IF you were a citizen of one of the other 27 EU nations, would you want the UK to remain as a member (“Brexit chaos continues as May offers to stand down”, The Herald, March 28)? Throughout much of our 46 years in the EU, we’ve been awkward, carping, and only rarely fully committed. Over the past two years, we’ve been endlessly needy, insisting that the rest of Europe focus on our doubts and indecision. The other EU leaders must have had enough by now; there are other things going on in the world.

David Cameron’s decision to hold a referendum was one of the most idiotic ever taken by any prime minister. But what’s done is done, and we’ll just have to get on with it. Even if Article 50 was revoked, does anybody really believe that would be the end of it? We might remain in the EU but would never again be viewed as a trusted partner. And, in the UK, we’d have year upon year of bitter fighting between the two camps, with no realistic prospect of the argument ever being settled.

What the Brexit bourach has illuminated is how poor the Westminster system is at dealing with the complex modern world. Traditionally, the UK has sneered at European governments, with their coalitions and compromises.

But there have been few failures of government on the scale of the one we’ve seen develop over the past two years at Westminster. A lot of that is down to the adversarial two-party system. Mr Cameron called the referendum for purely party-political purposes and Jeremy Corbyn won’t propose anything that might benefit the citizens of the UK; all he wants is to oppose and hope that power falls into his lap. We, the people, are forgotten.

In contrast, the Scottish Parliament, while by no means perfect, has a solid record over the 20 years of its existence. Coalition and minority government seem to have worked OK, and we’ve been spared the silly theatrics exemplified by Prime Minister’s Questions at Westminster. I don’t consider myself a Nationalist; I’m very much an internationalist. But I did conclude some years ago that Scotland could be better governed by its own parliament with the full range of powers, including the power to make international treaties. It could be worse but that would be down to us. When the documentary about Brexit is made, I wonder if it will be listed under tragedy or farce.

Doug Maughan,

52 Menteith View, Dunblane.

IF there has been one certainty in the omnishambles that is Brexit, it has been the constant refrain from the SNP that the UK must stay in the customs union and the single market. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has even suggested, despite all legal and commonsense evidence to the contrary, that Scotland could do so on its own if necessary. Yet on Wednesday night the SNP abstained on both issues in the Westminster voting.

What are we to make of this? It is simply the usual SNP tactics of trying to twist every possible scenario to its benefit, regardless of the impact on Scotland. SNP HQ has obviously envisaged a convoluted scenario in which not supporting the customs union and single market will benefit the SNP. If we were short of evidence that the wellbeing of Scotland comes second to the independence crusade, here is a further large contribution.

Carole Ford,

132 Terregles Avenue, Glasgow.

DURING these calamitous Brexit years many people have joined the SNP because it promised another independence referendum if Scotland was dragged out of the EU against its wishes. Since this is happening, despite the 2014 better together campaign promise that the only way to retain EU membership was to remain in the UK, these “changed circumstances” make Indyref 2 now inevitable.

Even former UK Prime ministers, Sir John Major and Tony Blair, agree that the arguments for Scottish independence have now been greatly strengthened and I quote Blair’s outburst, “absolutely bloody obvious”.

As one of the nations in the so called “union of equals”, the United Kingdom, the interests of Scotland have been ignored, while the dependent province of N. Ireland and the self governing colony of Gibraltar are bribed or rather given special Brexit dispensation!

What does this say about this fractious and disintegrating UK, governed by a divided and xenophobic Tory party? Brexit is and always has been an exercise in English nationalism, wrapped in a British imperial Union flag.

Grant Frazer,

Cruachan,

Newtonmore.

ALAN Sinclair regards our EU membership’s most important benefit as preventing war between countries in international groupings (Letters, March 27).

That is what peaceful nations hoped for after First World War in forming the League of Nations. That did not prevent a second world war. Historically, peace was marred by many civil wars between contending factions within nations.

The EU’s long-term purpose is to form a United States of Europe, probably under German domination, with its own military and trappings of statehood, very likely to become unwieldy with an ever-present risk of disintegration and war. Thus, mankind’s history shows the lamentable weaknesses and unpredictable reality of leagues and peace treaties.

Europhiles seldom otherwise wax lyrical about the union and its unelected Commission, which imposes Continent-wide regulations often inappropriate for its member states. The heavy financial costs, unaudited for many years, implied corruption and misuse of our money.

We who voted for Brexit sought restoration of our sovereignty with a choice over those in charge, by voting in fair elections, which is not available in the EU. What Europe needs is a Common Market such as we voted for in the 1970s.

Charles Wardrop,

111, Viewlands Rd West,

Perth.

WE can remember a few “back me or sack me” moments from past prime ministers. But “back me and sack me”? That is unprecedented.

To paraphrase Sir Alex Ferguson: “Brexit! Bloody Hell!”

Bill Wright,

151 Broomhill Drive,

Glasgow.