THE pictures on your front page of EU nationals concerned about their futures in this country presented a powerful and effective image ("Many faces of Brexit", The Herald, February 8). If there is a No Deal Brexit, after years of negotiation, I believe that those pictures may come back to shame us.

We learn, for example, of the concerns of Antjie from Germany, who runs a knitting cafe in Glasgow; the worries of Iwona, a young Polish woman, who is working as a waitress and hoping to do a college course; the anxiety of Sonia, a shopworker from France, concerning the costs of flights to visit her family, and of the upset, caused to Patricia from Spain, by the "misinformation and lies" associated with the Brexit project. All of these people, who came to our shores to make a new life for themselves, have deserved better from us than to be thrown into profound uncertainty about their futures.

How many of the millions who put their crosses on the ballot papers in 2016 in favour of Brexit were actually voting for the situation being experienced by these EU migrants and thousands more like them? I would invite The Herald to report again on the position of their EU 50 at some point after March 29. There will be many of us wishing them well.

Ian W Thomson,

38 Kirkintilloch Road, Lenzie.

STEVEN Camley's cartoon was the highlight (or possibly the low point) of today's excellent issue of The Herald. His resonant and poignant drawing exactly captures the human cost of the evil idiocy that is being forced upon us by the Brexit enthusiasts. This was further exemplified by the two pages on the experiences of individual EU citizens resident in the UK ("EU 50: Why we chose to make Scotland home", The Herald, February 8) and Nish Kumar's summary of his feelings of alienation, despite being born in the UK ("'What I have lost is a sense that I'm welcome in my home", The Herald, February 8). Well done to the editorial team.

Looking at the resonances between the current situation and the Highland Clearances, there seems to be one key difference, though the outcomes are similar. The Clearances were the direct result of the rapaciousness of individual landlords, acting in their own narrow economic interest. There is not quite such clear motivation for the current situation; the interests of an exploitative class of billionaires are still a part of it, but the difference seems to be that they have managed to shift popular anger at their extraction of wealth away from their own actions to a mythical Brussels. So while we would assume that the majority of the population in the UK was either unaware of, or unconcerned about the Clearances, somehow populism has been distorted to make the the Brexit criminals into heroes. Where did it all go so wrong?

Dr RM Morris,

Veslehaug, Polesburn, Methlick, Ellon.

YES, the "50" EU nationals featured today, and others like them, are indeed our friends, neighbours, colleagues and in some cases family, living with undeserved uncertainty and injustice. I've always ticked "British" on forms, and see independence as divisive, but am increasingly angry and ashamed to be associated with "British" behaviour and policies towards those who have come to this country in good faith and are part of its life.

Norah Anderson,

22 Hanover Court, Castle Douglas.

WILLIAM Durward (Letters, February 8) is critical of Ruth Marr (Letters, February 7) for pointing out only that 62 per cent of those who voted expressed a wish to Remain in the European Union. As a proportion of the Scottish electorate that, as he points out, is 41.5 per cent, “not impressive”, he claims.

However, Mr Durward would do well to remember that the 38 per cent of those who voted to Leave, are 25.5 per cent of the Scottish electorate in 2016. Even less impressive?

To paraphrase a historical advert for cat food, “of those electors who expressed a preference, 62 per cent voted to Remain”. Or does Mr Durward imagine (hope?) that if we had all been obliged to vote in the manner he goes on to propose, the outcome of the referendum in Scotland might have been different?

He proposes that anyone who does not vote should face some kind of financial sanction. However, should we not ask why one-third of the Scottish electorate did not vote in 2016, which would reveal a whole range of reasons? Some would be instantly acceptable – for instance being removed to hospital or away from home. Or perhaps, particularly given the complexity of the question being posed, having been seriously conflicted, or unable to make their mind up. Does Mr Durward suggest that voters should make a random selection in such circumstances? And, if there is a “can pay, won’t pay” campaign by those who don’t agree with Mr Durward, who does he think is going to run around collecting all those financial sanctions? One-third of the Scottish electorate is more than one million people.

Billy Connolly might once have said “Don’t vote. It only encourages them”, but those arithmetical facts conceal the more important truth that democracy only works through participation, which can be achieved at a high level by engagement of the electorate in the issues. In 2014 the Scottish Independence Referendum achieved a turnout of 84.6 per cent, which was the highest recorded for an election or referendum in the United Kingdom since the introduction of universal suffrage. Maybe we should do it again? Soon?

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue, Dumbarton.

WILLIAM Durward is right to point out (Letters, February 8) that so many of the electorate in Scotland were so disinterested that they did not even bother to vote in the EU referendum, with the result that the 52 per cent “majority" vote by the voters was in reality a 41.5 per cent “minority" vote of the electorate. However, I would not want to be the one charged with the impossible task of collecting the fines from those of the electorate who failed to vote in any future referenda, which he suggests as a solution to encourage a much greater turnout of voters to give authority to the voting result. As simpler alternatives to achieve the same desirable aim, a 75 per cent vote of those voting has been suggested, or a 51 per cent vote of the total electorate.

Alan Fitzpatrick,

10 Solomon’s View, Dunlop.

Read more: Our 50 Brexit voices