I HAVE followed the Brexit arguments in your Letters Pages, some contributions being made by highly qualified individuals who paint a pessimistic picture which may yet come to pass. However, I hope that, with men and women of good intention on both sides of the negotiations, a fair deal for all can be reached.

Let me look at two reasonably extreme positions.

If the EU, for example, proposed a €100 billion exit bill and huge percentage tariffs on goods then that would make our goods uncompetitive and unaffordable in the EU. Were we to reciprocate, their goods would be uncompetitive and unaffordable in the UK.

The UK would have no option but to conclude that no deal would be better than this deal.

If the UK proposed no exit bill and tariff-free access to the single market, that would be politically unacceptable to the EU, because other countries may want to exit the EU on these terms. The EU would have no option but to conclude that no deal would be better than this deal.

The EU has a reasonable position of demonstrating that there is a financial cost to the UK leaving the EU and having access to, but not membership of, the single market.

An exit bill for the UK, for example, of about €20 billion followed by mutually applied, low single-figure percentage trading tariffs could work for both sides. The UK could present the deal as upfront financial obligations and inevitable tariff access to the single market. The EU could present the deal as the UK paying a financial price for leaving the EU. This could be mutually beneficial.

If this step were agreed then the UK could incorporate all the European laws including human rights into UK law and amend them at leisure in Parliament.

What gives me optimism, is that while some reports suggest that there are some voices in France and Germany for a more punitive, mutually harming, approach to the UK, there are counterbalancing arguments. France and Germany could weather the financial fallout of such an approach and doubtless we could too. We must not forget that many of the EU southern countries are in grave financial straits and a punitive deal for the UK could cause these countries disproportionate harm.

This could be made to work for the benefit of all, or am I being naive?

John Leonard,

6 Drossie Road, Falkirk.

AMIDST the present political fog concerning Britain leaving the European Union, Brexit is defined variously as “hard or soft”. No clear enunciation of either has been clearly defined. It is surely reasonable to assume that the majority of people who voted to leave the EU in the referendum, imagined that in doing so, it is simply akin to leaving a club whose membership was no longer desirable to us.

It appears that the minority who voted against leaving the EU are muddying the waters with temporising adjectives which are undefined and which seem designed to put in jeopardy the majority will of the British people

In essence, no negotiation is necessary. The majority of the British people voted to regain British sovereignty and self-government and leave the European club. Warnings that leaving would be an economic catastrophe, mirror the Government propaganda of economic doom prior to the referendum.

It should be remembered that of the vast sums of money we contribute to EU coffers, we only receive a fraction in return. Before Britain joined the Common Market, we had a trading surplus with Europe. Every year since joining what has morphed into the political behemoth called the EU, we have had an ever-increasing deficit of trade. To suggest that Britain would be impoverished outside the EU is to deny Britain's history of enterprise and global trading ability over centuries.

MM Henderson,

10 Iddesleigh Avenue, Milngavie.

THE outcome of the European Union/UK negotiations needs to be a Norway-type arrangement – out of the EU but effectively within the single market and not subject to the common agricultural and fisheries policies. The Norwegian arrangement simply has to be lifted from off the shelf and, with a few minor tweaks, applied to the UK. Job done, well within the Article 50 deadline.

I have spent many days over many years in Norway, mostly traversing their wild areas, on foot, ski and bike. My son is a post-graduate student at the University of Western Norway, Sogndal, studying climate change management. Our collective experience points inexorably to the conclusion that Scotland and indeed the rest of the UK, would benefit enormously from a more Norwegian approach to economic development, environmental protection and social justice. You do not meet Norwegians who worry about wealth inequalities and food banks - they established the basis for a fair society long ago. It is not surprising that additional benefits, such as their oil fund investments, then arrived in later years.

Most of the EU’s budget is spent on keeping well-off farmers in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. Being rid of the excesses of the Common Agricultural Policy is the greatest single benefit on the UK horizon as we leave the EU. In future our farmers should only be paid public funds to deliver environmental and social benefits. They can then start the long process of repairing the excessive damage done, over many decades, by intensive agriculture in the lowlands and by overgrazing our uplands.

Adopting a Norwegian approach to Europe should come easily to Scots. Let’s remember that the most significant land reform legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament was the 2003 Act which delivered statutory rights of public access for all citizens to most of our land and water. This legislation was based on the Scandinavian model which guarantees outdoor recreation opportunities for everyone. And the Scottish experience is already benefiting our neighbours south of the border. In August 2014 the then Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg MP, went for a walk by Loch Leven, near Kinross, trying to find out how Scotland’s right to roam legislation was working. The result was an instruction to officials in London to speed up work on the England coastal path – a change in approach apparently resulting from what he had learnt in Scotland.

Perhaps if our party leaders all go out for a walk together, maybe with a pint afterwards, a UK-wide solution might emerge, based on the experience of those other neighbours – the ones across the North Sea.

Dave Morris,

2 Bishop Terrace, Kinnesswood, Kinross.