WHAT is the point of Theresa May setting out her “Brexit vision”, and a range of senior Tory politicians with opposing opinions, making speeches saying what conditions and demands they want before the next round of negotiations begin next month (“Each side of Tory Brexit divide prepares to deliver major speeches”, The Herald, February 12)?

What the UK will get in the round of detailed trade talks is exactly what the EU is prepared to concede in its own interests, and nothing more. We are the member state that wishes to leave and there is no reason why the EU should lean over backwards to meet our wishes; in fact quite the opposite, if only to ensure that no other member might think of following our example.

In the three months of detailed talks in round one on just three specific matters, it was perfectly clear that David Davis had virtually no concessions of any significance from Michel Barnier, and it was only the Prime Minister’s intervention in the early hours of the final morning that achieved a modest deal that could be presented as a success. The forthcoming trade talks will be much tougher and more complicated, and yet the Tories are still at loggerheads with one another and the Cabinet does not appear to have anyconsensus.

The most important thing is not the survival of the Conservative Government; it is the long-term damage the British economy will suffer. As always, this will be felt not by those politicians making the decisions but by the millions of ordinary working people whose wages, working conditions and even employment prospects will be affected for many years to come.

We are about to throw away the most advantageous political and economic relationship Britain has enjoyed for a long time and that is not something to celebrate. I find it astonishing and disgraceful that a relatively small but vocal group of politicians seems so determined to inflict so much damage on the nation and the people they are supposed to represent and protect.

Iain AD Mann, 7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

JEREMY Corbyn again came to Scotland and failed to make any reference to our role as the site of all of the UK’s nuclear firepower and our position as one of the top military targets in Europe as a result of the Trident base (“Corbyn vows to invest in every part of nation and end blight”, The Herald, February 12). Nor does he refer to the billions of pounds which will be squandered on the new generation of nuclear weapons.

How much more infrastructure and social service investment could we have if this money were to be spent for peaceful purposes?

This is the man who prioritised the issue for decades until he was elected leader of the Labour party and now never mentions it.

His excuse is that Trident renewal is Labour party policy at present but that does not excuse the failure to campaign to change the policy.

With all of the party’s members, there should be a majority among them opposed to Trident or at the very least to Trident renewal. What happened to the defence review that EmilyThornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, was supposed to be leading?

Is his silence simply because he doesn’t want to challenge the GMB union or Unite in England? What does that say about integrity?

It is not as if this is a period when the nuclear threats are receding; on the contrary.

The recent American military posture review advocates the use of nuclear weapons to respond to “significant non-nuclear strategic attacks” and wants to deploy more “usable”’ lower-yield nuclear devices.

Nato has never committed to a no-first-use policy, unlike China, but it has been less provocative than this in recent years, at least in its language.

Is this US position the new Nato policy and does the SNP find this compatible with its support for Nato?

On this potentially lethal issue a very high cost could be the result of complacency.

Isobel Lindsay,

9 Knocklea Place,