WITH all the legitimate concerns about the disastrous economic impact of whatever form of Brexit is ultimately thrust upon us by Boris Johnson and his cabal, it is perhaps unsurprising that the social impacts have had less attention.

Today's Herald highlights these aspects very graphically. The decision of both tourists ("Tourists snub Scotland ‘because of Brexit fears", Herald Business, August 21) and potential workers ("Foreign workers ‘put off by low pound and UK unfriendly image’", The Herald, August 21) to avoid the UK show just how far this country has already fallen in global esteem.

The UK was once regarded as a welcoming, tolerant place. No more, with the bile vomited on to Europe and Europeans by the Brexit enthusiasts and Theresa May's appalling "hostile environment" policy. Added to these we now have the blatant hypocrisy of Priti Patel, herself a descendant of one-time immigrants, wishing to penalise EU citizens currently resident here and to exclude any from coming in the future unless they are earning an unrealistic wage ("Tory anger after no-deal report leaked ‘to sow fear into minds’", The Herald, August 19).

It is not surprising that this climate of hostility has also corroded relations within the UK. Westminster now regards Scotland as an inconvenient encumbrance and has legitimised hate speech and race-related crime. What an indictment of the politics of the Tories.

What sort of welcome can those of us who enjoy visiting our continental neighbours expect when next we fight through the rigamaroles of visas and immigration officials to visit Europe?

Di RM Morris, Ellon.

IN responding to Alasdair Galloway’s letter of August 20, Peter A Russell (Letters, August 21) seems to think that a statement by the European Commission on "official" notepaper somehow constitutes the EU position on Scotland in the event of independence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Under the treaties the opinions and recommendations of the Commission have no status in EU law.

Article 211 gives the Commission the power to make recommendations or formulate an opinion on matters dealt with by the treaties. However Article 249 clearly states that recommendations and opinions are to have no binding force. Only the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has the power to make a legal determination. It is therefore up to a member state or a national court to refer any such opinion to the ECJ concerning its interpretation or validity. Indeed, if one examines ECJ case law on various issues it is not uncommon for the ECJ to reject the legal opinion advanced by the Commission.

In that context the opinion of Viviane Reding as quoted by Mr Russell could be open to a number of legal challenges. If Scotland secedes from the UK, the UK as the unitary state that was accepted for membership of the EU also ceases to exist. That suggests that rUk would have to re-apply for EU membership despite Ms Reding arguing otherwise. What is not in doubt is that it would be up to the ECJ and not the Commission to determine what is the legal position to be adopted by the EU.

Furthermore, what about a scenario where England, Wales, and Northern Ireland decide to secede from the Union in a confirmatory referendum to ensure their departure from the EU and based on the fact that Scotland is already leaving the UK ? If this departure took place during a transition period ahead of Scotland officially becoming independent of the UK, does that mean that Scotland becomes rUK and as such would remain within the EU even after independence?

Robert Menzies, Falkirk.

SURELY the obvious answer to the question of the backstop would be a united Ireland?

Or is that too obvious and simple?

That would get some minds more focused instead of being obsessed about a return to ancient imperial Victorian Britain.

Norman Lockhart, Innerleithen.