YOUR correspondent William Scott (Herald Letters, October 21) in his diatribe against parliament takes particular aim at John Bercow and Oliver Letwin, accusing them of subverting the referendum. He accuses parliament of behaving “disastrously”.

Further, he claims that they, and by implication, all those who would rather remain in the EU, do not care at all about the 17.4 million who voted to leave.

What he seems to ignore is that many of those who are currently thwarting Boris Johnson’s attempts to force through his version of Brexit previously supported Theresa May’s version. Indeed, many are willing to support his Withdrawal Agreement provided that sufficient time is allowed for it to be properly scrutinised. Like many others Mr Scott refers to the will of the people. This expression is, in the context of the Leave vote, completely meaningless. No-one can agree upon a definitive version of Brexit.

As I am tired of saying, 52 per cent against 48 per cent on a not-fully-understood proposition is hardly a ringing endorsement. Furthermore, democracy does not imply that the views and rights of the majority totally eclipse the interests of the minority. These two factors would lead me to conclude that either a Soft Brexit or a No Brexit would be the fairest outcome.

Mr Scott, however, ends his letter rather disturbingly as he refers to “the superiority of this country over all others” and goes on to say “that most of us are going to want to alter the constitutional arrangements so that a repetition is never possible.” He also castigates Hilary Benn and other bleating Remainers who “are not the kind of people we will tolerate in Parliament in future”. As a champion of democracy I find him unconvincing.

Jim Meikle,

Killearn, Glasgow.

YOU report (“Court says Benn Act case must continue”, The Herald, October 22) that the Court of Session has ruled that the Benn Act case, essentially against Boris Johnson, must continue even though that court has stated earlier that the way the request was made by him to the EU for an extension of the Section 50 term did not breach that Act.

So why the continuation? Does it indicate a belief in the court of the likelihood of an attempt at a breach in the future? That belief would have to be sufficiently strong to justify keeping the case alive simply for reasons of practical procedural simplicity. And does all that indicate the possibility of a bias in the court’s thinking?

As a layman in such legal shenanigans, it seems to me to be analogous, for example, to a court action against me alleging murder, where after considering all the evidence and finding me not guilty, the court decides to keep the action against me open to simplify further action against me should I be accused of another murder sometime in the future.

Have considerations of practical procedural simplicity in court proceedings now overruled the concept of innocence until guilt has been proved ?

Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop, Ayrshire.

I AGREE wholeheartedly with Dr Morris (Herald letters, October 22) when he says “the worse conditions become for workers, the more likely they seem to be to support charismatic leaders from these extremes”.

Remember that Hitler and Mussolini were both voted into power democratically. They didn’t do an illegal power-grab. So the signs are there for us all to see in history, but only for those who want to know. Those against the politicians in power are, as Dr Morris rightly points out, dehumanised, like benefit claimants and immigrants. In the 1930s it was Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, Christians, etcetera. We can, as Dr Morris says, be worried, or we can stand up and refuse to accept what this right-wing cabal is doing. The choice is ours.

Margaret Forbes, Kilmacolm.

IN the hurly-burly of debate about Brexit one curious little fact seems to be ignored or conveniently forgotten. Every single Scottish Conservative MP represents a constituency in which the majority voted to Remain. Yet these MPs resolutely ignore this fact and trot obediently through the lobbies to vote for Brexit.

Whaur’s your democracy noo?

Walter M Stephen,

Edinburgh.

THERE have been numerous occasions in the last 50 years when the time between General Elections has been four years or less - 1970; 1974 (we had two); the three elections that Mrs Thatcher won between 1979 and 1987; Mr Blair’s wins early this century, and of course the recent one in 2017 following the “scheduled” one in 2015.

A sizeable minority of the population changed their vote between these elections. I would suggest that this would be the case in a second EU referendum, give the time since the first one, 40 months and counting.

The Brexit-supporting mantra of “will of the people” is surely out of date, so why is the Government so reluctant to give the electorate a second vote? The electorate might still be in favour of leaving.

But a key, and extremely different, decision is whether a second vote be 50:50 or something more sensible?

I see this as the key stumbling block to holding one.

Willie Towers,

Alford.