Letters: Bite the bullet and back the Corbyn plan

Jeremy Corbyn has proposed a time limited coalition approach to subvert Boris' plan ("Corbyn cross-party plea to stop ‘deeply damaging’ no deal", The Herald, August 15).

Jo Swinson's criticisms of his proposal only makes sense in the context of there being time to debate the pros and cons of that strategy with Mr Corbyn as the titular head of such a campaign. When there is no time, it becomes incumbent upon those who see the national interest as more important than their own precious personal sentiments, to hold their noses, to swallow their pride and make common cause on what they see as being vital to the wellbeing of the UK.

Provided Mr Corbyn can be tied down to agreeing the coalition is temporary to achieve the negation of Mr Johnson's drive towards No Deal with a General Election sure to follow after that success, there should surely be no objection to his leadership for that particular period.

The one commodity the No Deal deniers do not have is time with the clock running down fast. What they do need to do is to come to a firm decision quickly to combat a catastrophic cliff edge departure, if they really have the nation's interest at heart.

Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs.

IF the thought of Jeremy Corbyn as UK Prime Minister, even as a temporary measure, does not send shivers down your spine, then it most certainly should.

Aided by his right-hand man, a Marxist who has already admitted he would not oppose a second Scotland referendum, and with Mr Corbyn’s strings being pulled by Momentum and, now, Nicola Sturgeon, the very prospect makes the blood run cold.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh EH6.

THE Reader's Digest version of Jeremy Corbyn's statement on Wednesday re allowing indyref2 is: "Getting in bed with the SNP to gain a Commons majority is more important to me than maintaining the integrity of the UK".

In a snap General Election, I expect my own first-rate Labour MP for Edinburgh South, Ian Murray would once again be Scotland's only Labour MP. The LibDems could be the pro-UK party that primarily benefits in Scotland, but the Tories too will be delighted by the Labour leader's stance.

Despite Mr Corbyn's caveats on opposing Scottish separatism, it seems Labour is giving up on Scotland and will be content for the SNP to gain as many seats as possible so they can prop up his minority administration. I do so hope I'm incorrect.

Martin Redfern, Edinburgh EH10.

THREE years ago I and a majority voted for a mandate to Westminster to leave the EU. Every deal proposed so far has been rejected by Westminster and therefore If Westminster cannot conclude a deal then to leave without a deal is the only option. What a majority did not mandate Westminster to do was remain in the EU.

All this talk of a second referendum, votes of no confidence, a government of "national unity" and a General Election is no more than a smoke screen by Remainers to overturn a democratic vote and remain in the EU.

Paul Lewis, Edinburgh EH17.

PHILIP Hammond and his Droogs, having totally failed to sell the toxic Theresa May meal deal, now spend their days getting high on ways of undermining the EU referendum. For 40 years under Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair et al we had the Falklands war, the financial crisis and corporate failures such as the steel industry, but we produced major breakthroughs in medicine, science and the internet. For the past three years we've had Mrs May and Mr Hammond – and what did they produce? The Withdrawal Agreement cuckoo clock.

Doug Clark, Currie.

IN response to Alasdair Galloway (Letters, August 15), the evidence that a Yes vote would have put Scotland out of the EU on Independence Day is in the letter of March 20, 2014 addressed to Christine McKelvie, Convenerm the Scottish Parliament European and External Relations Committee, from Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship. This letter read:

"The Commission's position on the issue that you raise has been stated on a number of occasions since 2004. The Treaties apply to the Member States. When part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that State, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a new independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the Treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory."

In other words, Scotland would have been out of the EU. It is clear and unambiguous and official. It has never been withdrawn or superseded.

In contrast, the Scottish Government in 2014 had no legal opinion that Scotland would remain a member of the EU. Indeed, it used taxpayers' own cash to go to court to conceal from the public the fact that it had no such advice.

In the end, we all took a judgment. Did we trust the European Commission (with no axe to grind in the independence debate) or did we trust Alex Salmond?

Peter A Russell, Glasgow G13

JAMES Martin (Letters, August 15) shows little understanding of history when he conflates self-determination or civic nationalism with state or right-wing nationalism. There are big differences within every nationalism. Gordon Brown was happy to flaunt his “British jobs for British workers” nationalist credentials, but would not concede his nationalism had anything in common with Ukip or the BNP.

Without exception, every single far-right organisation or political party opposes Scottish independence and firmly backs the Union as British nationalists while denying Scotland the right to choose its future.

Fraser Grant, Edinburgh EH9.