems to be determined by the poisonous rhetoric of right-wing zealots. I hope that it may be of some small consolation to Mr Black’s wife that most voters in Scotland will be disgusted to learn that she is being treated like this.

Dave Stewart,

6 Blairatholl Avenue, Glasgow.

JOHN Connor (Letters, January 26) seems to be extolling the alleged political virtues of former Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, in implying that he could have persuaded the people of Scotland to back a Leave vote in June 2016.

Describing Mr Farage as "the man who made Brexit" may be interpreted as high praise or a scurrilous slur, depending on your political standpoint. However, Mr Connor appears, consciously or otherwise, to show more than a modicum of disrespect for the intelligence and judgement of voters in Scotland by his somewhat implausible assertion that the former Ukip leader, who unsuccessfully contested British parliamentary elections five times, could have swung our national vote in favour of Leave.

The consistent rejection of Nigel Farage's pseudo- populist, xenophobic policies by the people of Scotland is heartening, a dismissal of his close association with nefarious politicians such as President Donald Trump and Steve Bannon.

I would ask that Mr Connor remind himself of Mr Farage's visit to Scotland in May 2013 to promote the inconsequential Scottish branch of his former party. As I recall, neither the voters of Scotland, nor indeed the press, were overly impressed.

Owen Kelly,

8 Dunvegan Drive, Stirling.

JOHN Connor contends that had Nigel Farage led the Brexit campaign in Scotland, there would have been a different result. Has he forgotten that Mr Farage was in Edinburgh and met with huge opposition, having to take refuge in a pub?

Rosemarie Lang,

9 Braehead, Douglas.